Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA Minutes - November 22, 2016Danby Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of Hearings and Meetings November 22, 2016 ! Present: Gary Bortz David Hall Earl Hicks Tobias Dean Lew Billington ! Others Present: Secretary Paul Hansen Public Tucker Milton, Anita Wahlbin, Phil Tomlinson ! BZA Chair, Gary Bortz, opened the Hearing at 7:11 pm PUBLIC HEARING to consider a request for an area variance of the 200 ft. minimum road frontage requirement in Section 600, paragraph 5, of the Town of Danby Zoning Ordinance, in order to allow application to the Town of Danby Planning Board for subdivision of 119 West Miller Road, tax parcel no. 7.-1-65.2, and consolidation of portion of 7.-1-65.2 with tax parcels 7.-1-67.2 and 7.-1-67.1. 7.-1-65.2. Tucker Milton owns 7.-1-67.2 and 7.-1-67.1. The portion of 7.-1-65.2 to be acquired by Tucker Milton and consolidated with 7.-1-67.2 and 7.-1-67.1 is a flag lot with 50 feet of road frontage and 2.42 acres. The portion to continue to be owned by Jasmina Petrovic is a conforming lot with 428 feet of road frontage and 9.08 acres. ! Public Comment and Board Discussion The applicant explained that he had purchased the properties (a portion of 7.-1-65.2 and 7.-1-67.2) some time ago, and only recently filed the deeds. This was prompted by the property of Jasmina Petrovic going into foreclosure due to nonpayment of taxes. He acknowledged the irregularity of this process, but at the time it was a cash transaction between friends. There was supporting documentation and a lawyer involved that allowed the deeds to filed legally. The portion bought from Petrovic was for the driveway that he has been using for the last 30 years, and for which he has had an easement. His concern is that he would somehow lose access to his original property (7.-1-67.1) on which his house is located. His sons have persuaded him to finalize these transactions and consolidate the 3 properties in order to simplify and remedy historic lapses. From his perspective, it is an attempt to clean up property lines and legitimize historic usages. ! Anita Wahlbin, owner of the property surrounded by the Petrovic property, stated that she had no issue with the variance, but was concerned how it would affect her continued use of the driveway. She was advised to contact her lawyer to ascertain if she had an easement on the Petrovic property which would continue when the property is deeded to Milton. (She has since been able to verify that she does have an easement that will continue with the Milton property and that allows her continued use of the driveway.) ! BZA Chair, Gary Bortz, closed the Hearing at 7:25 pm ! Gary Bortz advised Tucker Milton to get a document of the apportioned past taxes due on the new parcel so he can avoid being included in Petrovic’s foreclosure. He also wondered how it came about that the new lot was allowed to be recorded before a variance, and planning board approvals. Code enforcement officer, Paul Hansen, was able to explain that there has been a change of personnel at the County assessment office that was unaware of the procedure that required a signature by the Chairman of the Planning Board before filing a subdivision. Another issue is that deeds are filed at the County Clerk’s office which is in a different building from the Assessment office. Typically, a property is subdivided first and the subdivision is filed with the Assessment office before the property is sold and a deed is filed. Since the transaction between Milton and Petrovic was informal and a cash transaction without the typical realtor or lawyer, and the delay in filing deeds, normal procedures weren’t followed, the deed was filed before the subdivision. ! It took Board members a while to wrap their heads around the legality of how this all happened, mistakes were made, and the irregularities of the transaction. The first question that arose was, “What would happen if a variance was not granted?”, and second, “Could the Assessment and County Clerk’s offices reverse their filings?”. It was agreed that although these were important questions, they would have to be dealt with by those offices. This allowed the Board to move on to the variance request. ! The Board focused on the effect the variance would have on current character and use of the surrounding area. It was generally agreed that the impact was negligible, (assuming the neighbor could verify an easement which guaranteed continued use of driveway), and with the planned consolidation of the 3 properties, historical usage would be legalized and simplified by making one lot out of three. It was further agreed that despite the irregularities of past transactions, the intention of the applicant was to clear up these irregularities. What could be built on the property created was also discussed. Code officer Paul Hansen explained that without further special approvals from the Planning Board, a one or a two family dwelling would be allowed on the property. Since Mr. Milton already has a single family on the property, the only change in usage would be to change his house into a two family dwelling. The consolidation would not only eliminate these legal landlocked parcels, but eliminate further development on the separate parcels. It was also agreed that the Board did not want grant a variance that was not part of the consolidation, since then they could be creating other buildable lots. The question was asked, “Why are we being asked to grant a variance before the Planning Board acts on the subdivision?” The answer is that the BZA is a quasi-judicial Board who is allowed to grant relief from the Zoning Ordinance, in this case the required 200’ road frontage. The Planning Board may not create an illegal lot. The variance allows the Planning Board to rule on a subdivision which involves creating a lot without the required road frontage. ! MOTION TO GRANT VARIANCE: The Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Danby approves the variance request for a variance of the 200 foot required road frontage requirement for a lot in Section 600, paragraph 5 of the Town of Danby Zoning Ordinance, for the newly created portion of tax parcel #7.-1-65.2, owned by Tucker Milton (applicant) conditional on Planning Board approval of subdivision to create said lot, and the consolidation of new lot with tax parcels #7.-1-67.1 and #7.-1-67.2. ! ! !