HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-11-28 BZA Minutes
PRESENT:
Lew Billington
Tobias Dean
Ted Jones (via Zoom)
Betsy Lamb
Earl Hicks (chair)
OTHER ATTENDEES:
Town Planner:Greg Hutnik
Recording Secretary:Cindy Katz
Public: Olivia Vent; Christel Trutmann
Zoom:Ted Crane; Katharine Hunter (Town Board Member);
Zachary Larkins; Heather Coffey; Joel Gagnon (Town
Supervisor
The mee ng was conducted in-person at Town Hall and virtually via the Zoom pla orm
The mee ng started at 7:04 p.m with the BZA members beginning to discuss business.
1. AGENDA REVIEW
There were no additions or dele ons to the agenda at that me.
Chair Hicks introduced and welcomed the new Town Planner, Greg Hutnik, to the Board
of Zoning Appeals (“BZA”). Chair Hicks appreciated the work Planner Hutnik had done in
preparing for the mee ng. Billington asked if phone numbers for applicants could be
included and Planner Hutnik replied he could always check with them. He also clarified
that by signing the applica on, the applicants are gran ng the BZA the right to enter the
property, adding that a courtesy call to let them know beforehand is always appreciated.
They discussed the laws regarding how many BZA members can legally gather at a given
me.
Mary Ann Barr 2021
The Town of Danby
1830 Danby Road
Ithaca, NY 14850
danby.ny.gov
Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes
Tuesday 28 Nov 2023 at 7:00PM
Planner Hutnik explained how he previewed some poten al tweaks for Town Zoning
Ordinance to the Town Board last week. These tweaks fall into three buckets: 1. Needed
changes; 2. Sugges ons and; 3. Larger topics to be considered by commi ee or with a
Comprehensive Plan Update, slated for discussion in the New Year. Planner Hutnik will
send them the memo and would be happy to hear feedback from them regarding it.
Chair Hicks wondered about the status of their training hours, as they are required four
hours a year. They discussed whose posi ons on the board are expiring with the New
Year, and their plans to con nue on.
Chair Hicks called the mee ng to order at 7:16 p.m.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM May 2023)
MOTION: Approve the minutes from May 2023
Moved by Lamb, seconded by Dean
They discussed if Jones, who was over Zoom, could vote and concluded that he could
because he is not completing quorum.
The motion passed.
In favor: Billington, Dean, Jones, Lamb, Hicks
3. NEW BUSINESS
They decided to reverse the order of the applica on review because the first applicant
(486 Nelson Road) was not present. They began with 1843 Danby Road.
VAR-2023-06 & VAR -2023-071843 Danby Road Parcel: 10.-1-49.2
Applicant: Olivia Vent An cipated Ac on: Public Hearing, Review applica on;
consider variances
SEQR: Gran ng or Denying these Area Variances are Type 2 Ac ons requiring no
further review
Applicant Request: Applicant is reques ng two separate Area Variances. VAR-
2023-06 is to allow a front maximum setback of 68 feet and a side setback of 9
feet 3 inches for an exis ng structure planned for renova on into a market/cafe.
The Hamlet Center Zone District requires a 20-foot maximum front setback and a
10-foot minimum side setback regardless whether the building is exis ng or newly
constructed
Chair Hicks reviewed the overall applica on and the variances requested. Both are Type
II and require no further environmental review under the State Environmental Quality
Review Act (SEQRA). The BZA reviewed their packets and a diagram was put up on the
large screen. Chair Hicks provided an overview of the process and requested the
Applicants share any informa on that may not have been clear in their applica on or that
may be helpful. Following that, there will be a Public Hearing and then they will go
through the standard five balancing ques ons, which will be followed by a vote. Chair
Hicks disclosed he is a close neighbor of the Applicant, but is not concerned about bias
or conflict of interest in regards to his ability to make fair and unbiased decisions in his
role as BZA Chair.
