HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-01-23 BZA Minutes
Town of Danby Board of Zoning Appeals
Minutes of Hearing and Mee ng
January 23 2024
PRESENT:
Lew Billington
Tobias Dean
Ted Jones (via Zoom)
Betsy Lamb (ac ng Chairperson)
ABSENT:
Earl Hicks (Chairperson)
OTHER ATTENDEES;
Town Planner Greg Hutnik
Recording Secretary Cindy Katz
Public in-person Tyler Ciaschi; Rebekah Carpenter
Public via Zoom Janessa Ciaschi, Katharine Hunter (Town Board member)
Leslie Connors (Town Board member), Elizabeth Teskey
The mee ng was conducted virtually on the Zoom pla orm.
The mee ng was called to order at 7:01 p.m.
1. AGENDA REVIEW
There were no additions or deletions to the agenda.
2. MINUTES APPROVAL
MOTION: To Approve the mee ng minutes from the November 2023 BZA mee ng
Moved by Lamb, seconded by Dean
The mo on passed.
In favor: Billington, Dean, Jones, Lamb
3. NEW BUSINESS
Mary Ann Barr 2021
The Town of Danby
1830 Danby Road
Ithaca, NY 14850
danby.ny.gov
Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes
Tuesday 23 January 2024 at 7:00PM
Ac ng Chair Lamb reviewed the format of the mee ng and the purpose of the BZA
to the applicants. She explained that the Applicants would need a majority "yes" vote
from the present BZA. Because one of them was absent, this meant that only one
person could vote "no" in order to receive an approval. They confirmed they would
move forward rather than wait un l the full board was present.
VAR 2024-01 1530 Coddington Road Parcel: 6.-1-26.21
Applicant: Janessa Ciaschi
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: A side yard setback of twenty feet for a barn, where fi y feet
is required for accessory structures larger than 1000 square feet.
Lamb reviewed the general applica on and gave the applicant the opportunity to speak.
Planner Hutnik put up a map on the television screen. The applicant approached the
board at the mic and explained that they bought the home in 2016 and built a house the
following year with the plan to raise animals and that requires a barn. They explained
how they decided to build the current house in the current loca on based on various
factors including the need to clear out dead ash trees, preserve living trees, and taking
into account the exis ng steep slope in areas. Lamb asked why they choose not to build
in the north area and the applicant explained it was wet. Planner Hutnik added that it
would not be possible due to setback requirements. They reviewed that a variance is
needed because the barn is more than 1,000 square feet large, and therefore fi y foot
set-backs are required.
Planner Hutnik added there has not been any correspondence regarding this proposed
variance. No fica ons were made to neighbors and the public hearing was published in
the paper. Janessa stated that two neighbors ki y corner to them have indicated Ciaschi
they support the proposal.
Public Comment:
The public hearing was opened at 7:10 p.m
No one spoke.
The public hearing was closed at 7:11 p.m.
Area Variance Findings and Decision
The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the appeal of Janessa and Tyler Ciaschi
regarding the property at 1530 Coddington Road for an Area Variance from the zoning
code Sec on 512(1)(c) that requires accessory buildings larger than 1,000 square feet
must be setback at least 50' from side and rear lot lines in the Low Density Residen al
Zone.
They began to review the balancing ques ons.
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 the neighborhood is rural and a barn helps to maintain that
character. The loca on of the barn is not impinging on site lines.
2.The Board agreed that the benefit sought by the applicant could not be achieved
by a feasible alterna ve to the variance.
They wondered if the barn could be scaled down, and the applicant
responded that the barn is designed to be 1820 square feet so scaling it
down would require almost halving it. He also added that he owns a 12x12
garage door already which he would like to use. Lamb wondered if
changing the angle of the barn would give them more space to fulfill the
setback requirement. The applicant explained the angle is based on the
contour of the land and changing it would sort of leave it dangling. The
applicant also gave other reasons for why moving the loca on of the barn
would not be helpful: there is a stream they would not want to interfere
with, they don't want to impact their maple tree tapping area, and the cost
to build up a hillside would be high.
3.The Board agreed the requested variance was substan al.
The Board agreed that other requests they have had in the past were more
substan al, although, yes, a 40% reduc on to get it a size where a variance
was not required is substan al.
4.The Board agreed that the variance would not have an adverse impact on the
physical or environmental condi ons of the neighborhood.
They note that there may be some drainage off the roof but it would not be
substan al. They agreed it was be er to have the animals and equipment
stored inside the barn rather than outside where it is visible.
5.The Board agreed that the alleged difficulty was self-created.
They agreed that it is true that the site is narrow and therefore challenging
to find a loca on for a large barn. However, they did decide that they
wanted a barn of this size and therefore it is self-created, as a smaller barn
would not require a variance.
The BZA found that an Area Variance of 30 feet from sec on 512(1)(c) of the Zoning
Code is 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: the size of the barn, the lay-out of the land including the sep c, and the
physical characteris cs of the land.
MOTION To Pass Resolu on 1 of 2024: The Benefit to the Applicant does outweigh the
detriment to the neighborhood or community.
