HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA Minutes – September 25, 20181
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES
Town of Danby Board of Zoning Appeals
Minutes of Hearing and Meeting
September 25, 2018
PRESENT:
Lew Billington
Gary Bortz
Toby Dean
Betsy Lamb
Earl Hicks (Chair)
OTHER ATTENDEES:
Town Planner C.J. Randall
Recording Secretary Alyssa de Villiers
Public Ted Crane, David Mastroberti, Mauricio Medina
The meeting was opened at 6:59pm.
CALL TO ORDER/AGENDA REVIEW
No changes were made to the agenda.
MINUTES APPROVAL
MOTION: Approve minutes from the March 27th meeting
Moved by Bortz, seconded by Lamb
The motion passed.
In favor: Billington, Bortz, Dean, Lamb, Hicks
PUBLIC HEARING
The Town of Danby Board of Zoning Appeals will hold a Public Hearing at 7:00 p.m. on September
25, 2018 at the Danby Town Hall, 1830 Danby Road, Ithaca, NY, to consider the application of David
Mastroberti, Owner and Applicant, 808 Comfort Road, Tax parcel 9.-1-13.22 for an area variance from
Article VI, Section 600(5) of the Town of Danby Zoning Ordinance. Applicant is appealing the decision of
the zoning enforcement officer denying permission to subdivide the existing 43.15-acre parcel.
The public hearing was opened at 7:02pm.
Public Comment
2
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES
Two letters were received from the public regarding this area variance appeal. One was from Russ and Kim
Nitchman (54 Bald Hill Rd.) and the other from Ted Melchen (757 Comfort Rd.); both letters were in support
of the proposed subdivision.
The applicant, David Mastroberti, gave a brief history of the property, and explained the proposed
subdivision. He also answered clarifying questions from the Board. His parents bought a large parcel in the
70s, where he grew up. After they passed away, the land passed to the children, and was later subdivided
into two parcels, one for David and one for his brother. Mastroberti now owns a single 43.15-acre property
that is on both the east and west sides of Comfort Rd. near its intersection with Lieb Rd. On the west side
of the road the land is in a horseshoe shape; this crosses Comfort Rd. and connects to an area on the east
side with a tie line, allowing the property to be considered a single tax parcel. Historically, there was a small
lot with 153’ of road frontage directly east of the road that was a separate tax parcel and was a buildable
lot, grandfathered in, having previously had a house on it. It was originally bought by his parents to keep it
from active dumping. This small parcel was then consolidated, creating the tie line, to make one parcel for
tax purposes.
Mastroberti would now like to sell the horseshoe-shaped land on the west side of the road to Mauricio and
Erika Medina, keeping the parcel on the east side of the road himself. The Medinas would like to buy that
land as two parcels so that a family member can help them with the cost of the property by purchasing one
parcel. The issue is that this subdivision would create a parcel on the east side of the road with only 153’ of
road frontage, whereas the zoning ordinance requires 200’ in Low Density Residential. Doing the
subdivision as proposed would eliminate the tie line.
Mauricio Medina also spoke, explaining again about why they would like to buy the la nd in two parcels, and
stating that they have been looking for land in the Danby area and that they have close ties with a person
who owns a neighboring property.
Planning Board Recommendation
The Planning Board has recommended the Board of Zoning Appeals “grant the Area Variance to avoid
creation of an additional, irregularly shaped lot with 47’ of road frontage required to maintain the tax
parcel’s tie line across Comfort Road.”
Randall explained that if Mastroberti did not get an area variance from the BZA, it would be possible for him
to move forward with the project by keeping the tie line and a small stretch of property on the west side of
the road. This would allow him to meet the 200’ road frontage requirement as the frontage requirement is
additive across the road with the tie line in place. She said that ownership of user roads, like Comfort Rd.,
extends to the center line of the road; a tie line will never exist across a State highway because ownership
is marked differently. Tie lines can be desirable for tax purposes.
Randall added that the Planning Board is lead agency for the environmental review; the BZA can submit
comments regarding environmental impact to them if they so choose. The subdivision will not move forward
without the area variance being granted.
