Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-08-23 BZA Minutes1 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DRAFT MINUTES Town of Danby Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of Hearing and Meeting August 23, 2022 DRAFT PRESENT: Lew Billington Toby Dean Ted Jones Betsy Lamb Earl Hicks (Chair) OTHER ATTENDEES: Town Planner David West Recording Secretary Alyssa de Villiers Public Leslie Connors (Town Board member), Katharine Hunter (Town Board member), Theresa Klinger, Douglas Paucke, Mellora Paucke, Mary Woodsen, Anon1 This meeting was conducted virtually on the Zoom platform. The meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. 1. AGENDA REVIEW There were no additions or deletions to the agenda. Planner West reported that the Town is working on a study of possible ways to serve the hamlet area with wastewater treatment services; people in the hamlet will be getting a survey regarding water quality and septic issues. The Town also has a survey out related to a grant that, if gotten, would allow the Town to fund renovations for low-income homeowners with substandard housing issues. Lastly, the Town is looking at adding a small amount of land to the Hamlet Neighborhood zone on Bald Hill Rd. near Lieb Rd. 2. MINUTES APPROVAL MOTION: Approve the minutes from June 28, 2022 Moved by Jones, seconded by Dean The motion passed. In favor: Billington, Dean, Jones, Lamb, Hicks 3. NEW BUSINESS 2 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DRAFT MINUTES VAR-2022-05 15 Hill Rd., Parcel: 20.-1-19.2 Applicant: Mellora and Douglas Paucke Anticipated Board action(s) this month: Public Hearing, Consideration of Appeal Zone: Low Density Residential SEQR: Type II, no further review required County 239 Review: Exempt Proposal: The applicant would like to add a 40'x80' garage as close as 10' from the side lot line. The LDR zone has a limit of 1200 sq. ft. for garages and a requirement of a 50' side yard setback for garages over 1000 sq. ft. Chair Hicks introduced the Board and explained the process. He noted that this case is a Type II action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), with no further review required, and it is exempt from county review. Applicant’s Description Mellora Paucke said they are hoping to build a 40x80’ pole barn that would be over 50’ from the road and 15’ from the side property line. The goal is to house multiple cars and tractors as well as associated implements. She added that they had talked to their neighbors, who did not express any problem with the project. She felt there would not be a big impact to the area, there were not alternatives, it was not substantial, and it would not have a negative impact. People might see it when they drive by, but there is a limited view of it and the road is not highly travelled. It will be closest to Theresa Klinger’s property, and the area between it and her house is wooded. Douglas Paucke added that when they started the project, they were operating under the old zoning rules, which allowed the building to be within 10’ of the property line. He said it took quite a lot of fill to bring the site up, which they then had to let sit and settle. Public Comment The public hearing was opened at 7:19 p.m. Theresa Klinger (11 Hill Rd.) had written a letter of support, which she wanted to reiterate. She said her property butts up to the Paucke’s property. Her house is approximately 270’ away from their mutual boundary and in between is woods. She did not believe the structure would be obstructing any view for her, and she agreed the road is not highly travelled on. She said that she did not oppose the project and thought it would allow the Pauckes to remove a portable shed and a storage container. Mary Woodsen (132 South Danby Rd.) said she wanted to feel confident that it would not be on South Danby Rd. On Hill Rd., she would have less of a personal caring and leave the matter to the Board. The public hearing was closed at 7:31 p.m. Board Questions and Discussion 3 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DRAFT MINUTES The Board reviewed a map of the area. In response to a question from Chair Hicks, Planner West explained that before the zoning change almost all the Town was in the Low Density Residential zone . Some parcels were then taken out and placed in th ree newly created zones. This property remained in Low Density Residential and did not change zones. However, two changes that happened almost townwide were that a limit was placed on the size of garages and the side setback requirement for large accessory buildings was increased. This does not affect true agricultural operations, so it does not affect farmers. He said that under the new rules, anything larger than 1000 sq. ft. needs to be 50’ from property lines, which treats something that is the size of house like a house in terms of setbacks. Small accessory buildings under 144 sq. ft. can be as close as 5’ from the property line and buildings between 144 and 1000 sq. ft. follow the old requirement of a 10’ setback. Board member Lamb restated the difference between a barn and a garage: no matter if something is called a pole barn, to be a barn it must be associated with an agricultural entity and farming . After confirming that if the structure was under 1000 sq. ft. there would be no need for a variance because it could be within 10’ of the boundary, Lamb asked the Pauckes about making the building smaller. Ms. Paucke said that in their planning they used an online tool to manipulate the size needed to fit and maneuver what they have and it would not fit in a 1000 sq. ft. structure. Board member Dean asked if a lane running along the eastern property boundary between the proposed location and the neighbor’s lot was on the Pauckes’ property; they said it was. Dean also noted that the property to the west does have a long, barn-type building very close to the applicant’s western property line. Lamb asked about the size limit prior to the zoning change, and Planner West said there was no limit. West said it was his understanding that the applicant had contacted the Town and begun planning and site prep for the project based on the zoning at the