Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA Minutes - May 23, 2017 Page 1 DANBY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING MAY 23, 2017 DRAFT PRESENT: Lew Billington Toby Dean David Hall Earl Hicks Gary Bortz OTHER ATTENDEES: Recording Secretary Kelly Cecala Public Bruce Richards, Sherry Sabbatini, and Ann Michel PUBLIC HEARING to consider a request for a use variance in order to build an accessory structure as defined in Appendix 1 and allowed in Section 600, Paragraph 2a of the Town of Danby Zoning Ordinance. The variance is necessary in order to build a private garage, listed as an accessory use, and defined as subordinate and clearly incidental to the “principal building on the same lot”, on a vacant lot prior to building the principal building. This variance is for tax parcel no. 17.-1-15.22, at 17 Valley View Road, and owned by Bruce Richards. BZA Chair, Gary Bortz, opened the Public Hearing at 7:11 pm PUBLIC COMMENT & BOARD DELIBERATION: Hicks first questioned if the density for the parcel was correct as stated on the Hearing notice. Hicks suggested that it be changed it to read Section 602, which is a high density zone. Bruce Richards said that he wanted to reinvest his money into his property by building a barn/garage on his property across the street from his 1820 residence, so that it would be more desirable when he wants to sell it in the future. Richards added that he will be making it a two story structure with its own septic, water, and power, and large enough to add an apartment in the future. Hall asked why it was filed/listed as an “accessory building?” Richards stated that this was suggested from Paul in Code Enforcement and that Paul also suggested to consolidate lots, and if they weren’t then to call the building a residence and submit building plans for it. Richards said that he was told if he was not going to submit plans to add an apartment right now, then a variance would be needed. He commented that he was trying to play it straight and did not want to make that investment now and that he would be doing it over time. Richards added that he wanted to be very transparent with his intentions. Page 2 Bortz asked Richards why he did not want to just consolidate it with his main house. Richards said it was because he wanted to sell it. Bortz clarified that he can do that anytime. Richards added that he would then need to go back and request a subdivision and go through that process and expense. Bortz made the suggestion to consider adjourning without prejudice and reconvene at a later date when Code Enforcement was available to answer questions and add clarity. Richards could not understand why someone could not just build just a garage on their property. Hall said that the main issue is that the use variance path is a “very steep climb” and difficult to approve. Hicks asked if Paul, in Code Enforcement, gave Richards any alternative pathways. Richards confirmed that Paul suggested to combine the properties or to call it a residence. Hicks stated that had this been called a residence, that it would have complied. Dean asked if you could get a building permit for a residence, not complete it within the year, and still be allowed to put up the building. Billington added that he was familiar with having a construction loan from the bank but under a substantial state of completion. Hicks said that he understands that the applicant is looking to preserve his equity and increase it if possible. Hicks said that if you create a compromised situation, where a potential buyer will need a variance in order to build, then you’re just taking away value. Richards said that he was flummoxed by the process because it is an empty lot that he has a use for. Hall asked what his timeframe was. Richards said that this has already been held up for several months and that he risks losing his contractor. Richards said that he does not have a building permit yet. Billington asked if there was any way this could qualify under agricultural as the primary use? Hall provided the definition of agricultural use. Bortz asked Richards if he farms the land or if he has a farmer that does farming for him. Richards said that he only grows trees and is slowly turning it into a park. The Board concluded that it would not qualify as agricultural use. Dean said that if you have a long-range plan of adding an apartment, did you consider applying for the building permit, and just not do the work? Richards said that would be a bait-n-switch and doing something other than what you intend to do is not how he does business. He commented that the only way he can see out of this, is to combine the lots, and then it would just be a garage with a bathroom. Bortz said that he had some assessment questions and asked about postponing the Board’s vote/decision or making a motion and voting to adjourn without prejudice until they get answers for the applicant. Bortz questioned whether or not if Richards was to consolidate the two parcels into one, could he then re-subdivide the parcel into the two original parcels down the road but without going through the subdivision process since it was already an approved subdivision. Hall commented that he thought The Board of Zoning Appeals had 62 days from the Public Hearing to make a decision. Billington added that whatever is decided, to be mindful of the applic ant’s timeline and the contractors that he has lined up. Richards said that he needs to do whatever is shortest and if he needs to combine the land together, then