The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2022-02-22 BZA AgendaPage 1 1 Town of Danby Board of Zoning Appeals NOTICE OF MEETING A Special Meeting of the Town of Danby Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) will be held at 7PM on Tuesday, Feb 22, 2022 via Zoom Zoom link: https://zoom.us/j/95382733938 Meeting ID: 953 8273 3938 Dial in: 1-646-876-9923 or 1-312-626-6799 For questions on how to use Zoom or access the meeting, please contact David West, Planner, at 607-592-0417 (voice or text) or planner@danby.ny.gov Agenda: 1.Meeting with staff (Town Planner) 2.Call to Order 3.Adopt Minutes (October 2021) 4.New Business •Consider Area Variance VAR-2022-1 1360 Coddington Rd. Millroy Constas Residence Parcel: 6.-1-1.31 Applicant: Mark Constas Anticipated Board action(s) this month: Public Hearing, Review Planning Board Recommendation, Consider amending 1992 variance conditions, 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. 5.Adjournment This agenda and case information, as well as minutes of recent BZA meetings can be found at danby.ny.gov Town of Danby Zoning Variance Form, rev. June 2019 3 AREA VARIANCE APPEAL TOWN OF DANBY Upon a determination by the Code Enforcement Officer or Zoning Officer that it is not permitted by the Danby Zoning Ordinance, I/We hereby apply to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance from the following sections and requirements of the Danby Zoning Ordinance, specifically as follows: SECTION: _________ WHICH REQUIRES: _____________________________________ PROPOSED CHANGE TO: _____________________________________________________ SECTION: _________ WHICH REQUIRES: _____________________________________ PROPOSED CHANGE TO: _____________________________________________________ At the property located in the Town of Danby at: Street Address: _________________________________ Tax Parcel #: _________________ As shown in the accompanying site plan, other attached documents and the statements on the following page regarding the five balancing tests to be examined by the Board of Zoning Appeals. I/We attest that all information submitted with this appeal application is complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Also, by filing this application, permission is granted to members of the Board of Zoning Appeals, Planning and Code Enforcement staff, and/or any other persons designated by the Town that may be involved in the review of this application, to enter the property specified above to inspect in connection with the review of this application. Name: ____________________________________________ Signature: _________________________________________ Date: ____________________ Address: __________________________________________ Email: ____________________ Property Owner Information & Signature (if different from applicant/appellant): Name: ____________________________________________ Signature: _________________________________________ Date: ____________________ Address: __________________________________________ Email: ____________________ 600-100 150' of frontage 120' of frontage 1360 Coddington Rd.6.-1-3.31 Of applicable zoning in 1992 Town of Danby Zoning Variance Form, rev. June 2019 4 Applicant/Appellant Responses to Balancing Tests to be Examined by the Board of Appeals NYS Town Law Section 267-B requires that the Board of Zoning Appeals, when considering granting a variance from the area requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, must weigh or balance the benefit to the applicant against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In making such determination the board must consider five criteria. Please explain how the requested variance will relate to these criteria. The blank lines are illustrative only -- use and attach additional page(s) as necessary to fully explain the rationale supporting this appeal. 1. If granted, the requested variance would ___ / would not ___ produce the following change(s) in the character of the neighborhood or affect nearby properties as follows: _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Describe any feasible alternatives which exist to what is requested: _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ 3. Describe how the requested area variance is ____ / is not ____ substantial: _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ 4. Describe how the requested change will ____ or will not ____ have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district: _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ 5. This alleged difficulty is the result of: _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ Granting the variance would allow construction of a second home on the lot. This is a large lot area but the road has many houses along it already. The existing home and proposed second home are set far back from the street and would have very limited impact on the character of the neighborhood. There is no way to further develop this lot without reconsidering the conditions of the existing frontage variance. x x The variance to allow a lot with 120' of road frontage where 150' was required is not substantial, especially considering that the only part of the lot under 150' wide is the road, the part of the lot with homes is over 450' wide. Granting the variance would allow development of a second home which is a small impact in a neighborhood where many lots are much smaller,for example the lot to the north is just 1.6 acres and has a home, this lot is almost 10 acres. x The lot is already in existence, removing the limitation on placing a second home on the existing lot would have very minimal impact. There are other mittigations that could over-ride any small impact of an additional home. Dificulty that lead to the first variance was the location of parking and shape of surounding lots when the orrigional subdivision was made. Information about limitations on future development pursuant to that variance was not recorded on the plat and was unknown at time of purchase, previous owner failed to put a deed restriction on the property as their previous variance application promised. The the Millroy Constas family purchased they intended to add a retirement home on the large lot and had no way of knowing that a limitation was in place. Planning Board application heard December 2021 Property of: Mark Constas & Wendy Millroy1360 Coddington Rd Danby, NY Location of proposed building:Existing homeGravel drive & parking Existing septic 6 PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MINUTES SUP-2021-3 1360 Coddington Rd., Millroy Constas Residence Parcel: 6.-1-1.31 Applicant: Mark Constas Anticipated Board action(s) this month: Public Hearing, Refer to BZA (an existing variance includes a condition baring adding a second dwelling on this lot) Proposal: Grant special permit for second dwelling on a lot Planner West explained, prior to a quorum, that the applicant has requested a special permit to add a second dwelling, a retirement home, on their approximately 10 -acre lot. He said he had shared with the Board a letter from a neighbor, which included concerns about a previous condition placed on the lot by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) in 1992. West explained that when the lot was initially divided, it did not have enough frontage and so had to get a variance from the BZA. At that time, the parent lot had a non - conforming four-plex on it. The BZA felt that, because there were already more dwelling units than allowed, the newly created lot should be capped at one unit. He said that the applicants were not aware of this, and nor was he due to a filing error, but the neighbor remembered the condition. Mr. Constas noted that the four-unit dwelling is no longer there; it is now a single-family home. West said the Town’s attorney thought the best way for the application to proceed was for it to be referred to the BZA to rehear the conditions of the variance. The BZA will need advice from the Planning Board on what they think is important with regard to having a second dwelling on the lot, if it were to be allowed. Public Hearing The public hearing was not held at this meeting. Board Discussion Maher asked about the condition for future subdivisions, and West said that the proposed new zoning for the area is 10-acre zoning, so if that passes it would not be subdividable. Maher also asked about the proposed building size and said that limiting size could be good; it is approximately 850 finished sq. ft. on a 24x32 footprint. Scriber mentioned screening as a possibility. Bergman said he liked the idea of a setback so another house was not right next to the road or on top of a neighbor’s property line, which could make screening harder. Cowan asked about whether the neighbor who had written would be able to see the proposed structure. She supported the idea that screening would be important. The discussion was summarized as size, screening, and setbacks. No one expressed strong thoughts on lead agency for SEQR. MOTION: The Planning Board recommends that the BZA reconsider the variance with requirements for maximum size of additional dwellings, setbacks from surrounding lot lines, and requiring screening. The Planning Board would then support not having a condition that n o further buildings could be added to the lot. Moved by Bergman, seconded by Cowan The motion passed.