No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-01-23 BZA Minutes    Town of Danby Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of Hearing and Meeng January 23 2024 PRESENT: Lew Billington Tobias Dean Ted Jones (via Zoom) Betsy Lamb (acng 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 meeng was conducted virtually on the Zoom plaorm. The meeng 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 meeng minutes from the November 2023 BZA meeng Moved by Lamb, seconded by Dean The moon 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    Acng Chair Lamb reviewed the format of the meeng 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 unl the full board was present. VAR 2024-01 1530 Coddington Road Parcel: 6.-1-26.21 Applicant: Janessa Ciaschi 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: A side yard setback of twenty feet for a barn, where fiy feet is required for accessory structures larger than 1000 square feet. Lamb reviewed the general applicaon 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 locaon based on various factors including the need to clear out dead ash trees, preserve living trees, and taking into account the exisng 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 fiy foot set-backs are required. Planner Hutnik added there has not been any correspondence regarding this proposed variance. Noficaons were made to neighbors and the public hearing was published in the paper. Janessa stated that two neighbors kiy 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 Secon 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 Residenal Zone. They began to review the balancing quesons. 1.The Board agreed that no undesirable change would be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properes. They noted that the neighborhood is rural and a barn helps to maintain that character. The locaon 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 alternave 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 locaon 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 substanal. The Board agreed that other requests they have had in the past were more substanal, although, yes, a 40% reducon to get it a size where a variance was not required is substanal. 4.The Board agreed that the variance would not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental condions of the neighborhood. They note that there may be some drainage off the roof but it would not be substanal. They agreed it was beer 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 locaon 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 secon 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 sepc, and the physical characteriscs of the land.       MOTION To Pass Resoluon 1 of 2024: The Benefit to the Applicant does outweigh the detriment to the neighborhood or community. Moved by Dean, seconded by Billington The moon 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 Ancipated Acon: Public Hearing, Review applicaon; consider variances SEQR: Granng or Denying this Area Variance a Type 2 Acon requiring no further review Applicant Request: A side and front yard setback of 25 feet, where 50 is required in the Low Density Residenal Zone District, in order to locate a ground mounted solar array in a suitable locaon. The applicant explained that she is the contractor for the homeowners who is tasked with pung 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 potenal locaons where a solar array could go. The applicant explained the other opon would have been in a locaon where the homeowners now currently have a fenced in play area set-up for their children. The current locaon is as far off the road as possible that sll has adequate sun exposure without hing the fenced in area. The current locaon proposed requires cung down just sumac. Lamb inquired where the frontyard of the property is, considering its locaon abung Danby Road and Curs Road. Planner Hutnik explained that the property is unique, and he would interpret the frontyard to be off of Curs. 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 connued 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 Curs 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 leer 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 Curs 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 Quesons and Discussion 1. The Board agree no undesirable change would be produced to the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properes. They noted the array is part of the concentraon 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 alternave of the variance. They agreed that there was not a beer alternave because of the size and shape of the lot. 3. The Board agreed the requested variance was substanal. A 50% reducon in side and front setbacks is substanal, yes. 4. The Board agreed the variance would not have an adverse impact on the physical and environmental condions in the neighborhood.     The BZA noted that the solar array installaon 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 limitaons, they sll 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 secon 714 (iii)(a)(ii) and secon 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 alternave energy, and there are no other alternave locaons on the site that wouldn't require a variance. MOTION To Pass Resoluon 2 of 2024: The Benefit to the Applicant does outweigh the detriment to the neighborhood or community. Moved by Billington, seconded by Dean The moon 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 connued to discuss her plans and how net-metering has been working out with the ulity 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.