Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-09-23- BZA Minutes Final Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes Tuesday September 23 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 (Chair) OTHER ATTENDEES: John Augustine III Amy Augustine John Augustine Jr Julie Magura Charlotte Twinkle Griggs Brian Caldwell Zachary Larkins The meeting was conducted in-person and virtually on the Zoom platform 1. AGENDA REVIEW The meeting was called to order at 7:01 pm. There were no additions or deletions to the agenda. The board introduced themselves. 2. MINUTES APPROVAL MOTION: Approve the Minutes from the 6/24 & 7/22 meetings Moved by Dean, seconded by Lamb The motion passed. In favor: Billington, Dean, Jones, Lamb, Hicks 3. NEW BUSINESS Dean brought up that he saw that the BZA may be asked to grant a variance to allow the noise law. Hutnik inquired if he meant the noise law or event law, as the event law names the BZA as the reviewing agency. The BZA would be the agency granting a variance for an event under the special event law. They discussed the process for granting those requests (the BZA would grant a “temporary use permit”) and the reasoning behind involving the BZA. Lamb expressed a desire for training in order to make such a decision. They discussed the status of the law as under review by the state, and what next steps would be for the BZA. They briefly discussed the noise law. Chair Hicks congratulated Planner Hutnik on his new baby, and encouraged BZA members to receive continuing education credits. VAR 2025-05 Address: 1357 Danby Road Parcel: 2.-1-32 Applicant: Amy & John Augustine Anticipated Action: 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 reviewed the request, reading aloud from the zoning code the relevant section on Low Density Residential areas. They looked over the aerial view of the parcel and verified that no comments were called or mailed in. Applicant commented that he knows his neighbors. He tried to contact one who owns the little piece next to him but he doesn’t wish to sell at this time. Public Comment The public hearing was opened at 7:18 pm. No one spoke. The public hearing was closed at 7:18 pm. Board Questions and Discussion: Lamb asked for the reasoning behind the specific location chosen for the addition. The applicant explained he couldn’t build on the other sides of the house due to utilities, the need for egress from a window, and due to an easement from a telephone pole. He also added that they are trying to accommodate an elderly mother in building the addition. They discussed the gas line easement on the south side and how it creates a buffer. They viewed the lot from Google Street View and clarified the variance requested. Area Variance Findings & Decision The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the appeal of John and Amy Augustine regarding the property at 1357 Danby Road (tax parcel 2.-1-32) for an Area Variance of 9’4” from the zoning code Section 603(6)(b) that requires a minimum side yard setback of 50 feet for primary structures in the Low Density Residential zone. Balancing Questions: 1. The Board agreed that no undesirable change would be produced in the character of the neighborhood or be a detriment to nearby properties. The Board noted that 2/3 of homes in the immediate area do not meet the side setbacks and some are even less. Therefore, this variance is consistent with the neighborhood. They also added that the land on the side is vacant and will remain vacant. 2. The Board agreed that the benefit sought by the applicant could not be achieved with a feasible alternative to the variance. Applicant also explained they would have no egress in the multiple rooms if the addition was put on the back of the house. The Board agreed that there were no alternatives given the layout of the house, the lack of space in the front, and the easements. 3. The Board agreed that the requested variance was not substantial. An 18.7% reduction is not substantial; it is not even a quarter. 4. The Board agreed the variance would not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood. The Board commented that the applicants are not taking down trees, and that other houses are similarly set back. 5. Most on the board agreed that the alleged difficulty was self-created. Dean stated that because of the lay-out of the house and the easements, there are few options for where the addition could go. Therefore, it is not self-created. Others stated that it was self-created, but that it was understandable. The BZA found that a variance of 9 feet 4 inches from Section 603(6)(b) 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 of the following: the variance doesn’t change the character of the neighborhood, there is not a feasible alternative, and it is a necessary building addition that is also not substantial. MOTION: To Pass BZA Area Variance 4 of 2025: The benefit to the applicant does outweigh the detriment to the neighborhood or community due to the findings stated above. No conditions were found necessary. Moved by Billington, seconded by Lamb The motion passed. In favor: Billington, Dean, Jones, Lamb, Hicks. VAR 2025-06 Address: 33 Maple Avenue Parcel: 17.-1-42 Applicant: Julie Magura Anticipated Action: Public Hearing; Consider Variance SEQR: Type 2 Applicant Request: The applicant is seeking relief from section 604(6) that requires a 20 foot maximum setback in the Hamlet Neighborhood Zone District. Chair Hicks read aloud the section on the Hamlet Neighborhood Zone from the Zoning Ordinance in order to understand the stated intention of the zone in discussion. At Chair Hicks inquiry they discussed progress made by the town in possibly repealing the twenty foot maximum setback standard for the Hamlet Center and Neighborhood. They discussed where the process is and also the original intention of the standard to “force” the neighborhood to be walkable. Planner Hutnik stated that a couple other variances have been given for this same standard, and his belief that the intention of the standard is good, but it does not take into account the nuance of the neighborhood on the ground. The committee working on this process therefore decided to strike it completely, with the idea that they could lean on the design guidelines as a way to encourage desired neighborhood growth. The change still needs approval by the Town Board. Lamb pointed out that following the current guidelines would make the site