Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA Minutes - October 7, 2020Town of Danby Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of Special Meeting October 7, 2020 PRESENT: Lew Billington Gary Bortz Toby Dean Betsy Lamb Earl Hicks OTHER ATTENDEES: Interim Town Planner John Czamanske Recording Secretary Alyssa de Villiers Public Mark Anbinder, Dana Berger, Marc Berger, Leslie Connors (Town Councilperson), Dave Tedeyan, Olivia Vent This meeting was conducted virtually on the Zoom platform. The meeting was opened at 7:09pm. MINUTES APPROVAL MOTION: Approve minutes from the September 22nd meeting with minor edits for clarity Moved by Dean, seconded by Billington The motion passed. In favor: Billington, Bortz, Dean, Lamb, Hicks OLD BUSINESS VAR-2020-06 Consider Area Variance Project: Installation of ground mounted solar energy system Location: 165 East Miller Road, Tax Parcel 7.-1-98 Applicant: Dave Tedeyan Anticipated Board action(s) this month: Continued deliberations from 9-23-2020 meeting (public hearing has been closed), vote on variance Project Description: The applicant proposes to install a ground mounted solar system that does not meet the 50’ side setback and 75’ rear setback requirement of the Low Density Residential District (Zoning Ordinance Section 600-6) and the setback requirement of ground mounted solar 1  BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES  collection systems (Zoning Ordinance Section 714iii(a)(ii)). Therefore, the applicant has requested an area variance from the above referenced sections of the Zoning Ordinance. Per the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), as well as Local Law #2 of 1991, (Providing for Environmental Review in the Town of Danby), the action is considered a Type 2 Action. No further environmental review is required. Per an intermunicipal agreement between Tompkins County and the Town of Danby, the proposed action is exempt from county review under New York State General Municipal Law Section 239. Chair Hicks explained that this meeting was called to continue the case from the September 22nd meeting. The public hearing was concluded at the previous meeting. In the interim, the Board gathered information. At this meeting he said the Board may ask questions, but there would not be further dialogue outside of the Board members. He thanked everyone for their patience with the process. He also read a statement saying it had been brought to his attention that there were concerns a Board member might have preconceived bias based on comments shared from a third person familiar with both parties. He said he had discussed this with the Board member in question and decided they had demonstrated that they would be able to make a fair and reasonable determination; thus, all Board members would be participating in the meeting. He said the Board’s responsibility was to balance the benefit to be realized by the applicant against the potential detriment to the health, safety, and general welfare of the neighborhood or community. Dave Tedeyan, the applicant and the engineer on the project, said they had originally been requesting a 15’ side setback, but now they were requesting a 25’ side setback; the rear setback request of 35’ had not changed. Betsy Lamb referenced an email from Mr. Tedeyan, sent on October 6, 2020, stating that the shading of the solar array would not change between a 25’ and a 30’ side setback. She asked whether Mr. Berger, the property owner, was happy moving it 5’ further west. Mr. Tedeyan said that, while any movement to the west would have slight decreases in efficiency, between 25’ and 30’ would be extremely minimal; a 25’ setback would keep the array in the field area rather than pushing it into the lawn. Olivia Vent (194 E. Miller Rd.) said siting the array with the 30’ side setback would make a difference to her, and she would appreciate it. In response to a question from Lamb, she said ideally there would still be some screening, but she would be comfortable without it at a 30’ side setback. Lamb noted that this seemed like a compromise. Hicks added that, in relation to a conversation the applicant had with Vent via email about screening, the BZA would not be able to require an applicant to plant trees anywhere but on their own land. He briefly discussed screening. Toby Dean said that if they required a screen, he thought they should be very specific and include location, number, and type (e.g. deciduous shrub). He noted the back of the solar array would be 8’ high, rather than the previously mentioned 10’. The Board reviewed Section 714 of the Zoning Ordinance, and Planner Czamanske clarified that only numerals i. “All Systems” and iii. “Ground-Mounted Systems” applied in this case. 2  BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES  Gary Bortz asked, in relation to the rear setback, how tall trees would need to be on the adjacent property to interfere with the array. Mr. Tedeyan said the array should be twice as far away as the height of the tree. Bortz noted that someone’s plantings on that property could then hinder solar access quickly; he said he was trying to protect the owner. Mr. Tedeyan said that is always a potential concern, but he does his best to site arrays