HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025_01_28 BZA Minutes Final
Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes
Tuesday 28 January 2025 at 7:00PM Mary Ann Barr 2021
The Town of Danby
1830 Danby Road
Ithaca, NY 14850
danby.ny.gov
PRESENT:
Earl Hicks (chair)
Betsy Lamb
Tobias Dean
Lew Billington
Ted Jones (via Zoom)
OTHER ATTENDEES:
Town Planner: Greg Hutnik
Recording Secretary : Cindy Katz
Zoom: Ted Jones
Public: Joe Cleary
This meeting was conducted virtually on the Zoom platform
1. AGENDA REVIEW
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
There were no additions or deletions to the agenda.
2. MINUTES APPROVAL
MOTION: Approve the minutes from 8/27/2024
Moved by Lamb, seconded by Hicks
The motion passed.
In favor: Billington, Dean, Jones, Lamb, Hicks
3. NEW BUSINESS
They mentioned how Jones needs to be sworn in after his re-appointment. They briefly
discussed training hours and the work of the regulatory committee.
VAR 2025-01 Address: 159 Nelson Road Parcel: 3.-1-45
Applicant: Joseph Cleary
Anticipated Action: Review Application; Public Hearing; Consider variance
SEQR: Type 2
Applicant Request: The applicant is seeking relief from Section 603(6)(b) of the Zoning
Law that requires a minimum side setback of 50 ft for primary structures.
Chair Hicks confirmed that none of the BZA members needed to recuse themselves,
reviewed the process that would occur during the meeting tonight, and established that
the application was complete.
The applicant reviewed his request and displayed the site plan on the large screen,
explaining the nature of the addition proposed (a sunroom). They thought they had
plenty of room on their side setbacks because their neighbors are just twelve feet from
the property line. They looked at architectural plans, and at the street view, confirming
where the addition will go. They considered the other side of the house for the addition
but understood that would not make sense considering the garage placement. They
discussed the location of the septic system, the intention to keep the fence in place, and
located the end of the property line. Currently there is about fifty feet between the end
of the deck and the end of the property line. Upon looking at the neighborhood from
the aerial view Dean commented that it does not really look like a “low density”
neighborhood.
Planner Hutnik shared the set-back analysis he conducted on the large screen. They
observed how the majority of neighboring houses have side set-backs that are less than
the required fifty feet. Chair Hicks commented that this looks like a “microzone”
where it was clearly within the neighborhood character for houses to be fairly close.
The application is asking for a ten-foot variance (reduction), but the plan shows they
only need eight feet. Planner Hutnik reminded the board that their role is to consider
granting the minimum variance needed. They reviewed potential options for the
minimum variance.
The applicant mentioned his various neighbors, and which ones he reached out to.
None voiced concerns, nor did anyone contact Planner Hutnik with concerns.
Public Comment
The public hearing was opened at 7:30 pm
No one spoke.
The public hearing was closed at 7:32 pm
Area Variance Findings & Decision
The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the appeal of Joseph Cleary regarding the
property at 159 Nelson Road (tax parcel : 3.-1-45) for an Area Variance from the zoning
code section 603(6)(b) of the Zoning Law that requires a minimum side setback of 50 ft
for primary structures.
1. The Board agreed that no undesirable change would be produced in the character of
the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties.
2. The Board agreed that the benefit sought by the applicant could not be achieved by a
feasible alternative to the variance.
- They commented with the garage in the location that it is, there are no other
Reasonable locations for the addition.
3. The Board agreed that the requested variance was not substantial.
4. The Board agreed that the variance would not have an adverse impact on the physical
or environmental conditions of the neighborhood.
- They expressed hope that the large tree would not be negatively affected.
5. The Board agreed that the alleged difficulty was not self-created.
- They noted this was a small addition, and discussed instances where they felt
the variance requested was due to a self-imposed situation. They commented
that the applicant did a nice job of working within the setbacks and keeping the
addition as compact as possible.
They discussed if the variance should be ten or twelve feet, and settled on ten feet with
the applicant’s agreement.
The Board of Zoning Appeals found that an area variance of ten feet from section 603
(6)(b) from the zoning law is the minimum variance that should be granted in order to
preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health and welfare of
the community because the design solves the owners need for additional space while
minimizing the amount of the variance while fitting with the character of the
neighborhood. They did not apply any conditions to this approval.
MOTION: To pass Resolution 1 of 2025: The Benefit to the Applicant Outweighs the
detriment to neighborhood.
Moved by Lamb, seconded by Dean.
The motion passed.
In favor: Billington, Dean, Jones, Lamb, Hicks
4. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:06 pm
__________________________ Cindy Katz – Recording Secretary