time. Hicks asked the applicants to elaborate on this. Ms. Paucke said they started bringing fill in in 2018 and 2019. Then they leveled the site and let it set for a year. When they went to get quotes to build, they found labor and material shortages and delays in building. Hicks noted that the quote the applicants provided was from June 2021. Hicks asked West to describe the zoning revision process, which West did. (The zoning code was updated in January of 2022.) Lamb asked to the applicant to describe where the building would be in comparison to the current location of the 8’ x 40’ storage container, which Mr. Paucke did. Hicks summarized that the narrow end of the building will be about 80’ from the road. He asked the applicants if they were planning to move the storage container, and they said yes, although not immediately. Area Variance Findings & Decision The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the appeal of Mellora and Douglas Paucke regarding the property at 15 Hill Rd. (Tax parcel 20.-1-19.2) for an Area Variance from the zoning code Section 512,1c that requires a 50’ setback from a side lot line for an accessory building over 1000 sq.ft. and Section 603,2a that allows by right garages up to 1200 sq.ft. in the Low Density Residential zone . 4 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DRAFT MINUTES 1. The Board agreed no undesirable change would be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. Lamb noted that the site was pretty well shielded, although the blue spruce shielding along the road may deteriorate. Jones thought the character might improve with the removal of the storage container. He liked that there was a good distance between the proposed site and the neighbor’s house. Dean said no and he appreciated the alignment of the building with the small end towards the road. Billington and Hicks agreed. 2. The Board agreed that the benefit sought by the applicant could not be achieved by a feasible alternative of the variance. Lamb said that, based on the applicant’s discussion, a smaller building is not feasible. In terms of putting it elsewhere, the applicants have already put the fill down. Jones said there are 20 acres of land, but the chosen location makes the most sense for car use. Size-wise, for three vehicles, a tractor, a mower, and equipment, there is no real alternative. Billington and Dean agreed. Hicks asked about the provided quote, which was for 40’x60’, and Ms. Paucke said that at the time (mid pandemic), that was what was available in terms of materials and price. Hicks felt that shrinking the building was not feasible and moving it west would start to impact the driveway. 3. The Board agreed the requested variance was substantial. Lamb thought it was substantial, both in terms of size and setback. Jones agreed that going from 1200 sq. ft. to 3600 sq. ft. and 50’ to 10’ was substantial. Dean and Hicks agreed. Billington agreed that it was substantial but noted that the project planning was done carefully and prior to the change in zoning it was not substantial. 4. The Board agreed the variance would not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. Lamb thought not because of the woods to the east, the shielding towards the road, and the angle of the building. Jones also thought not, adding that the spirit of the law is to maintain a character, which he did not think it would have an adverse effect on. Billington and Dean agreed. Hicks thought much of the environmental impact was in the past (when the site was cleared and the fill was brought in); any changes the Board recommended could be more impact, for example in needing to cut down trees. He established that the applicant would be putting in a concrete floor at some point, there will be electric, there will not be running water, and there will be no septic. 5. The Board agreed that the alleged difficulty was not self-created. All members felt it was not self-created because the applicants started the project under one set of rules and then the rules changed. Hicks brought up what would happen if the neighbor to the east subdivided that property with road frontage on Hill Rd. In terms of setting a precedent, he felt a future BZA would be hard -pressed to say no if the new owner then wanted to put up a similarly sized building on their lot line, which would mean two large buildings within 30’ of each other. Lamb thought the imagined new landowner would still have to go through the variance process and look at alternatives. Billington thought it unlikely that another applicant would be 5 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DRAFT MINUTES similarly victimized by a change in zoning. Planner West encouraged the Board to think about how t hey apply the five tests—these should be applied uniformly, even if the outcome may be different in different cases due to mitigating factors. Hicks was interested in seeing the distance from the road to the building specified so there would be no surprises. A condition of placing the structure at least 80’ from the road to mitigate its large size was discussed, but it was decided that it was unnecessary and overly complicating, particularly because the fill was already located. No conditions were added. The BZA found 2000 sq. ft. from Section 603 and 35’ from Section 512 were the minimum variance that should be granted in order to preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community because of all of the above discussed reasons and the following: shielding exists both between the next door property and the road, the orientation of the building with the short side towards the road helps, there are other large buildings in the neighborhood, it doe s not impact anyone else’s view, and the project was undertaken carefully considering the zoning in existence when it was originally conceived. MOTION: The benefit to the applicant does outweigh the detriment to the neighborhood or community. Moved by Lamb, seconded by Dean The motion passed. In favor: Billington, Dean, Jones, Lamb, Hicks 4. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:01 p.m. ___________________________________________ Alyssa de Villiers – Recording Secretary