Discussion of Setback
3
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES
In response to a question from Bortz about where he will put a house, Mastroberti said there is no house or
house plans currently, but he would like the ability to build, and may pass on the property. If he were to
build, he would build further back on the property where it widens out. Bortz followed up asking if he would
be okay with a minimum setback provision to maintain the rural character of the neighborhood, to which
Mastroberti said, yes, he would prefer no restrictions, but he would accept that. Crane added that that
seemed reasonable since it made sure a new house wasn’t trappe d between the two nearby houses, which
would reduce visual density.
There was also discussion of whether a limitation should be placed on any accessory buildings. Mastroberti
expressed a preference that further limitations were not added. The Board decided not to add a condition
on accessory buildings; any accessory structures built after a principal structure must follow existing zoning
requirements.
Area Variance Findings & Decision
The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the Appeal of David Mastroberti, owner of property at 808
Comfort Road (tax parcel 9.-1-13.22) for an Area Variance from the Zoning Ordinance Section 600(5) road
frontage requirement of 200 feet. The property is in the Low Density Residential Zone
1. The Board agreed that no undesirable change would be produced in the character of the
neighborhood or any detriment to nearby properties. If the house was right at the road, it would
take away from the intention of keeping density low, but with a setback condition applied, any
future house would not be squished between neighboring houses along the road. Lamb added that
the neighbors seemed not to think it would affect the feel of their neighborhood.
2. The Board agreed that benefit sought by the applicant could not be achieved by a feasible
alternative of the variance. It was felt that maintaining the tie line and a narrow strip of land on the
west side of Comfort Road to meet the road frontage requirement was not a workable alternative.
3. The Board agreed that the requested variance was not substantial. The reduction is from 200 feet
to 153 feet, or approximately a 25% reduction. With the amount of acreage involved and the
setback condition, this was not seen to be substantial.
4. The Board agreed the variance would not have an adverse impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood.
5. The Board agreed that the alleged difficulty was self-created. However, the unique conditions
relating to the original small parcel with the road frontage in question were taken into account.
Based on the above five factors, the BZA determined that the Benefit to the Applicant DOES outweigh the
Detriment to the Neighborhood or Community. A variance of 47’ from Section 600(5) of the Zoning Code
was found to be the minimum variance that should be granted to in order to preserve and protect the
character of the neighborhood and the health, safety, and welfare o f the community.
The Board added the following condition to minimize adverse impact upon the neighborhood or community ,
specifically the impact on the rural character of the area.
Condition No. 1: There will be a minimum 250-foot setback for any principal residential building from the
road center line.
4
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES
MOTION: Grant Area Use Variance
Moved by Dean, seconded by Billington
The motion passed.
In favor: Billington, Bortz, Dean, Lamb, Hicks
MOTION: Close the public hearing
Moved by Bortz, seconded by Lamb
The motion passed.
In favor: Billington, Bortz, Dean, Lamb, Hicks
The public hearing was closed at 8:13pm.
BOARD BUSINESS
Training Requirements
Hicks reminded members of the training requirements for a BZA position —four hours every year. Members
must complete a state-mandated training course in order to be reappointed. Hours can rollover if it has
been taken more frequently, and hours are kept track of by submitting them to the Town Planner or Town
Clerk. It is possible to take the training online.
Site Visits
Hicks asked members to weigh in on site visits. He suggested that they should be conducted for each
appeal, after contacting the applicant. Bortz and Randall confirmed that the application for a variance
allows for site inspections, and Randall said to be sure to mention if you go on a site visit so it can be
recorded on the record. Site visits would occur after a call to the applicant so they knew to expect
someone.
Conflicts of Interest
Hicks raised the issue of conflicts of interest. If there is a conflict of interest, or any doubt as to whether they
may be one, Randall said Board members should recuse themselves. This means they would not
participate in discussion or vote on an issue, although they may stay in the roo m if they so choose.
Voicing Opinions
Hicks asked members to feel empowered to voice their opinions on any issues that come up. He reminded
members that this board is not a consensus body but a quorum body. That means three bodies must pass
a motion for it to take effect. He asked that members feel free to lobby for a “no” vote even if they know it
will pass; this will then go into the record. Bortz added that members should also speak up about adding
any conditions they may wish to see on an appeal.
5
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:31pm.
___________________________________________
Alyssa de Villiers – Recording Secretary