Applicant's Descrip on
The Applicant spoke on how an objec ve in the town is to have a mee ng place, a
market or café of sorts, as a way to help create a sense of community in Danby. This has
been a hope of hers to do on her proper es that she has been holding onto since 2008.
Currently, the proper es are providing affordable housing. She is pleased for them to
support mul -use. She stated this has been a long and me consuming process, but she
is going ahead with it because she has found a very welcoming and professional
proprietor for the project. They se led on this specific building, which used to be a
machine shed, a er consul ng with engineers and architects. One snag is that the
Health Department has asked them to come up with a new sep c design, which they are
moving forward with. They have begun renova ons and have discussed the project with
the Planning Board.
Planner Hutnik put up a few images on the screen, including an aerial view, that were
newly submi ed by Vent. She noted she had not sent the planner the most recent map
which shows traffic flow arrows, although the one they were looking at is s ll a new
diagram created a er discussion with the Planning Board to show more details in regards
to traffic and parking.
Lamb wondered about parking, right of way in the road, and if parking would be in it, as
that area belongs to the Highway. They discussed the dimensions and lay-out of the road
and Planner Hutnik clarified that he is confident that the parking would be on the
Applicant's property and there is ample space.
Public Comment:
Public Hearing was opened at 7:37 p.m.
No one spoke. The BZA confirmed with the planner that there was no correspondence,
only a comment from Tompkins County related to the sep c system. In that, the county
wrote that increased sep c use could result in sep c failing sooner than expected.
Hence, they recommend the Applicants work on a new design in case that happens.
Planner Hutnik stated that they are doing this.
Billington commented he "overheard" concerns from people at the nearby church about
how the church could poten ally be used as a turn-around or for overflow parking.
Planner Hutnik commented that this variance is about the loca on of the parking, not
whether or not parking will exist. There will be parking there as the Hamlet Center Zone
District does not regulate parking numbers; therefore this concern is not relevant to the
variance applied for.
Chair Hicks asked if there is a deadline for public comments and it was at 4pm today.
Chair Hicks read from the Zoning Code about the Hamlet Center Zone. He asked about
the Habitat Corridor Overlay District, which part of the property is in. This zone requires
Site Plan Review, which is happening through the Planning Board.
The BZA asked if Vent had anything else to say. She explained this is the first project like
this in Danby. She is concerned about traffic for tenants, about her insurance and her
assessment, and what they will do if they need to expand the space. She noted this is a
very fluid situa on with a goal of ge ng started and moving through it all step-by-step.
Hopefully the result will be something very posi ve.
Public hearing was closed 7:46 p.m.
Board Ques ons and Discussion
Chair Hicks inquired about the Applicant's architect. He knew of the people the
Applicant had used and was pleased to see they are s ll in high regard in the field. He
appreciates that the town zoning includes the idea of the parking behind (or, in this case,
the side) of a business as opposed to a large parking lot in front.
Lamb asked about the small area off the circle marked with 15 feet. How will it be
used?The Applicant clarified that it will have to remain clear for deliveries or for the
tenants' use. There is also the poten al of using an exis ng cut-in on the northern side of
1839 Danby Road and crea ng a dedicated parking spot there for tenant use. That would
free up space, though would require tenants to walk further.
They wondered what might happen if the parking was moved further east, no ng how
that would influence the ability to include diagonal parking. Vent added that currently
there is a garden and fence providing some visual separa on between the parking
lot/market and the tenants' privacy. Kar k, the manager, of the market, is also interested
in adding picnic tables further east near the market, so there is a desire to preserve that
green space. Chair Hicks inquired about the wire inside the 43 foot marked area in the
circle and the Applicant explained that area will be landscaped and the wire protected.
Chair Hicks wondered what would happen if the property to the north was sold. Vent
replied that if she sold, she would subdivide so the circular driveway would be en rely in
the main parcel. He discussed his concerns about "road creep" and that this allows
people to pull out easily into traffic without backing out.
