Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025_06_24 BZA Minutes Final Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes Tuesday 24 June 2025 at 7:00PM Mary Ann Barr 2021 The Town of Danby 1830 Danby Road Ithaca, NY 14850 danby.ny.gov MINUTES PRESENT: Lew Billington Tobias Dean Ted Jones Betsy Lamb Earl Hicks OTHER ATTENDEES: Town Planner Greg Hutnik Recording Secretary Cindy Katz Public: Kari Krakow, Gary Burgess Zoom: Hasham Qaisar The meeting was called to order at 7 p.m. 1. AGENDA REVIEW There were no additions or deletions to the agenda. 2. MINUTES APPROVAL MOTION: Approve the minutes from January and March of 2025 Moved by Lamb, seconded by Dean The motion passed. In favor: Billington, Dean, Jones, Lamb, Hicks Chair Hicks gave a reminder about training hours. Planner Hutnik noted that he will be away in August. If there will be a meeting in August, John Czamanske, former interim planner for Danby, will fill in for him. 3. NEW BUSINESS VAR 2025-03 Address: 1562 Coddington Road Parcel: 6.-1-28.12 Applicant: Katherine Krakow Anticipated Action: Review Application; Public Hearing; Consider Variance SEQR: Type II Applicant Request: Applicant is seeking a land annexation of 1.25 acres that would result in reducing the seller’s land to approximately 8.5 acres, less than the 10 acres per lot required in section 601(6) of the Zoning Ordinance. Chair Hicks gave an overview of the request and inquired if anyone on the board needed to recuse themselves. No one did. Gary Burgess, the owner of the land discussed, explained that he has owned the property since the year 2000, sold the applicant Kari some land five years ago. She built her home there three years ago and is now interested in purchasing a little more land from him. He hopes to build a home at some point and wants to ensure that he will retain that right. She wants to purchase the additional land in question in order to ensure that it stays private, and because it is a sunny spot that she hopes to garden on. Planner Hutnik explained that usually this sort of “land swap” is classified as a land annexation that typically only requires administrative approval. However, because both lots are less than ten acres, they are already “non-conforming” to their zoned district (Rural 1) and this approval will make one lot even more non- conforming. While these pre-existing lots have all the same rights as any lot in Rural 1, a variance is still required before the annexation can occur. The Planning Board was also required to review this case in order to classify it as a land annexation. They discussed if there were other logical classifications this could have fallen under. Public Comment: The public hearing was opened at 7:17 p.m. No one spoke. There were no emails or phone calls received prior from the public. The public hearing was closed at 7:18 p.m. Board Questions and Discussion: They reviewed the history of land, mentioning previous processes with the town for the subdivision and also with the county. The planner was not aware of any existing conditions placed on the land. They briefly discussed the wet areas on the property, confirming she cannot build another house on the parcel, and that the stream is protected. Area Variance Findings and Decision: The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the appeal of Katherine Krakow regarding the property at 1562 Coddington Road (tax parcel : 6.-1-28.12) for an Area Variance from the zoning code section 601(6) of the Zoning Law that requires ten acres per lot in the Rural 1 zone. 1. The Board agreed no undesirable change would be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties, noting that the change would not be visible. 2. The Board agreed that the benefit sought by the applicant could not be achieved by a feasible alternative to the variance? 3. The Board agreed that the requested variance was not substantial. They agreed that a 13% reduction in size for the larger property was not substantial. [Note: In the subsequent discussion, it was determined that the application is a 15% reduction in the required lot area minimum.] 4. The Board agreed that the variance would not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. They noted that the variance might be an improvement as the new owner seems committed to being a good steward of the land and is planning on planting native species. 5. The Board agreed that the alleged difficult was self-created, noting that the applicant does not have to purchase the land. They discussed which property would be receiving the variance and that the request is a 15% reduction in the required lot area minimum of ten acres. They noted that the requested variance of 1.5 acres is being calculated from the required ten acre minimum of the zone. The Board of Zoning Appeals found that an area variance of 1.5 acres from section 601 (6) 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 it does not change the character of the neighborhood, doesn’t have adverse environmental impacts, and the property was already configured this way prior to the zoning. They did not add any conditions to the variance. Planner Hutnik explained he will put in a note to show clearly in the records that the variance being requested is from the ten acre standard, and not giving the applicant more “wiggle room.” MOTION: To Pass Resolution 2 of 2025: The Benefit to the Applicant Outweighs the detriment to neighborhood because of the reasons stated Moved by lamb, seconded by Dean The motion passed. In favor: Billington, Dean, Jones, Lamb, Hicks Hutnik directed the applicant to contact the surveyor, have them stamp the survey, and then send it back with two copies to the planner. Once that is complete, the annexation process can be done. The applicant asked if there is an expiration on when she has to do this and was told there is not, and she should wait until they are ready to do the sale before they file with the county. They reviewed what is required in that zoning district regarding building. A site plan review is required in all rural 1. VAR 2025-04 Address: 365 Troy Road Parcel: 3.-1-9.3 Applicant: Hasham Qaisar Anticipated Action: Respond to Planning Board Request to be Lead Agency for Environmental Determination; Review Application; Consider Scheduling Public Hearing SEQR: Unlisted Applicant Request: Subdivide the 3.8-acre property into two lots, one of which would be ~0.2 acres less than the 2-acre lot area minimum Billington went to get his water. Hicks reviewed the request, noting the need for SEQR which the BZA does not often do. The applicant spoke over Zoom, explaining his desire to subdivide into two parcels, and that one that will be less than two acres. He noted the presence of nearby plots that are less than two acres. He is happy to do whatever is needed in order to keep everything above board and proper. Before the subdivision can be approved, the variance needs to be given. SEQR also has to happen in this case because it’s a subdivision. With both the BZA and the Planning Board involved, both of them could do the environmental review, or they could agree that one of the boards do it. The Planning Board has made that offer, and today the BZA is to respond to that offer via a motion. Assuming the BZA is OK with the Planning Board being lead agency and doing the review, the Planning Board will start environmental review in July. The Planning Board will also provide a letter of recommendation regarding the application to the BZA. This step is mandated by NYS. After this, the BZA will discuss the variance request at their next meeting in July. Although the steps seem cumbersome, if they are not followed the application would be vulnerable to disputes. Lamb asked about the impact of the gas line? The lot line is as it is because it mostly puts the gas line easement on one of the lots, simplifying things. They noted the elevation drop and the burial ground. Planner Hutnik explained this “burial ground” not something pre-colonial/indigenous. Rather, according to the town’s lawyer, it appears to have been reserved as a burial plot, but was possibly never actually used. MOTION: The BZA has no Concerns with the Planning Board Taking Lead Agency on this Review. Moved by Lamb, seconded by Jones The motion passed. In favor: Billington, Dean, Jones, Lamb, Hicks MOTION: The BZA Requests a Written Recommendation from the Planning Board on this Application. Moved by Jones, seconded by Billington In favor: Billington, Dean, Jones, Lamb, Hicks They reviewed the process for the application, noting that the Planning Board will write a recommendation during their July meeting. This will be passed to the BZA for their July meeting. This will also likely include the outcome of the environmental review. They discussed how the variance can be given before environmental review is completed, as well as if any wetlands on the property would impact the subdivision and under what context a site plan review is needed. They stated their intention to have a public hearing next month on the case. Planner Hutnik showed the graphic that he made showing the lot sizes in the area, and they discussed the neighboring area. 4. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. ---- Recording Secretary, Cindy Katz