No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-04-25 BZA Minutes Town of Danby Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of Hearing and Meeng April 25 2023 PRESENT: Lew Billington Toby Dean Betsy Lamb Earl Hicks (Chair) ABSENT: Ted Jones OTHER ATTENDEES: Town Planner David West Recording Secretary Cindy Katz Zoom Chris Camadella, Katharine Hunter (Town Board Member), Friede Sander, In-Person Heather Coffey, Zachary Larkins This meeng was conducted in-person as well as over Zoom. The meeng convened at 7:00pm. 1. AGENDA REVIEW There were no addions or deleons to the agenda. 2. MINUTES APPROVAL MOTION: Approve the minutes from Feb 2023 Moved by Lamb, seconded by Billington Mary Ann Barr 2021 The Town of Danby 1830 Danby Road Ithaca, NY 14850 danby.ny.gov Board of Zoning Appeals Agenda Tuesday 25 April 2023 at 7:00PM The moon passed. In favor: Billington, Dean, Lamb, Hicks 3.NEW BUSINESS VAR-2023-02 1914 Danby Rd, Parcel: 14.-1-10.1 Applicant: Zachary Larkins Ancipated Acon: Public Hearing, Review applicaon; consider variance SEQR: Granng or Denying this Area Variance is a Type 2 Acon requiring no further review Applicant Request: Variance from maximum front yard setback, and lot width buildout to enable more incremental buildout of the parcel starng with 2 homes on the exisng building foundaon/slab. Chair Hicks explained the process to the applicants. He noted that this is a Type II acon under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), with no further review required. He reviewed the request by the applicants, and explained the five factors used to evaluate requests. Chair Hicks asked the applicants if they had anything especially relevant to menon regarding the five factors. Applicant Larkins approached the mic and explained the current set back requirement is 20 . He explained the land is complex with two concrete pads. He has spent me on it observing it through all four seasons. He noted there is a driveway that is buried under grass. He is seeking to just use the footprint of the slab, possibly removing some of it in order to increase water absorpon in the soil. The only other viable frontage space they are hoping to develop commercially. Also present are two other wetlands. The far le (south) of frontage is very below grade, which his experience in construcon has taught him not to build on. Planner West shared the map on the large screen and the Applicant pointed out the wetlands, the low points of the property, and clarified the cardinal direcons. Larkins explained the slab had previously been used as a pole-barn. Chair Hicks explained the property was in the Hamlet Neighborhood Zone. He read the goals and intent for this zone from the Town's Zoning Code. He pointed out that this zone is radically different from the other zones in the town most of which are more rural. PUBLIC COMMENT The public hearing was opened. Chair Hicks asked the public if there were quesons. Chris Camadella introduced himself as a neighbor across the street and sought an explanaon of the need for the variance. West explained this request may appear unusual because they are seeking permission to be set back far from the road, nong that the intent of the current zoning for the Hamlet Neighborhood is to create a village feel with houses lining the road. Planner West added that although the Applicants house would not help create a "village feel", they have addional future hopes of building a cafe/ bakery, small rental homes, and/or other community spaces, and those plans certainly DO help create the intended feel of a village in that zone. The neighbor replied that this request makes sense as it does to seek to build on the current slab. Planner West added that siteplan review will be required in the future should the Applicants move forward with those commercial ventures. The applicants greeted the neighbors, who they had not yet met, discussed where they lived, and the neighbor expressed pleasure at having a coffee shop nearby. He thought that was a much beer opon than the Dollar general, which was previously proposed. Friede Sander, a neighbor whose land juts up against the applicants, spoke in support for the plans. She asked for clarificaon on what the Danby Hamlet Neighborhood Zone is. Planner West responded and Chair Hicks added that a map can be seen on the Danby website and that the applicants property is almost the last one in the zone. Chair Hicks asked if anyone else wanted to share their thoughts and Board Member Katharine Hunter expressed her support for the applicant's ideas. Planner West confirmed that there were no other correspondences. The public hearing was closed at 7:22 pm. Board Quesons and Discussion Chair Hicks explained that the 5th member of the BZA was not present and that a majority is needed from those present in order to approve the variance. He asked the applicants if they would prefer to pull their applicaon to be voted on when all members are present, when it may be easier to achieve a majority. The Applicants elected to move forward anyway. In response to a queson from Chair Hicks, Planner West clarified that this variance is indeed needed from the BZA and not the Planning Board. Chair Hicks expressed excitement about the Applicant's plans but also noted the need to follow ordinances. He confirmed it is not a corner lot, which is required in order to have a restaurant, and Planner West clarified that they would be adding a road to create a corner for a future restaurant [Secretary note: Such is not a part of the currently requested variance and would be discussed in future conversaons.