unbuildable, with Planner Hutnik noting that the location where the previous home burned down is unbuildable. They examined the map of the town showing the different zones, noting the Hamlet Center and Neighborhood areas in Danby and West Danby and the differences between these areas. They discussed the geography of the street the parcel is located on. The applicant approached the board and identified on the aerial view the location of the previous foundation, an old easement, and where she hopes to build the future house and drive-way. They noted various other features on the land that complicate the site: an old well, cistern, and septic as well as a filled-in pool and a seasonal pond and other wet areas in the back of the parcel. The applicant explained that they were told that attempts to build a house near the previous foundation would require extensive excavation to make it stable enough for a house, and how building in that area would also require a number of very large, old trees to be removed for insurance purposes. The spot on which the applicant plans to build is the highest section of the parcel and is a natural clearing. It is also where the new septic was sited. Planning Board members commended her for providing thorough information. Planner Hutnik confirmed there were no calls or emails sent. Public Comment The public hearing was opened at 8:04 pm. Brian Caldwell and Charlotte Griggs, 25 Maple Avenue (next door): Spoke in favor of the proposal. Caldwell pointed out that the proposed site of the house especially makes sense due to its higher elevation. This is important considering the increase of expected flood/extreme weather events. Billington commented on the changes to the land and hydrology since he came to the area in the 1970s. Zach Larkins: Spoke in favor of the variance, and supports a change to the setback guidelines. Planner Hutnik clarified that SEQR is not required as this is a Type 2 action. The public hearing was closed at 8:10 pm. Board Questions and Discussion: Billington commented on how some of the guidelines for the Hamlet Neighborhood zoning seem off to him, and Board Members agreed that it makes sense for some of them to be looked at. He reviewed the history of the area, referencing a book about the area. Area Variance Findings & Decision: The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the appeal of Julie Magura regarding the property at 33 Maple Avenue (tax parcel 17.-1-42) for an Area Variance from the zoning code 604(6) that requires a twenty-foot maximum setback in the Hamlet Neighborhood Zone District . 1. The Board agreed that no undesirable change would be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. Board members commented that it would be a change, because many of the other homes are closer to the road, but that this was not undesirable. The variance would allow for another family home in the neighborhood to be built on the parcel. Dean pointed out that there are other houses that are set back as well. 2. The Board agreed that the benefit sought by the applicant could not be achieved by a feasible alternative to the variance. Given the character of the land and topography, the wetness, the unbuildable front spot, and the importance of siting at a higher elevation, this is the best possible site. Any alternative would involve cutting down multiple trees. 3. The Board agreed that the variance requested was substantial. The request is over seven times the setback permitted in the current zoning laws. This is substantial. 4. The Board agreed that the variance would not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. Lamb noted that since the house will be put in a naturally clear area fewer trees will have to be removed. Therefore, granting the variance can be seen as having a more positive environmental impact than denying it and building in the allotted area, where many trees will need to be removed. A single family home will be a nice addition to the neighborhood, and the proposed location makes good use of the topography and conditions present. 5. The Board agreed that the alleged difficulty was not self-created. Board members noted that an (unusable) foundation is already there and therefore, if the goal is to build a single family home, it would not be possible to build a structure according to the required setbacks. Thus, the situation was not created by the applicant. Chair Hicks asked if the applicant was told that they would need a variance? She didn’t remember but she did a lot of research, had been aware of the previous foundation, and had believed she would build there originally. Jones commented on how this variance is quite substantial from the zoning guidelines and emphasized the importance of avoiding setting a precedence for other large deviations. Board members agreed that this variance will be granted because otherwise there are no other good options for where to build a house. It is not reasonable to build a house on this lot within the required setbacks. They pointed out the existence of wetlands, septic needs, and the topographical considerations of the old foundation and swimming pool as variables contributing to the passing of this variance that are less likely to be replicated in the future by others requests. They discussed how to ensure that these findings are documented in order to avoid this appearing as a precedence for other applications. They discussed water at the site, how the applicant will be able to connect to the West Danby Water District, and that the septic from the previous owner was put in incorrectly. Discussion on crafting the language of the variance ensued. The BZA found that a variance of 130 feet from section 604(6) 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: the proposed building site best uses the topography and historical remnants of former structures that therefore make the 20 ft maximum setback not viable; additionally, considerations of the septic siting issues and topographical/environmental factors make the required twenty foot maximum setbacks impractical. MOTION: To Pass BZA Area Variance 5 of 2025: The benefit to the applicant does outweigh the detriment to the neighborhood or community due to the findings stated above. Moved by Lamb, seconded by Billington The motion passed. In favor: Billington, Dean, Jones, Lamb, Hicks 4. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:45 pm ----------------------------- Cindy Katz, Recording Secretary