No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-08-27 BZA Meeting Minutes FINAL Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes Tuesday 27 August 2024 at 7:00PM Mary Ann Barr 2021 The Town of Danby 1830 Danby Road Ithaca, NY 14850 danby.ny.gov Minutes PRESENT: Lew Billington Toby Dean Ted Jones Betsy Lamb Earl Hicks (Chair) OTHER ATTENDEES: Town Planner: Greg Hutnik Public: David and Nancy Pochily; William and Karen Wilcox Please note that the recording secretary was not present in person or via Zoom for this meeting. Meeting minutes were written up after the meeting was held using the Zoom recording. 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. 2. AGENDA REVIEW There were no additions or deletions to the agenda. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (April 2024 & June 2024) They discussed the website and accessibility of information. MOTION: Approve the minutes from April and June 2024. Moved by Dean, seconded by Jones The motion passed. In favor: Billington, Dean, Jones, Lamb, Hicks 3. NEW BUSINESS They discussed how site visits can be arranged with landowners. Planner Hutnik discouraged the BZA members from chatting with the landowners ahead of time. To avoid these appearances, he suggested the members let him know about planned visits ahead of time, and he will inform the applicant himself. Planner Hutnik updated the BZA members about upcoming training opportunities. Stay tuned for details. They discussed other various training opportunities. VAR 2024-06 2687 Danby Road Parcel: 21.-1-6 Applicant: William Wilcox Anticipated Action: Review Application; Public Hearing; Consider variance SEQR: Type 2 Applicant Request: The applicant is seeking relief from Section 603(6)(a,b) of the Zoning Law that requires fifty-foot front and side setbacks to build a house. Chair Hicks read the summary from the provided staff memo. He asked if anyone on the board needed to recuse themselves and nobody did. He read the zoning intention for Low Density Residential Zone and reviewed the process for the meeting. The applicant addressed the board and explained the parcel is for sale, he is looking to buy it if it can receive a variance, and passed out maps/surveys. The plan is to demolish the house, clean it up, and build a small house. They discussed plans for infrastructure including well and septic, as well as building limitations imposed by the location of power lines. They discussed a proposed location for a driveway on Heisey Road. Planner Hutnik shared that he received a phone call commenting on the house's potentially obscured visibility from Heisey Lane. This is true, but the visibility is limited due to a tree that will be taken down, making this less of a concern. The applicant expressed confusion about where the property line exactly begins, and thus how much of a set-back would be needed. Planner Hutnik explained the only real way to understand where the property line is to get a survey done. He explained that in some places, the setbacks are measured from the top of the road ditch, but here and in most of Danby, they are measured from where the property line begins. They discussed the requested set-back for the back of the property. Planner Hutnik said that the applicant asked originally for twenty feet, but he suggested that they err on the side of caution and maybe ask for a lower number like ten. He also clarified that this property has only front and side property lines, and not rear ones because it is a corner lot. Lamb clarified with Planner Hutnik that the applicant needs the variance to also cover both side setbacks. The BZA reminded the public attendees to please wait to express their thoughts; they will have their opportunity. They reviewed, looking at the Google view, that the variance did not need to cover the front setback from 96B, as that requirement is already met. They discussed the setback sizes needed, if surveys exist and if not, when they would be done. They discussed the larger neighborhood on Heisey and the existing pipeline's needs. PUBLIC HEARING Public hearing opened at 7:47 p.m Nancy Pochily, who lives in the adjacent house, expressed her desire that nothing encroach on their property. The applicant confirmed that the old shed near the property line will be demolished. David Pochily spoke and expressed his desire to maintain his privacy. They discussed the questions of Mr. Pochily and Wilcox assured him he would improve that corner of the property (clean up garbage, maintain hedgerow); current home is a health hazard with various animals and pests while the property across the street is also full of junk. A voicemail was received by the Planner on 8/27 from someone called “Jeness” who did not leave their full name or address. The resident asked that the DOT be consulted as the visibility is difficult exiting from Heisey Road; they also requested that the drainage along Heisey be adequate. Public hearing closed at 7:58 p.m They discussed if twenty-foot setbacks on all three sides of the house would be adequate for the applicant. Chair Hicks asked the applicant to elaborate on the power line location on the property. Chair Hicks recommended the applicant contact NYSEG about potential placement of power line poles. They concluded that with twenty-foot setbacks, the variance requested would be for thirty feet from the front and from the sides. Area Variance Findings and Decision The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the appeal of William Wilcox regarding the property at 2687 Danby Road (parcel 21.-1-6) for an Area Variance from the zoning code section 603(6)(a,b) that requires fifty-foot front and side setbacks in the Low Density Residential zone. 1. The Board agreed no undesirable change would be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. They noted that there are other homes that are as close to the road; a new home would improve the neighborhood. 2. The Board agreed that the benefit sought by the applicant could not be achieved by a feasible alternative of the variance. They noted there is no other feasible alternative due to the very small lot area and powerline running through the middle of the property prevents any feasible buildable area. 3. The Board agreed that the request was substantial. They noted it is substantial because it is a request for a 60% relief from the requirement. Given the lot size, it still feels reasonable. 4. The Board agreed the variance would not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. They stated it would be an improvement on the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood because the unsafe conditions caused by the dilapidated house would be removed. Also, the relocation of the driveway would be safer. 5. The Board agreed that the alleged difficulty was not self-created. It is not self-created because the difficulty of not being able to meet the setbacks is due to the very small lot area. Together they reviewed the correct language for the variance. Chair Hicks brought up the concern of the neighbors regarding visibility. He wondered if a condition could be to create a “green screen.” The board members discussed that the house is not visible from the neighbor house, and Jones expressed discomfort with such a condition. Chair Hicks asked Planner Hutnik how such conditions are enforced and monitored. Planner Hutnik replied that the conditions ought to be used sparingly, and did not see a strong reason to put a condition on this application, particularly because the benefit of removing an abandoned property is strongly beneficial to the neighborhood. The BZA found that a variance of 30 feet from the front setback and 30 feet from the side setbacks from Section 603(6)(a,b) 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 for the above reasons and the following: the small lot size requires a reduction of the large setbacks to develop a modestly sized house and overall the removal of the existing dilapidated home and replacement with a new home will be an improvement to the neighborhood. MOTION: To pass BZA Resolution 8 of 2024 that the benefit to the applicant does outweigh the detriment to the neighborhood or the community because overall, the removal of the existing dilapidated home and replacement with a new home will be an improvement to the neighborhood and it will be further from 96B, improving the site line entering the highway from Heisey Road. Moved by Jones, seconded by Lamb The motion passed. In favor: Billington, Dean, Jones, Lamb, Hicks 4. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned. -----Cindy Katz, Recording Secretary