he will do it. He stressed that he still didn’t understand what harm is being done, or what negative impact there is, in doing things in different order (i.e. building a garage/barn first) and why is it “illegal?” Richards said that he understands the purpose of zoning and protecting the neighborhood , but also commented that what he is building is very nice and useful. Page 3 Hall said that a person should be able to own 100 acres of land and just put a shed or a garage on it. Hall added that the “spirit” of what Richards is doing and the quality of the building is fine. But Hall said that the pathway presented to the Board is what is troubling and that they are trying to get sound-legal paperwork together for the applicant. Bortz said that it would make sense and that it might be cheaper to consolidate the property for tax purposes. Bortz suggested that Richards check with Jay Franklin at the assessment office as well as Paul Hansen regarding the subdivision requirements. Bortz said that if the applicant is able to get where he needs to be, without the variance, then the application can always be withdrawn. Bortz added that it would be tough to pass, based on use variance, the necessary criteria. Hall asked the applicant what he wants to do and commented that another Public Hearing may need to be held, with proper notice, if the appeal or variance request changed. Bortz told the applicant that the Board needed a little more time to get some answers from Code Enforcement and asked if they could postpone the vote/decision by two weeks. Bortz asked the Board to read and review the four (4) criteria and after a brief discussion Bortz commented that he thought that the hardship was self-created. Bortz said that granting a use variance would be an up-hill battle. After a lengthy open discussion with the Board of Zoning Appeals, Richards ultimately decided that he wanted to do whatever would take the least amount of time. Richards said that he will combine the two properties and that he will be withdrawing his appeal. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:55 pm. There was a continued discussion amongst the Board on how to define an accessory building, dual-parcel ownership, current uses versus future uses, ramifications of adding septic to buildings, and grandfather laws. The Board came up with several questions that Chairman Bortz will contact Code Enforcement about. No motion to grant or deny the use variance was made due to the application being withdrawal. BOARD DISCUSSION: Bortz recently attended the New York Planning Federation, Planning & Zoning Conference in Saratoga and had some procedural changes to discuss with the Board. Bortz asked the Board if they wanted to appoint David Hall to be acting-chairman whenever he was absent, an “unofficial” vice-chairman position. The Board was all in favor of this friendly arrangement, but knowing that a motion still needed to be made before the start of Hearing. Bortz asked if the Board members were still OK hold the Public Hearings on the last Tuesday of every month, or more frequently as needed. Kelly Cecala said that she would re-confirm what the notification timeline was for Hearings. Bortz added that a quorum is three out of the five Board members and if there is a quorum then the applicant would needs all members to say yes, or they can request to reconvene when there is a full board present. Hicks stated that procedurally having full disclosure makes sense. Hall stated what happens if an applicant wants a full board, is that allowed? Page 4 Bortz said that he suggested to C.J. to have an alternative and/or a sixth Board member. Bortz commented that as the Town gets bigger things are going to get more complicated. He said that the Board of Zoning Appeals needs to better state their reasons for approving or denying an appeal. Bortz suggested taking each of the four criteria, state it, and have an individual vote on it. Hall said that the Board’s burden/requirement is that they must consider all four criteria and suggested making the process looser as long as we demonstrate that we have considered and deliberated all four points in writing. Hall said that the minutes should reflect each time the Board talks about the four points. Bortz commented that the expectation is that the Board members should physically drive-by the parcel being appealed. He added that he would like to see an approval box added to the application form which gives the Board of Zoning Appeals members access to the parcel, Hall added without notice. Bortz asked the members to read their packets before the Hearing and to be prepared and to ask Paul or C.J. questions in advance of the meeting. Bortz asked if the Board members would be willing to pick up their packets at Town Hall. The majority of the Board members prefer to have the packets mailed to their home. Hall made a comment that Paul should not be hand-delivering packets into our mailboxes and that he might get in trouble with the Post Office. Bortz mentioned the subdivision check-list request, Cecala said she would follow up with C.J. and at the next Planning Board meeting in June. Bortz requested that if Recording Secretary Kelly Cecala is going to be absent, then to please bring it up in advance and hopefully Pamela Goddard or Paul Hansen can fill in for the note taking. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 pm. ______________________________________________________________ Kelly Cecala, Planning Board & Board of Zoning Appeals Recording Secretary