Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-28-2026-BZA Minutes Final Board of Zoning Appeals Agenda Tuesday April 28 2026 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 (in-person): Marnie Kirchgessner, Zach Larkins (Town Board member) Leslie Connors (Town Board member), Dave Katz Public (virtual): Joel Gagnon, Hunter Grigg, Steve S, Mark Pruce (Town Board member), Katharine Hunter, Carmi Orenstein, SPG Cody, Barb 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:02 PM. 2. AGENDA REVIEW Chair Hicks inquired about choosing a “vice chair” to step in when he is not available. Planner Hutnik responded they are welcome to choose one. MOTION: To Appoint Elizabeth Lamb Vice Chair to the Board of Zoning Appeals Moved by Jones, seconded by Dean The motion passed. In favor: Billington, Dean, Jones, Lamb, Hicks 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: To Approve BZA Minutes from March 2026 Moved by Dean, seconded by Billington The motion passed. In favor: Billington, Dean, Jones, Lamb, Hicks 4. REVIEW DRAFT SPECIAL EVENTS LAW 1. Review Draft Special Events Law Chair Hicks explained the purpose of the meeting tonight is for the BZA to review their role in the proposed special events permitting process. They are not drafting policy nor are they taking public comment. Any comments on the drafted law should go to the Town Board Planner Hutnik provided a quick history and overview of the crafting of the law, noting its intention was to allow and regulate large gatherings. They discussed how the BZA is the only body with the authority to deviate from zoning, and for this reason, the Town Attorney recommended it be the body approving special events permits. Planner Hutnik pointed out that the law is still being drafted and has already gone through multiple revisions. They spent the next part of the meeting reading through the law line by line. Comments included:  Lamb asked if other laws had been looked at, and Planner Hutnik reviewed the various local municipalities whose laws were looked at while this one was drafted.  An application form as well as mailers for neighbors will need to be developed.  Discussion on how the time-line could be tricky to balance seeing as the board only meets monthly, may need more than one meeting to make a decision (as follow-up documents or information may be requested), and wants to ensure time to hear from neighbors. This could be challenging for applicants who will be looking to get a solid answer ASAP. Applicants will simply need to plan ahead and come to the meeting well- prepared.  In response to a question from Billington, Planner Hutnik clarified that other institutions (like the Fire Department & the sheriff) will be given opportunities to provide feedback on the law.  Questions regarding what sort of process they would use to decide to grant/not grant the approval based on the list of considerations in Section 5. They pointed out that during their current variance review process, approval can still be granted even if a few answers are “yes” or there isn’t full consensus around all the questions by all board members. How much wiggle room will be built into this process for the board to use its discretion?  Questions still remain around the idea of an “event series.” What makes something an event series? How many events can be in a series?  Much discussion around the complexity of big events, and the importance of ensuring that an applicant is prepared with a complete application where all relevant agencies have been looped in and accounted for prior to coming the BZA. If this isn’t happening, the applicant risks not getting an approval in time, or receiving a conditional approval.  They discussed section 5.K and wondered if its intent is just for another event under the same applicant or in the same space, or if it more vaguely is alluding to a similar event unrelated to the one under review.  Planner Hutnik clarified that there is no order of priority or weighing to the Section 5 considerations.  Discussion on Section 6, where the grounds of denial are written out. They felt it would be grounds for denial if another agency determined that resources were inadequate for the event.  They noted that part B in section 6 is the section most relevant to the on-going conflict at South Hill Cidery and clarified that neighbors would be invited to the hearing to make their case. They questioned how such a determination can be decided; some people think something is unreasonable, and others think it’s not a big problem. They need something tangible that they could base their decision on, something like decibel levels, or time the event must end. Brought up was the practical difficulty associated with measuring decibels.  Deliberation between the sense that they had a good amount of basis to deny requests vs feeling like they needed more specific grounds to point to in order to make a determination. Planner Hutnik briefly reviewed the parts of the law that are still being discussed and tweaked. Currently a lot of this discussion at the Town Board is focused on what makes something a special event and whether or not sound can be measured effectively. They reviewed the complexity and possible pitfalls of trying to measure decibels, and the need for a sound process when such is needed. Chair Hicks encouraged board members to remain impartial, but be willing to share their concerns as well with whatever body necessary, maybe even anonymously. He expressed his appreciation for the board’s willingness to consider things deeply. They discussed what responsibilities the board has in terms of defending their decisions. Planner Hutnik replied that the main thrust is that each application be treated fairly with all applicants being required to bring the same submittals, and that the BZA be careful to clearly state their findings. Lamb pointed out that this proposed law has less structure than their balancing tests, but noted that they are free to develop their own process as they see fit. They noted that rather than there being an appeal process, the application just goes back to the applicant who can then re-submit and try again. Chair Hicks wondered about precedents for BZAs taking on this sort of role. Planner Hutnik clarified that while there is no binding requirement that a BZA must be the board that gives these approvals, many BZAs do take on that role. Chair Hicks checked in with the other board members regarding their comfort level to be the deciders of these applications. There appeared to be a consensus that board members were comfortable with this new role, citing confidence based on previous experience that the board makes good decisions. Dean remarked that he finds anonymous commenting disconcerting. While he prefers to remain out of public discussions (for example, on Facebook) in case the topics come before the BZA, he believes it is appropriate for BZA members to address the Town Board with any concerns they may have. Chair Hicks agreed, and stated he had mentioned the anonymous commenting as a potential way to protect the board. Board members were curious to hear the experiences of the BZA of Cazenovia . Chair Hicks wondered about outreach to the Danby community and Planner Hutnik noted that he is working on a FAQ that can go on the town website. 5. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:32 PM.