No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-04-23 BZA Minutes FINAL Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes Tuesday 23 April 2024 at 7:00PM Mary Ann Barr 2021 The Town of Danby 1830 Danby Road Ithaca, NY 14850 danby.ny.gov Town of Danby Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of Hearing and Meeting April 23 2024 FINAL PRESENT : Lew Billington (arrived 7:04 p.m.) Tobias Dean Ted Jones Betsy Lamb (via Zoom) Earl Hicks ABSENT : Cindy Katz, Recording Secretary OTHER ATTENDEES; Town Planner Greg Hutnik Public in-person Alicia Brady; Delora Specker; Leslie Connors (Town Board Member); Jeremy Hobes; Will Robinson; Josh Lumbert; Cindy Lamson; Joel Lamson The meeting was conducted virtually on the Zoom platform. Please note the planning secretary was not present during the meeting in -person or virtually. These minutes were compiled from minutes taken by the planner as well as from the Zoom recording of the meeting. The meeting 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 meeting minutes from the March 2024 BZA meeting Moved by Jones, seconded by Dean The motion passed. In favor: Dean, Jones, Lamb, Hicks 3. NEW BUSINESS The Board discussed the value of site visits and coordinated site visits. Planner Hutnik recommended a "drive -by", or, if a visit is needed, to coordinate with him and he will talk with the applicant. They discussed the requirements of the Open Meetings Law and how if they visit a site together they cannot discuss the case together. https://danby.ny.gov/docs/bza -meeting-05-23-23/ VAR 2024-04 18 East Miller Road Parcel: 7.-1-19.3 Applicant: Joel Lamson Anticipated Action: Public Hearing, Review application; consider variance SEQR: Granting or Denying this Area Variance is a Type 2 Action requiring no further review Chair Hicks reviewed the request for a front maximum setback of 40 feet where a maximum of 20 feet is required in the Hamlet Neighborhood Zone. He read outloud the staff memo, reviewed the process for the audience present, and explained about the different neighborhood zones and their intentions. He inquired if anyone from the board needed to recuse themselves. Dean replied that the applicants are neighbors down the road, but he does not think that is an issue, and he also detailed a conversation he had with a neighbor previously where he told them about previous variances that had been granted. He also did not think this was cause for recusal. Billington also commented that he knew the Lamsons but did not think a recusal was warranted. Hicks lives less tha n a half mile away but has no concerns about his ability to be unbiased. The applicant addressed the board and explained his plans and his request. Planner Hutnik screen shared the sketch, and the applicant clarified the locations of the septic, wells, and the scale. Planner Hutnik explained that adding another unit or two to this property is a "use by right" which is only reviewed by the planning and code officers. The applicant is also going through a parallel process of subdivi ding the property via the planning board. That does not effect this decision though. Board members asked about the scale of the sketch, the boundaries of the zone, and looked at the plans on Google maps. They looked at what the setbacks for the neighboring buildings are, and discussed how the setbacks are impacted by the right of way. Public Comment: The public hearing was opened at 7:35 p.m Planner Hutnik informed the board that a neighbor had called in support of the action, and also pointed out that the date on the agenda that was sent out was incorrect. However, the notification letter with it had the correct date. There had been a previous letter from neighbors expressing concerns about set -back requirements. Alicia Brady (17 East Miller Rd) spoke in favor of the variance. She supports a deeper set-back as a way to keep things more safe. People speed on that road, things get stolen off the porches, and people lurk. They discussed the set-back policy, why it is as it is, and the fact that the board may be looking to make changes to the zoning law. Board member Leslie Connors explained how to the board is looking at possible zoning changes. Planner Hutnik provided context to the la w, explaining they may need to tweak the law in order to find some middle ground on the maximum set -backs so as to encourage more housing while also not forcing people to build in a highly limited area directly against the road. Lamb asked if the driveway across from the driveway of the applicant's property were properly aligned and the applicant thought they were. Chair Hicks encouraged the speaker to bring her concerns to the town. Delora Specker (9 East Miller) spoke in favor, also stating that vehicles speed in that area. Jeremy Holmes (23 & 43 East Miller Rd) spoke in favor and prefers this set -back aesthetically. Josh Lambert (1621 Danby Road) also spoke in favor, expressing concerns about speeding cars. The public hearing was closed at 7:48p.m. Board Questions and Discussion: Chair Hicks asked about how many residences are permitted in the location. Planner Hutnik explained there is no minimum lot size or max number of units, although site plan approval may be required. The limiting factor is often waste water. He explained th at the septic plans exist and were given to the Planning Board, but not included in this packet. Dean spoke about his own neighborhood's effort on changing the speed limits there. Area Variance Findings & Decision: The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the appeal of Joel Lamson regarding the property at 18 East Miller (tax parcel 7.-1-19.3) for an Area Variance from the zoning code section 604(6) that requires a 20-foot maximum setback in the Hamlet Neighborhood. 1. The Board agreed no undesirable change would be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. They added that this is what the neighbors requested this setback be, and that this actually feels more in -line with the character of the neighborhood. 2. The Board agreed that the benefit sought by the applicant could not be achieved by a feasible alternative of the variance. Jones added that this will make it safer than the current law so there aren't alternatives that would satisfy the safety concerns. 3. The Board agreed that the variance was substantial. It is a 100% increase of current setback. 4. The Board agreed that the variance would not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. It will have a beneficial impact. They discussed the water on site as well as landscaping and the removal and addition of trees. 5. The Board agreed that the alleged difficulty was self -created. Jones wondered if the variance should include that the setback is not to exceed 50 feet. This would give leeway to the homebuilder. Planner Hutnik suggested granting a maximum setback of 45 feet in order to give a specific number. The builder confirmed 40 feet was what was needed. They discussed if the number chosen would set a precedent. They elected to grant the variance with the number requested. They worked together with Planner Hutnik to craft the language of the motion. The BZA found that an Area Variance of 20 feet (40 foot maximum setback) from section 604(6) 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 the proposed location provides a safer situation and a building more in keeping with the neighborhood and its needs. MOTION to Pass Resolution 4 of 2024: The benefit to the applicant does outweigh the detriment to the neighborhood or community. Moved by Lamb, seconded by Jones. The motion passed. In favor: Billington, Dean, Jones, Lamb, Hicks 4. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at roughly 8:20 p.m. Cindy Katz - Recording Secretary