Billington brought up how ideas differ within the town about what people want to see in
the Hamlet, and Dean inquired about the current regula ons and poten al changes to
the current regula ons regarding set-backs. Planner Hutnik explained how there are
thoughts that perhaps the maximum set-back permi ed in the Hamlet ought to be
reconsidered, with residen al and rehabilitated buildings receiving an exemp on, as they
are in-line with the town’s environmental goals. Lamb clarified that this variance will
cover both set-back requirements.
Chair Hicks wondered if the Planning Board could give a recommenda on for providing
this variance. Planner Hutnik stated that the Planning Board is in agreement that a
variance would be needed, but that they cannot influence the BZA in gran ng one, and
explained how the Applicant went already to the PB for a general review and agreement
to apply for variances, which they gave, and that they will be looking to provide formal
approval to the Site Plan at their next mee ng. Without these two variances, no approval
can be granted.
The BZA decided to go through the balancing tests for each variance, beginning with the
set-back variance. Chair Hicks read off the tests.
Area Variance Findings and Decision
The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the appeal of Olivia Vent regarding the property
at 1843 Danby Road for an Area Variance from the zoning code sec on 605 (5)(a,b) that
requires 10 foot side setbacks and 20 foot maximum front setbacks in the Hamlet Center
Zone District.
1. The Board agreed that no undesirable change would be produced in the character of
the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby proper es.
2. The Board agreed that the benefits sought by the Applicant could not be achieved by a
feasible alterna ve of the variance because the structure is an already exis ng one.
3. The Board mostly agreed that the requested variance was substan al.
They noted that the side set-up variance was not substan al, with Dean no ng
that the front set-back would be permi ed under the proposed changes to the
zoning; Chair Hicks noted that even if a request is substan al it does not pull the
plug on the request.
4. The Board agreed that the request would not have an adverse impact on the physical
or environmental condi ons in the neighborhood.
They noted the landscaping would improve the physical condi on.
5. The Board mostly agreed that the alleged difficulty was not self-created.
They pointed out that the building existed here previously before any of this,
including the code, thereby making this not self-created.
Planner Hutnik commented that the second variance relates to the decision on this one.
The BZA found that an Area Variance of less than 1 foot for the side setbacks and 48
feet for the front maximum setback from section 605(5)(a,b) of the Zoning Code 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 the above discussed reasons and the following: the structure already
exists. No conditions were given.
MOTION To Pass Resolution 6 of 2023: 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
They moved on to the second variance requested by the same Applicant, going directly
into the balancing tests. The Public Hearing was held earlier during the mee ng.
VAR-2023-07 1843 Danby Road Parcel: 10.-1-49.2
Applicant: Olivia Vent An cipated Ac on: Public Hearing, Review applica on;
consider variances
SEQR: Gran ng or Denying these Area Variances are Type 2 Ac ons requiring no
further review
Applicant Request: To allow a parking lot between the street and the exis ng
structure planned for renova on into a market/cafe.
Area Variance Findings and Discussion:
The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the appeal of Olivia Vent regarding the property
at 1843 Danby Road for an Area Variance from the zoning code Sec on 510(5) and 705
(4) to allow a parking area in the front yard of a commercially used building in the Hamlet
Center Zone District.
1. The Board agreed that no undesirable change would be produced in the character of
the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby proper es.
They noted that a visual barrier will mi gate any nega ve changes and that a
parking lot already exists across the street for another business. They discussed if
overflow parking could be at nearby Dotson Park, with folks walking to the market
via the shoulder in the road. Hicks inquired what the max number allowed in the
building would be, and what the plan for overflow parking will be. Applicant Vent
replied that this will be something they will have to look into in the future.
2. The Board agreed that the benefits sought by the Applicant could not be achieved by
a feasible alternative to the variance.
