Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-10-25 BZA Minutes1 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DRAFT MINUTES Town of Danby Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of Appeal and Hearing October 25, 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 (in person) None Public (virtual) Leslie Connors (Town Board member), Jim Holahan (Town Board member), Katharine Hunter (Town Board member), Jeff Wesche This meeting was conducted in person with virtual access on the Zoom platform. The meeting was opened at 7:04 p.m. (1) CALL TO ORDER/AGENDA REVIEW Nothing was added to the agenda. (2) PLANNER’S REPORT Planner West reported the following: • Secretary de Villiers will be leaving at the end of the year. • A $10,000 grant for a grant-writing consultant is currently before the County legislature. This would help the Town apply for grants in the coming year. • The solar farm project on Bald Hill Rd. is in final negotiations, including regarding the decommissioning plan. Board member Lamb asked about the information allowed to pass between board members and applicants at a site. Planner West said that it is appropriate is to ask factual questions, and it is useful to then convey that to the rest of the Board at the meeting, which will put it in the public record. A Board member could 2 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DRAFT MINUTES also write an email that would be added to the information available to the public. Conversations about possible options, negotiations, or opinions should be kept to the meeting so those discussions are public. (3) APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Approve the August 23rd minutes Moved by Lamb, seconded by Dean The motion passed. In favor: Billington, Dean, Jones, Lamb, Hicks (4) NEW BUSINESS Board Updates Chair Hicks said that his term will be up at the end of the year, and he plans to reapply for another term. He reviewed training information. He also thanked Alyssa de Villiers for her time as secretary. VAR-2022-06 1020 Coddington Rd. Parcel: 4.-1-26 Applicant: Jeffrey Wesche Anticipated Board action(s) this month: Public Hearing, Consideration of Appeal Zone: Low Density Residential (LDR) SEQR: Type II, no further review required County 239 Review: Exempt Proposal: The applicant would like to build an attached garage. Per Section 603 -6b, the LDR zone has a minimum side setback of 50' for primary structures; attached garages follow the requirements for principal dwellings. The proposed garage would create a side setback of 20'. Chair Hicks explained the Board’s process to the applicant and read the definition of the Low Density Residential (LDR) zone. No Board members expressed a conflict of interest. Applicant’s Description The applicant, Jeffrey Wesche, said he tried to be as fact-based as he could in filling out the application questions. He would like to add a two-car garage to the property. The connection to the house will be fully enclosed. Planner West said that a standalone garage under 1,000 sq. ft. needs a setback of only 10’. Thus, if the garage was an accessory structure, it would be able to be 10’ from the property line. However, as it is attached to the house, it is considered part of a primary structure and requires a 50’ setback. Because the garage could be built separately, the applicant could have built it and then applied for a variance to connect it to the house, but West recommended the applicant bring the plan to before the BZA before building it. 3 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DRAFT MINUTES In response to a Board question about the setback desired, the applicant said that it is 25’. Board member Lamb pointed out that that is only at the back corner; it is a greater setback at other points. Planner West showed a map of the parcel. Chair Hicks said the intent of setbacks is to provide some sense of rural character. He pointed out that if the garage was behind the house, the sense of impact from the road might be less, but Lamb noted that there are things on the other three sides of the house that preclude putting the garage there. Hicks added that the precedent in the area is a lot of houses close to lot lines. Public Comment Planner West said he had not received any written comments. The public hearing was opened at 7:39 p.m. Jim Holahan said he lives in the house directly across the street, 1025 Coddington Rd. The property lines in the area are all chopped up and not parallel. He said it is more of a community than an open, rural setting and is a little higher density. The house next door at 1018 would not have its view blocked. He said he would be fine with it, and he would be happy to see a garage there. The public hearing was closed at 7:42 p.m. Area Variance Findings & Decision The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the appeal of Jeffrey Wesche regarding the property at 1020 Coddington Rd. (Tax parcel 4.-1-26) for an Area Variance from the zoning code Section 603-6b that requires a 50’ setback for primary structures 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. Jones thought there might be some drainage issues because Mr. Wesche has a h ill behind him. Other than that, he thought there might be a positive impact in terms of home prices. Lamb did not think it would change the character given the density of the neighborhood is and how there are other small, unusually shaped parcels with houses at different aspects. Dean added that a lot of the nearby houses have outbuildings and the house to the south is right up against its lot line. Billington noted that many other properties did not seem in compliance with current zoning. Hicks agreed with the comments made. 2. The Board agreed that the benefit sought by the applicant could not be achieved by a feasible alternative of the variance. Jones did not think you could attach it to the back or the front of the house. Lamb said if the garage was moved forward, the back corner would be farther from the lo t line, but it would only reduce the non-compliance slightly. Mr. Wesche said that moving it forward would necessitate a re- siting of both the existing driveways, one concrete and one gravel. Dean said the alternative would 4 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DRAFT MINUTES be not to connect it to the house, but that lowers its usefulness. Billington agreed. Hicks asked where the entrance to the garage would be, which the applicant explained along with the siting of the driveways. 3. The Board was split on whether the requested variance was substantial. Jones agreed with the applicant’s statement---it is not substantial for the neighborhood. Lamb said that 25’ is half of 50’, but it is not the whole garage. Dean thought technically it was substantial, as did Billington and Hicks. However, Billington noted that it would only be a 10’ required setback if it were a separate structure. 4. The Board agreed the variance would not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. Jones said that proper drainage would be a key component. He questioned whether there was a big difference between the project and other houses in the area and concluded there was not. Lamb thought it was screened on the side it would have the most impingement and the next- door house is at a different angle. Dean said the only effect he could think of would be if the applicant paved the other part of the driveway to create an additional impermeable surface. Billington and Hicks agreed. 5. The Board was split on whether the alleged difficulty was not self-created. Jones, Dean, and Lamb felt it was not self-created because of the lot shape and already existing factors. Billington and Hicks thought it was self-created. In response to a question from Hicks, Planner West said this zone did not change in the zoning update except for a new rule regarding detached garages, which does not apply in this case. The BZA found 25’ was 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. The following condition was added: 1. The proposed garage be built in substantial compliance with the proposed site plan so that the projection into the required setback is limited as shown. MOTION: The benefit to the applicant does outweigh the detriment to the neighborhood or community. It fits in with neighboring properties and is as small an impact on the setbacks as possible. Moved by Lamb, seconded by Dean The motion passed. In favor: Billington, Dean, Jones, Lamb, Hicks (5) ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:08 p.m. ___________________________________________ Alyssa de Villiers – Recording Secretary