Moved by Dean, seconded by Billington
The mo on passed.
In favor: Billington, Dean, Jones, Lamb
VAR 2024-02 2084 Danby Road Parcel: 14.-1-16
Applicant: Fingerlakes Renewables on Behalf of Jillian Whalen
An cipated Ac on: Public Hearing, Review applica on; consider variances
SEQR: Gran ng or Denying this Area Variance a Type 2 Ac on requiring no
further review
Applicant Request: A side and front yard setback of 25 feet, where 50 is required in the
Low Density Residen al Zone District, in order to locate a ground mounted solar array in
a suitable loca on.
The applicant explained that she is the contractor for the homeowners who is tasked
with pu ng in a solar system ground mount system that would supply 80-90 percent of
the home-owner's total electric usage. The placement of the mount is based on the
slightly awkward layout of the parcel.
Lamb had the applicant pause for a moment while Lamb read the request aloud, as she
had not already done that. Lamb wondered if the setback requirement is based on the
size of the solar array, and Planner Hutnik clarified that they are not, but rather that solar
systems are required to have the same setbacks as the principal structure (as opposed to
an accessory structure, which has different setback requirements from the principal
structure.)
Hutnik put up a diagram and the BZA and the planning board reviewed it for any other
poten al loca ons where a solar array could go. The applicant explained the other op on
would have been in a loca on where the homeowners now currently have a fenced in
play area set-up for their children. The current loca on is as far off the road as possible
that s ll has adequate sun exposure without hi ng the fenced in area. The current
loca on proposed requires cu ng down just sumac. Lamb inquired where the frontyard
of the property is, considering its loca on abu ng Danby Road and Cur s Road. Planner
Hutnik explained that the property is unique, and he would interpret the frontyard to be
off of Cur s. He added that none of the current structures meet the setbacks, and
agreed with Lamb that a front and sideyard setback variance was needed. He con nued
to review the diagram, adding that the precise setback being proposed needed to be
provided, as it appears less than the 25 feet originally indicated in the Planner's memo. e
He proposed applying a framework similar to what is required for accessory structures. In
those cases, the side setback would need to be at least ten feet, while the house would
require a setback of at least 25 feet from Cur s Road. They reviewed this requirement
as it will be needed to be stated in the variance.
Planner Hutnik used a digital measurement to measure the distance currently shown in
the diagram. It appeared to be less than 25 feet, possibly 22 feet, but the applicant
confirmed that she would certainly be able and willing to conform to a 25 foot front
setback and 10 foot side setback. They discussed how the array would extend/hang over
a bit like an eave, which she should account for. The applicant added that they have
some leeway too because the neighbor has given permission to cut down sumac trees.
They noted the correspondence which had been received from neighbors, including a
le er and a phone call in support of the project.
Public Comment
Public Hearing opened at 7:49pm
Billington pointed out that when the array is installed, it will look farther away from the
Cur s Road because there is a chunk of land between the road and the property line.
They reviewed the google map and understood from the survey that the State owns that
chunk of land. The setbacks are measured from the property line.
No one spoke.
Public hearing closed at 7:54pm
Board Ques ons and Discussion
1. The Board agree no undesirable change would be produced to the character of the
neighborhood or a detriment to nearby proper es.
They noted the array is part of the concentra on of the house, there are
already other solar arrays in the area, and the array is buffered by the land
owned by the State.
2. The Board agreed that the benefit sought be the applicant could not be achieved by a
feasible alterna ve of the variance.
They agreed that there was not a be er alterna ve because of the size and
shape of the lot.
3. The Board agreed the requested variance was substan al.
A 50% reduc on in side and front setbacks is substan al, yes.
4. The Board agreed the variance would not have an adverse impact on the physical and
environmental condi ons in the neighborhood.
The BZA noted that the solar array installa on is in keeping with the town's goals
of reducing their carbon footprint, and that there already are a number of
neighboring arrays.
5. The Board agreed that the alleged difficulty was self-created.
Although the lay of the land does create limita ons, they s ll did choose to have a
solar array on that land which requires a variance.
The BZA found that an Area Variance of 40 feet for the side yard and 25 feet from the
front yard setbacks from sec on 714 (iii)(a)(ii) and sec on 603 (6) (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 it is aligned with Danby's goal of using alterna ve energy, and
there are no other alterna ve loca ons on the site that wouldn't require a variance.
MOTION To Pass Resolu on 2 of 2024: The Benefit to the Applicant does outweigh the
detriment to the neighborhood or community.
Moved by Billington, seconded by Dean
The mo on passed.
In favor: Billington, Dean, Jones, Lamb
Jones asked about the price per wa for a system like this. The applicant gave a reply
and they con nued to discuss her plans and how net-metering has been working out
with the u lity companies.
Billington asked the applicant about solar farms and if they are worth joining. Carpenter
expressed her personal opinion of distrust for large privately owned solar farms (as
opposed to community owned solar farms), detailing the ways that these companies
engage in what she referred to as "green-washing."
4. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 8:12 p.m.