They noted that an alternative would not be as convenient to this plan. Billington
noted that if the business is successful, down the line a new plan for additional
parking may be required. They also noted that the septic behind the building
complicates the finding of another feasible alternative spot.
3. The Board mostly agreed that the requested variance was substantial.
Planner Hutnik clarified that “substantial” can be viewed through the lens of
dimensions as well as through the lens of impact. What would the impact of this
location in the rear vs the impact of it being located in the front? Lamb
commented that yes, it is substantial but not a dealbreaker. Dean and Billington
agreed; Jones believed it was not substantial. Hicks concluded he did not think it
was substantial because the view of the market was not impacted.
4. The Board agreed that the request would not have an adverse impact on the physical
or environmental conditions in the neighborhood.
Jones noted that the driveway is already in existence without an environmental
impact, so adding in a few parking spaces will not radically alter that. Lamb noted
that, assuming drainage and care for water impact will be considered, the impact
of five parking spaces would be minimal. Planner Hutnik commented that impact
could be substan al if this were a steep area, but this is not the case. He also
added this parking area is outside of the overlay area, resul ng in less impact.
Dean agreed that the impact was minimal, but noted that if not enough parking
were present, folks may try to park on the grass in the middle of the semi-circle.
5. The Board mostly agreed that the alleged difficulty was self-created.
They discussed the wording of the variance, so as to be clear. Chair Hicks questioned if
this parking lot was a "front-yard" or "side-yard." The Planner gave the definition of a
front yard as being in the front plane of the building extending across the property line
and to the road, clarifying it was not the front area extending from out of the front door.
Billington wondered if "front yard" is the correct and clear language to use. Planner
Hutnik recommended not using "side" and explained that "front yard" is the language
used in the town zoning code, and is hence the language the BZA is to use to interpret
the code with. They discussed from which proper ty the front yard was to be measured,
as the different structures sit on different planes despite being the same parcel.
They con nued to discuss the wording of the variance. Chair Hicks read aloud some
dra s he composed. They con nued to seek clarity regarding the front yard vs side yard.
Planner Hutnik reviewed his thinking for them -- explaining that he elected to refer to
this parking lot as in the "front yard" in rela on to the market itself, which is the closest
building to it and of the same use. Therefore, a variance was required. The other op on
could have been to measure from the mul family unit further to the south, which is also
on the same parcel, but much closer to the street. In that scenario, the parking lot in
discussion would have not been a front yard, but that building was further away, not of
the same use, and could poten ally be subdivided out from the market/parking lot
grouping. Planner Hutnik believes this approach adds to the cohesion of the parcel.
Planner Hutnik suggested that allowing the parking in front of an exis ng building in this
Hamlet neighborhood area would encourage compactness and could be more
environmentally friendly than crea ng more parking behind the building, nearer to the
overlay district. He addressed the concern of precedent, and stated that it is possible that
another exis ng building in the Hamlet area may also want to become commercial and
have parking in front of their building. It may, in fact, make sense for them because they
may also have a deep lot. All cases are unique.
Jones wondered if the language could be interpreted to permit parking in the turnaround
half circle. They discussed if that ought to be a condi on or not, and decided to leave it
out because they are not designing the parking lot.
The BZA found that an Area Variance allowing a parking in the frontyard of a
commercially used building from sec on 510(5) and 705 (4) of the zoning code 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 the
building already exists beyond the maximum setbacks, and there are no feasible
alterna ves.
MOTION: To Pass Resolution 7 of 2023: The Benefit to the Applicant does outweigh the
detriment to the neighborhood or community.
Moved by Lamb, seconded by Billington
The Motion passed.