} Chair Hicks considered the aesthec and architectural requirements and concerns in the Zoning Code and wondered if the house would fulfill these requirements. He commented on the importance of creang a “welcoming” feeling. Billington wondered if houses need to be parallel to the road, and Planner West answered it does not. David added that the current aesthec and architectural requirements are intended for a home that is directly off the road -- and this home is not. He stated he is less concerned about what they DO on the lot, and more concerned about losing the opportunity to have something else there that would be near the road and contribute to the "village" feel. Lamb wondered about the locaon of the driveway in relaon to the wetlands, and the applicant explained that they plan to uncover the previously built drive- way, and that the driveway and road will be separate. The smaller houses, which are beyond the scope of his variance, will be along the 2nd road, and they plan on living in the ny house while they build the main house -both on the slab. When the main house is complete, they will live in it and the ny house will become a studio/guest house. He would also like to build a wood working studio with a rental on top, and clarified that the preference is to make the houses on the side road rentals, although maybe there will be one vacaon home. He said they are planning to keep the coffee shop under 1500 in which case he can draw the plans himself and has a friend who can help him. Lamb returned to the driveway, and if there are any alternaves if they weren't able to build on the pad. With all the wetness, the changes in elevaon, and the plan for the coffee shop, they all agreed it is a bit ght and it makes sense to use the pad. Dean commented that no one has yet built a house in this area and wondered if it is irrelevant to look at architecture since the house would be so far back from the road. Lamb asked about landscaping plans, and the applicant clarified that the environmental impact is really important to them and she is hoping to create rain gardens, use no ll agriculture, and that they are really seeking to be good steward of the land. This is their reasoning for wanng to use the slab and the road. Lamb clarified she is thinking about what can be done to keep it all looking aracve from the road, although she won't be giving condions about what they ought to do. Applicant added that an important goal for them is to keep the rentals affordable, to build community, and create a welcoming place for folks to come. Hicks added one sepc system for mulple houses if they are owned by the same owner is allowed and that this allows for creave sepc.They discussed the well and diversion of water. Planner West clarified that their piers will go through the slab, as the slab itself isn’t good quality. Billington wondered about drainage and what will be needed for the coffee shop. The applicant responded that he’d like to use as much permeable paving as possible and would like to avoid concrete. Area Variance Findings & Decision The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the appeal of Zachary Larkins regarding the property at 1914 Danby Road for an Area Variance of approximately 250 to allow building on the exisng slab from the zoning code secon 604-6 that requires a maximum front-yard setback of 20 in the Hamlet Neighborhood Zoning District. 1.The Board agreed no undesirable change would be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properes. The Board agreed this proposed plan would improve the current character and the future suggested work would enhance the Hamlet concept. They also noted the benefit of improving the driveway, 2.The Board agree that the benefit sought by the applicant could not be achieved by a feasible alternave of the variance. The Board agreed that by re-using the slab, which is more than 20 setback, they are able to prevent encroaching in any other area. Lamb added that if they build the coffee shop as intended, there is no alternave for the locaon of the house. 3.The Board agreed the requested variance was substanal. Dean stated that yes, it is substanal, but the circumstances negate the impact. The other Board members agreed it was substanal. 4.The Board agreed that the variance would not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental condions in the neighborhood. The Board agreed that the proposal seems like an improvement, and will reduce  impact by using the original slab. 5.The Board agreed that the alleged difficulty was self-created. The Applicant did choose to purchase the property, and their desire to re- use the slab creates the need for a variance. In a way, the difficulty is also  created by the site itself, because that is where the slab is located.  The Applicant stressed that they are very serious and committed to this project.  They  discussed the location, the interest in some of their friends in joining the project, and a bit  about the history of commercial bakeries in the area. They discussed the distances and measurements in order to establish how much of a  variance should be granted to ensure building on the slab is possible. Planner West  measured the distance using the county website, and concluded that the variance  should be around 250 feet in order to be safe. They discussed conditions and Lamb  said that there are some things that would be nice to see, but that they aren't conditions.  MOTION: to Pass Resolution 3 of 2023: The Benefit to the applicant does outweigh the  detriment to the neighborhood or community.  Moved by Dean, seconded by Lamb.  Planner West measured the distance using the county website, and concluded that the  variance should be around 250 feet in order to be safe. They discussed conditions and  Lamb said that there are some things that would be nice to see, but that they aren't   conditions. They discussed the septic system and other conditions on the site. The motion passed. In favor: Dean, Lamb, Billington, Hicks The applicants thanked the board and the BZA expressed excitement with their project (and coffee!). Planner West gave updates about the STR survey for residents to please fill out, that the  noise ordinance is being considered, and the Town Board is also working on a logging  ordinance that the CAC has proposed. There is also the community development  rehabilitation project. Hicks asked about packages of plants and seeds from a program  at a Saratoga Nursery.  4. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:29 pm