Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-28-2026- BZA Minutes Final Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes Tuesday July 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 Earl Hicks OTHER ATTENDEES: Interim Planner: George Frantz Recording Secretary: Cindy Katz Public: Colleen Cowan, Andrea Hazard The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM. 1. AGENDA REVIEW There were no additions or deletions to the agenda. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION : Approve the minutes from April 2026 Moved by Jones, seconded by Dean The motion passed. In favor: Billington, Dean, Jones, Hicks 3. NEW BUSINESS Chair Hicks asked for an update on the status of the special events law. Interim Planner Frantz explained a public hearing was held, and conversations on if there ought to even be a law at all are continuing. If a law is passed, it will be different from the one previously drafted. Frantz delivered a letter, which he will forward to the BZA, to South Hill Cider stating that their events may continue as they are in line with the Town’s zoning and with Ag and Markets Guidelines. He added that he is working on a series of definitions around agriculture to be inserted into the zoning law for clarity purposes. VAR 2026-02 Address: 62 Lieb Road Parcel : 10.-1-58 Applicant : Colleen Cowan Zone District: Rural 2 Anticipated Action: Determine the application is complete; Hold public hearing; Take action on the variance request SEQR : Type 2 Applicant Request: Reduce the area of the property from ~2 acres to 1.43 acres in the Rural 2 Zone District which requires a minimum area per lot of 10 acres. The owner intends to transfer the ~0.57 acres to the adjacent properties at 66 Lieb Road and 56 Lieb Road. Chair Hicks reviewed the request, and explained that although he knows the property owners personally, he does not feel that he needs to recuse himself . No one else felt they needed to recuse themselves , either. Chair Hicks explained he had done some research and was interested to know if the applicant – who is the realtor of the owners – had legal authorization to represent them in this case . Perhaps a notarized letter or other legal document, or maybe Interim Planner Frantz had had a direct conversation with the owners? Frantz clarified that he had not had a direct conversation with them, but that they had signed the application. Frantz agreed that although this is a common occurrence, having a formal statement authorizing an agent to work on the behalf of the landowners seemed like a good idea especially in instances where the owners are not present in person or on Zoom. Cowan clarified that the owners are unavailable due to health constraints. They discussed the legal status of 62 Lieb, as it had been for sale and is now under contract for purchase by new owners. The prospective owners are aware of this application, as its approval is a condition of the contract. They reviewed the status of other properties involved in the request and viewed the sketch on the large screen. All properties are owned by the same couple through their LLC. Billington pointed out some discrepancy between the numbers, and they agreed they were comfortable proceeding. Cowan reviewed the context of the application, and explained that parts of 66 and 56 Lieb Road are encroaching on 62 Lieb. She explained that when you are on the property, these slightly changed lines feel intuitive, and that the goal of all of this is to make things more smooth for the sale and the future owners. This maybe could be achieved by encroachment agreements, but she thinks that will be more complex and difficult. If the variance is approved for 62 Lieb, then the line adjustments will be done through an annexation. Frantz confirmed the slight discrepancy between the numbers as pointed out by Billington. In fact, the total amount of land to be transferred from 62 Lieb comes to .735 acres, leaving the parcel size as 1.883 acres (and not 2.076 acres). This was a mistake in addition and did not reflect an error on the actual survey. PUBLIC HEARING The Public Hearing was Opened at 7:38 PM Neighbor Andrea Hazard, who lives across from the Zen Center, stated that this proposal was fine with her. The Public Hearing was Closed at 7:40 PM. Interim Planner Frantz stated that he had revised the variance application number to 1.883 acres . BOARD QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSIONS AREA VARIANCE FINDINGS AND DECISION The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the appeal of Colleen Cowan regarding the property at 62 Lieb Road (tax parcel 10.-1-58) for an area variance of 7.924 acres from zoning section 602(4)(a) which requires a minimum lot size of one lot for every ten acres as part of a desired boundary line adjustment between tax parcels 10.-1-57.32, 10.-1-57.31, & 10.-1-58. BALANCING QUESTIONS 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, as encroachments are difficult to deal with and this seems like the most sensible solution to the situation. Chair Hicks questioned why the northern boundary of the property was being moved further south and Cowan responded that this is the natural dividing point on the property . They discussed the setbacks and long history of the property, noting that the decision today would not impact the use of the larger adjacent property. 3. The Board agreed that the request was not substantial. They determined that the request is about 25% smaller from the current lot, but the minimum lot size i s 10 acres. They discussed the nature of the request, determining that there is only one variance request here as only one lot is becoming less conforming. 4. The Board agreed the variance would not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood. They discussed the septic system and the drive -way, concluding there were not any negative impacts. 5. They mostly agreed that the alleged difficulty was not self-created, stating that the many of the constraints existed due to changes in zoning laws , although not all of them were. They reviewed the planner’s responses to the balancing questions , with Interim Planner Frantz expanding on his responses . The BZA found that a variance of 8.117 acres from section 602(4)(a) of the zoning code 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 for the following reasons: the change enhances all three lots by eliminating encroachments without adding any physical structures. The final survey will be done once approval is given to the variance. The Board determined that the discrepancy in the acreage was not an error on the survey and therefore does not need a correction. They clarified with Cowan that 62 does have a driveway present. No conditions were given. MOTION To Pass BZA Resolution 2 of 2026: The benefit to the applicant does outweigh the detriment to the neighborhood or community due to the findings stated above. Moved by Dean, seconded by Billington The motion passed. In favor: Billington, Dean, Jones, Hicks 4. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:22 PM.