In favor: Billington, Dean, Jones, Lamb, Hicks
They reiterated with the Applicant that the property, with its various planes and mixed
uses, was a complex one, and even the Town's attorney agreed. They discussed where
the frontyard is now on this property with various buildings, and how that would relate if
they tried to restore the barn for addi onal uses in the future. They discussed what
addi onal work may also be done on the property as well as the engineering reports
regarding the sewer study for the town. Supervisor Gagnon spoke from Zoom about the
potential of a gravity fed system and its high cost vs the density limiting factor of each
parcel having a well and a septic system. He wondered what alternatives may be
acceptable to the health department in regards to a shared system owned by the town.
The town is looking into these things and hoping to have answers by April.
VAR-2023-05 486 Nelson Road, Parcel: 4.-1-51.1
Applicant: Lindsey L Johnson (A orney) on behalf of George & Grace
Payton An cipated Ac on: Public Hearing, Review applica on; consider
variance
SEQR: Gran ng or Denying this Area Variance is a Type 2 Ac on requiring
no further review
Applicant Request: Applicant is reques ng a 6-foot side setback from the
exis ng house in order to rec fy the encroachment of the current lot line
through the house. The Low Density Residen al Zone District requires a
50-foot side setback.
Hicks reviewed the application. The Applicant wishes to adjust the lot line in order to fix
the encroachment of the house so they can sell the lot to their son. BZA members
wondered if it was required that the applicants have someone present? While the
application does state that the applicant or a representative needs to be present,
Planner Hutnik clarified that if that is not in the zoning code, then he thinks the decision
to proceed is at the digression of the BZA.
Lamb wondered why they choose the line they choose, why just 6 feet and not more?
Planner Hutnik said at first it was just adjusting a lot line, which is an annexation that
the planner can do himself. They sent "him the survey, because the line does not
conform with the standards, even though it would conform more than it did before. He
added that he had considered that they had already paid for the survey, he checked with
code enforcement that the minimum required is 5 feet from the lot line, and he felt that
this ask was the minimum required in order to meet the standard. They examined the
map and confirmed that the building code was met.
Planner Hutnik double checked that the Applicants presence is not required by law. The
Planning Secretary confirmed that the applicants were on the list that was sent the
agenda so they knew the meeting was happening. Planner Hutnik did not see anything
in the law. There were no letters or correspondence about the variance, and he
recommended they move forward. He explained that the BZA could not vote against the
Lamb stated it would be good to variance because the applicants were not present.
make sure that it is communicated to the people that they be here, as it puts them at a
disadvantage to not be present. Planner Hutnik agreed.
There were no concerns communicated in writing and the county was notified as
required but had no concerns. This variance would not have a bearing on a future sale
of the properties.
Public Comment
The Public Hearing was opened at 9:35 p.m
No one spoke.
The Public Hearing was closed at 9:35 p.m.
Area Variance Findings and Decision
The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the appeal of Lindsey L Johnson (A orney) on
behalf of George & Grace regarding the property at 486 Nelson Road for an Area
Variance from the zoning code sec on 603(6)(b) that requires a 50 foot sideyard setback
in the Low Density Residen al zone.
1. The Board agreed no undesirable change would be produced in the character of
the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby proper es.
The houses already are there.
2. The Board agree that the benefit sought by the applicant could not be achieved by
a feasible alterna ve of the variance.
While they could add addi onal feet to the variance, such would s ll
require a variance. There is no alterna ve that would eliminate the need for
a variance.
3. The Board mostly agreed that the request was substan al.
Fi y feet is substan al. Jones stated that even if fi y is substan al, the
request itself is not substan al.
4. The Board agree that the variance would not have an adverse impact on the
physical or environmental condi ons in the neighborhood.
5. The Board mostly agreed that the alleged difficulty was self-created.
Either the house was built incorrectly or it was surveyed wrong. The BZA
wondered when the house was built. Even if this is self-created, the
variance will get the house into compliance.
The BZA found that an Area Variance of 44 feet from section 603(6)b of the Zoning
Code 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 a setback of six feet is the minimum setback that comfortably meets the
Building Code's requirement of lot line separation from a structure.
MOTION: To Pass Resolution 8 of 2023: 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