The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2016-10-25 BZA MinutesDanby Board of Zoning Appeals  Minutes of Hearing and Meeting  October 25, 2016 Present: Gary Bortz, Chair David Hall Earl Hicks Toby Dean Lew Billington Others Present: Acting Secretary Pamela Goddard Code Office Planner CJ Randall Public Leslie Connors, Cecelia Kurpita, Nick Kurpita, Rodney Palmer Comments from the Chair Gary Bortz made some comments, for the record. He has asked that variance request packets be sent out earlier so that the Board has sufficient time for review, at the same time that legal notice is published. In addition, the information will be somewhat more complete including tax map number and site plan information. Planner Randall will work with the BZA to standardize the information they are sent. BZA Chair, Gary Bortz opened the hearing at 7:36pm PUBLIC HEARING to consider the appeal of Richard Griffen (Cecilia Griffen Kurpita, Applicant) for Area Variance from Section 600 (6.a.), Minimum front yard depth requirement of the Zoning Ordinance at 173 Howard Road (tax parcel 12.-1-24). The Applicant proposes a 12’ x 24’ replacement equipment building within the 50’ required minimum front yard setback. Further information, including access to application materials, may be obtained at the Town Clerk’s Office, 1830 Danby Road, Ithaca, New York, 14850. Public Comment There was no written correspondence received for this hearing. None of the neighbors expressed any objection to this variance request. Members of the BZA discussed the variance request with the applicants. Cecilia Griffen Kurpita clarified that she is making the application on behalf of her father, who has dementia. The property has been in the family since 1951 when it was purchased by Richard Griffen. There was lengthy discussion regarding where Howard Road ends and whether the property is, in fact, on a town road. This was of importance, as the minimum front yard set back is typically measured from a standard, center line location on town roads. This variance request was complicated by a lack of “center line of the road” data, as the road does not exist in Tompkins County emergency response information. The applicants maintained that the property is on a town road. This is a low maintenance road, which is maintained (such a grading and ditching) by the Town of Danby Highway Department. The road is maintained for truck access related to NYSEG and logging operations related to a tree farm. The road ends where there is a cabin on the Griffen property. Planner Randall confirmed that there is some lack of clarity about the status of this section of road and that the Code/Planning office has been researching where town ownership of the road ends. Bortz supported this effort to research where town ownership extends. Randall stated that the road is not shown in relation to this property on current tax maps. She suggested that the required minimum front yard setback be measured from the property line, in this case. Discussion of where “front” is and whether this is a variance of front or side yard set back. Randall clarified that it would be 50 feet in either case. The Board asked questions about the use of the equipment building. Nick Kurpita (son-in-law of the property owner) stated that he needs a secure building to store tools and equipment. The property is in an isolated area. The Kurpitas live 75 miles away and have had a recommendation from the Sheriff’s department to store their equipment in a more secure building. An existing shed, which is dilapidated, will be torn down and a prefabricated building brought in. There was a discussion whether there was an alternate location for the replacement building. The applicants explained that there is an existing NYS DEC agricultural easement/exemption on the property as a tree farm, renewable every five years. This easement precludes any land division or development. They intend to retain this exemption, for tax purposes. This tree farm is north, east, and west of the lot where the buildings are located. Therefor, there is a limited one acre area where a structure can be erected. There is a septic system on the west side of the cabin. There is not a lot of flat land on this acre, and the ground is quite wet in some areas. The proposed location has the most even grade. No work has begun on the building site. Should the variance be granted, the building will be ordered and installed spring/summer 2017. Griffen Variance Discussion The members of the BZA discussed the variance request. The hearing remained open so that members could ask questions of the applicants. Would granting this variance create an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood? Are the benefits sought by the applicant achievable by any alternate methods? (Could this be put in an alternate location?) Is the area variance substantial? Are there any physical or environmental dangers to the neighborhood by granting this variance? Is the difficulty self- created? Each member of the BZA expressed their views on these conditions, finding no obstacles to granting the variance. There was a question from the Board as to whether the existing building, or it’s footprint, is “grandfathered” and whether the building could be replaced in kind without a variance. Randall advised that a “grandfathered” footprint is usually only valid if the building had been destroyed by fire. As the applicants wish to replace the entire structure, this can not be seen as “renovating” the existing structure. Hall noted that while the variance request is substantial it is mitigated by the removal of a dilapidated building. He additionally noted that the existing building could be renovated, and it would be closer to the road that the variance request for the replacement building. Dean noted that this would not created adverse conditions in the neighborhood. Billington noted that this will replace an eye-sore and be a more useful building. Hicks asked about any potential to add fill to an area which would permit the replacement building to be erected in a location which would meet the Zoning Code and whether the cost would be a hardship for the applicants. Kurpita responded that it would take a lot of fill to create a level spot. Hicks noted that there are no neighbors who would be harmed by this. Bortz expressed similar concerns as to whether there was an alternate method of achieving the applicants’ goals. When weighed against any impact on the neighborhood, Bortz did not believe that this was an issue. There was a discussion of whether granting this variance would establish a precedent. Randall advised the Board that Zoning decisions only establish precedence when the conditions are exactly the same circumstances, including the size of the property, etc. This would be unusual and so not much of a concern in the Town of Danby. The hearing was closed at 8:21 pm.  The Request for Variance was Approved There was a discussion of the exact wording of a motion to grant the variance. Planner Randall suggested that the variance be written that the new building have six feet separation from an existing storage structure, to meet NY Fire Code. MOTION TO GRANT VARIANCE: The Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Danby approves the variance as requested, Variance from Section 600 (6.a.), Minimum front yard depth requirement of the Zoning Ordinance at 173 Howard Road (tax parcel 12.-1-24). The Applicant may install a 12’ x 24’ replacement utility building six feet from the edge of an existing storage structure and no closer than 25 foot front yard set back from the property line; Richard Griffen owner, Cecilia Griffen Kurpita, Applicant. Moved by Billington, Second by Dean, the motion passed  Lew Billington AYE  Toby Dean AYE  David Hall AYE  Earl Hicks AYE  Gary Bortz AYE Adjourn The Meeting was adjourned at 8:32 pm !!!!!!!!!! ____________________________________ Pamela Goddard, Board of Zoning Appeals Acting Secretary