where it makes the most sense at the time. Bortz asked about situating the array closer to the road, but compliant with the 50’ front setback, as that would not be affected by the poplar tree on the property, would meet the zoning requirements, and maybe provide harmony in the neighborhood. Mr. Tedeyan said the poplar tree would still affect it. He said he had not taken shading measurements there because the southern part of the property made more sense and the Zoning Ordinance asks that arrays not be placed in the front yard. He also thought it would be more visible from the road in that location. Mr. Berger said he felt the outcome of the hearing would impact Mr. Tedeyan’s business in Danby. He said he had been deferring to him as he has the expertise. He questioned the visual difference for Ms. Vent between a 25’ or 30’ side setback. He said he thought they could agree on the benefits of solar and renewable energy. If one location did have less benefit over the life of the installation, he thought there should be a good reason to make that change. He said he had no aversion (to a 5’ greater setback) if Mr. Tedeyan said the difference was inconsequential. He said the array being 5’ into his mowed area was less of a factor for him than the potential reduction in efficiency. Lamb suggested either a 30’ side setback with no screening or a 25’ setback with screening. She moved to grant a variance with a 30’ side setback and 35’ rear setback; the motion was seconded by Dean. She said, given Mr. Tedeyan’s recommendations and knowledge of shading, this would minimize the variance and seemed acceptable to both parties. Area Variance Findings & Decision The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the appeal of Dave Tedeyan regarding the property at 165 East Miller Road (Tax Parcel 7.-1-98) for an Area Variance from the Zoning Ordinance Sections 600-6 and 714iii(a)(ii). The property is in the Low Density Residential Zone. The Board had previously considered the following five criteria, but now reconsidered them with a 30’ side setback and 35’ rear setback. 1. The Board was split on whether an undesirable change would be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. Billington thought not. Bortz still felt yes. Dean and Lamb felt less now with the new location. Hicks thought it was a much less undesirable change to the neighborhood as compared to a 15’ side setback. 2. The Board was split on whether the benefit sought by the applicant could be achieved by a feasible alternative of the variance. 3  BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES  Bortz thought the applicant could move the array to a legal, permissible area. He thought maybe the poplar tree could go. He said they needed to think of the setbacks in terms of any parcel, and he was concerned about setting a precedent. Lamb felt the 30’ option was the feasible alternative. Dean said that, given the shading issues and avoiding proximity to the road and the front yard, there was not another feasible alternative. Billington said he really understood Bortz’s point, but he agreed with Dean that there was not a feasible alternative. Hicks said that, given the information they had and the input from the designer, there was not a good alternative to the motion. 3. The Board agreed that the requested variance was substantial. The rear setback was still 35’ as compared to the 75’ requirement. Hicks thought the side setback was now less substantial (30’ as compared to the 50’ requirement). 4. The Board agreed the variance would not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Board had previously answered this question “no,” and still felt the answer was “no.” While a change might be produced, it would not be negative to the physical or environmental conditions. In the previous meeting, Dean had said he did not feel solar panels were an adverse impact. Hicks added that more solar is important, and solar electric does not have an adverse impact; he said the process is concerned with interpreting and honoring the code. 5. The Board agreed that the alleged difficulty was self-created. As it was the property owner’s decision to put in solar, the Board felt it was of their own creation. MOTION: Grant the variance with a 30’ side setback and a 35’ rear setback with no requirement for screening. Moved by Lamb, seconded by Dean The motion passed (4 yeas, 1 nay). In favor: Billington, Dean, Lamb, Hicks Against: Bortz Based on consideration of the five area variance criteria, the BZA determined that the Benefit to the Applicant DOES outweigh the Detriment to the Neighborhood or Community, and granted approval to a variance for construction of the solar energy system with a 30' side setback (vs. 50’ required) and a 35' rear setback (vs. 75’ required) with no conditions. Chair Hicks said it was his understanding that a future application would need to be almost identical in order for a precedent to have traction. 4  BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES  5  BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES  ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. (moved by Dean, seconded by Billington) ___________________________________________ Alyssa de Villiers – Recording Secretary