Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-09-28 BZA Minutes1 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DRAFT MINUTES Town of Danby Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of Hearing and Meeting September 28, 2021 DRAFT PRESENT: Lew Billington Toby Dean Betsy Lamb Earl Hicks ABSENT: Gary Bortz (resigned) OTHER ATTENDEES: Town Planner David West Recording Secretary Alyssa de Villiers Public Leslie Connors (Town Board member), Garry Huddle, Jeff Huddle, Katharine Hunter This meeting was conducted virtually on the Zoom platform. The meeting was opened at 7:13pm. MEETING WITH STAFF (TOWN PLANNER) Chair Hicks announced that Gary Bortz has left the Board of Zoning Appeals. He said he really appreciated Bortz’s time on the Board as a dedicated and committed member. He said they are now looking for a new member, and they should encourage people to apply. Planner West said the position will be appointed by the Town Board. He said having this system in place allows the community more control rather than having a staff person making decisions on variances. Planner West shared that there is now a full draft of the zoning update available on the Town’s new webpage. The website is still in transition; if there are any documents the Board would like that are not there, they should let him know. There are also now new Town email addresses. There will be a “crack the code” meeting coming up on October 4th, 2021 at 7:00 p.m. to brainstorm what terrible things could happen that would be allowed under the proposed rules. He explained that the Town knows it is not getting what it wants with the current rules and would like to try some different rules, but there is a fear of unintended consequences, so this will be an opportunity to test that. The meeting was called to order at 7:23 p.m. 2 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DRAFT MINUTES MINUTES APPROVAL MOTION: Approve the minutes from July 27, 2021 Moved by Lamb, seconded by Dean The motion passed. In favor: Billington, Dean, Lamb, Hicks NEW BUSINESS VAR-2021-03 Consider Area Variance Project: Land Reapportionment – Lot Size Area Variance Location: 400 Comfort Rd, Parcel 8.-1-5.21 Applicant: Jeff Huddle Anticipated Board action(s) this month: Application Review, Public Hearing, Vote on variance Project Description: The applicant owns 2 lots and would like to move the lot line between the two in a way that makes 400 Comfort Rd 1.21 acres, this is less than the required 2 acres and as such will require a variance. Per the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), as well as Local Law #2 of 1991, (Providing for Environmental Review in the Town of Danby), the action is considered a Type 2 Action. No further environmental review is required. Per an intermunicipal agreement between Tompkins County and the Town of Danby, the proposed action is exempt from county review under New York State General Municipal Law Section 239. Chair Hicks noted that this is the same application the Board looked at in July 2020. Betsy Lamb said one difference was the acreage of the smaller lot, 400 Comfort Rd., which was now 1.21 acres; she said last time the applicant was estimating but now had a survey done. Chair Hicks confirmed that there were no conflicts of interest. He explained that to approve this variance, three out of the four board members present would need to vote yea. The applicant said he would still like to move forward. Planner West said he had had no negative responses from neighbors. One neighbor had responded to say there was no problem as far as they were concerned. The public hearing was opened at 7:31 p.m. Applicant’s Description The applicant, Jeff Huddle, said he bought 400 Comfort Rd. from the Vandemarks in 2012 as a rental unit as well as 12 acres of land behind it. He subdivided and built his home on that land (388 Comfort Rd.) after a successful variance appeal because he did not have the required frontage. He and his tenant have talked 3 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DRAFT MINUTES about the tenant buying the house at 400 Comfort. Mr. Huddle realized that the line as is would run directly through his front yard, so he thought it would be better to move the line to decrease the size of 400 Comfort Rd. He visited this board in July 2020; they had left it that he might be able to do a reverse flag lot to make both lots conforming. However, this meant a thin strip of land would go into his field up as far as his pond. He did not think this did much for 400 Comfort Rd., and he also mentioned he has a lease with a farmer for taking the hay off the field, which would be complicated by the arrangement. He did not think that was really a viable option. Since the last meeting, he hired T.G. Miller to do some sketches for him and spoke with an attorney about the possibility of a deed restriction dealing with the hedgerow/trees between the houses; the attorney did not think that was a good idea. Mr. Huddle said he forgot to mention last July or in this application that, as is, the property line goes through his underground NYSEG service, underground Spectrum, and his footer drain. He said Plan A shows the proposed property line in the middle of the tree line between the houses; he thought this was best, and it seemed fair that each owner had control of half the trees. He said Plan B was to put the property line on his side of the trees, which would make Parcel B (400 Comfort Rd.) 1.54 acres, and Plan C was a diagonal with 1.69 acres for Parcel B. Public Comment No members of the public spoke during the public hearing. The public hearing was closed at 7:45 p.m. Board Questions and Discussion Chair Hicks asked about the original variance that allowed Mr. Huddle to subdivide and build his house, specifically with regard to a comment about maintaining the tree line: the idea was that building his house might have a negative visual impact on the surrounding neighborhood but maintaining the trees would provide a screen. Mr. Huddle said he remembered that coming up. He added that he cannot see any neighboring houses from his house, and the tree line between him and 400 Comfort Rd. is a privacy barrier between him and them. Hicks said he wanted to be sensitive to and honor the visual screening discussion that came up in the granting of the first variance. He thought Plan A, splitting ownership of the screen, mitigated the risk of one owner clear cutting the trees on their land; since they could only cut their side, it would keep the visual impact similar to what it is now. Betsy Lamb said Plan A is in the middle of the hedgerow and Plan B would not leave Mr. Huddle any trees, but could there be another option that was between those such that there are some trees for both parcels, but they maximize the acreage with 400 Comfort Rd. She said she wanted to give Mr. Huddle some barrier but was trying to get as close as possible to the letter of the law. Hicks said the Board can grant the minimum variance they believe is necessary. Building on Lamb’s comment, Lew Billington asked about making the lot line parallel to the existing line and wondered if that would include enough trees. How much acreage these ideas would add to Parcel B was discussed. Hicks asked if there was a requirement for separation from a well to a property line. Planner West thought not. Hicks noted that the well at 400 Comfort Rd. is close to the Plan A dividing line. 4 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DRAFT MINUTES Hicks asked what Mr. Huddle had found out about creating a deed restriction regarding the trees. Mr. Huddle noted that if he can keep some of the trees on his property, 388 Comfort Rd., it would not be an issue. But in case the lot line is in his front yard and excludes the trees, he met with his lawyer to talk about a deed restriction. His lawyer did not think it would not be a good option: it would be putting a deed restriction on himself since he is the current owner, it might pose a difficulty for the sale of 400 Comfort Rd., and it would be hard to know who would be responsible for maintenance or if something happened to the trees. Billington asked if any of the proposed zoning changes would change th e two acre requirement. West said the proposed regulations include the ability to transfer development rights, so in the future someone in a situation like this would have more flexibility. Planner West noticed there was a discrepancy in the area calculations of the drawings he had; in Plan A, one drawing said 400 Comfort Rd. would be 1.21 acres and another, apparently the same drawing, said 1.15 acres. Area Variance Findings & Decision The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the appeal of Jeff Huddle regarding the property at 400 Comfort Road (Tax parcel 8.-1-5.21) for an Area Variance from the Zoning Ordinance Section 600-5 that requires a lot area not less than two acres. The property is in the Low Density Residential Zone. 1. The Board agreed no undesirable change would be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties (4 no). Hicks thought 400 Comfort Rd. was already established as its own parcel through the subdivision that allowed 388 to be built. Thus, visually, he did not think a change would be apparent so long as at least half the tree screen remained . He asked Planner West to show a map of lot sizes on Comfort Rd. in the neighborhood. The Board counted 3 lots under 2 acres in size in the immediate area. Dean agreed, looking at the map, there would not be a large impact on the neighborhood. Billington said he had asked what would happen with zoning in the future because of the many other small nearby lots. He and Lamb did not think it constituted a change in the neighborhood. 2. The Board agreed that the benefit sought by the applicant could not be achieved by a feasible alternative of the variance (4 no). Hicks thought Plan A would eliminate the possibility of one owner or the other taking out all the trees. He said he would also support moving the line to make it less substantial, but he would like to see the trees co-owned. Lamb said they were guessing what might happen in the future. She thought they should maximize the lot size of Parcel B, but she saw the value of having both owners own some trees as it would be less likely that both would decide to cut. Dean agreed with Hicks and Lamb. He said he did not see the value of 5 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DRAFT MINUTES adjusting the line to gain such very small amounts of acreage when there was a logical division of the hedgerow; he thought the logic of Plan A outweighed the benefit of adding a few tenths of an acre to 400 Comfort Rd. A few lot line variations were discussed. In response to a question from Lamb, the applicant said he felt Plan A was best for him and for 400 Comfort Rd. Billington did not think the alternatives substantially improve d either lot. He noted the potential owner of 400 Comfort Rd. seemed to be okay with Plan A, and future owners would know what the lot was. He thought a line paralleling the western border was possible, but he did not see why the line right through the pine trees wouldn’t work. 3. The Board agreed that the requested variance was substantial (4 yes). Billington thought it was definitely substantial. Lamb thought anything proposed would be substantial because the line to get close to 2 acres does not really make sense in terms of the house at 388, especially if trying to preserve a barrier. Dean agreed it was substantial. 4. The Board agreed the variance would not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood (4 no). Hicks said he could not think of any negative impact. If one owner or the other could remove all the trees, that would be a tremendous impact; Plan A gives shared responsibility. Lamb said keeping the trees there helps maintain the environment; one person having control has the potential to allow for environmental degradation, or at least change. Billington and Dean agreed. 5. The Board agreed that the alleged difficulty was self-created (4 yes). Lamb thought it was somewhere between because the line that would make each property two acres would not make sense. Dean agreed it was somewhat less self-inflicted than some other cases they have seen. However, all agreed it was self-created. The possibility of putting a condition on was discussed. Hicks suggested that they could say no trees in the line be cut prior to the property at 400 Comfort Rd. being sold; this would be to prevent the current owner from clear cutting the trees before selling. Dean was uncomfortable making that a requirement since the applicant had made it clear he wants to maintain the trees and it would add a layer of complication. Billington and Lamb agreed. Based on consideration of the five area variance criteria, the BZA determined that the Benefit to the Applicant DOES outweigh the Detriment to the Neighborhood or Community and approved the variance with no conditions added. MOTION: Grant a variance for the appellant to create a non-conforming lot line as shown on the map drawn by T.G. Miller, surveyor of 6-15-20. Moved by Dean, seconded by Billington 6 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DRAFT MINUTES The motion passed. In favor: Billington, Dean, Lamb, Hicks ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. ___________________________________________ Alyssa de Villiers – Recording Secretary