HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Board Minutes - November 24, 2020, special meetingTown of Danby Planning Board
Minutes of Special Meeting
November 24, 2020
PRESENT:
Ed Bergman
Scott Davis
Elana Maragni
Bruce Richards
Jody Scriber
Jim Rundle (Chair)
ABSENT:
Kathy Jett
OTHER ATTENDEES:
Interim Town Planner John Czamanske
Town Board Liaison Leslie Connors (Town Board member)
Recording Secretary Alyssa de Villiers
Public Ted Crane, Corinna Farbman, Katharine Hunter, Anon1
This meeting was conducted virtually on the Zoom platform.
The meeting was opened at 7:02 p.m.
(1) CALL TO ORDER
(2) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
Complete sketch plan discussion & make recommendation to the BZA regarding requested
area variances for proposed minor subdivision
Location: 89 Layen Road, Tax parcel 8.-1-1.13
Zoning: Low Density (LD) Residential Zone
Applicant: Corrina Farbman
Proposal: Subdivide an approximately 4 acre parcel into one parcel of 2 acres that will retain the
existing dwelling and a new parcel of possibly less than 2 acres for a proposed dwelling. The
proposed new parcel would not meet the 200’ frontage requirement, would not meet the setback
1
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
requirement of 50’on two sides, and may not meet the area requirement of 2 acres minimum due to
the area of the parcel potentially under the road right of way. An area variance appeal has been
submitted to the BZA; recommendation requested from Planning Board.
Chair Rundle said this was a special meeting of the Planning Board that was set to complete their
consideration of the proposal. He explained that the Board’s job was to make a written recommendation to
the BZA about whether they should approve or disapprove the application. He said the Board had realized
at the previous meeting that they needed to know the location of the extant septic system to make sure it
did not cross the proposed property border and they hoped to get some guidance from the Health
Department as to where an additional septic field might be located.
The applicant, Corrina Farbman, said she had contacted the Health Department and the Town Clerk, but
nobody had the location of the septic system on file. She added that Gaggle, a septic company, had
serviced the system but not installed it; she could ask them to figure out where it is.
Based on this information, Rundle said the Planning Board needed to tell the BZA it did not have the
necessary information. He said Interim Planner John Czamanske had prepared a draft resolution with a
number of options based on what the Board learned at this meeting.
Bruce Richards said he appreciated Planner Czamanske’s work on the draft resolution, and the Board
wanted to be compassionate and reasonable, but the fact was the project did not fit Danby’s zoning
regulations and he was concerned about the effect on the neighbors. Without the septic or well location, he
thought the project was dead in the water. He moved to adopt the draft resolution in the negative—to
recommend the BZA does not grant the variances.
Rundle read part of the draft resolution stating that due to insufficient information the Planning Board could
not determine whether the location of the existing septic would preclude the creation of a new lot, and he
suggested the Board therefore recommend the BZA not hear the appeal until they had the location of the
existing septic and well. Richards said he wanted to be careful not to create false hope and kick the can
down the road and so was being forthright about his reading of the balance of the issues as well. Planner
Czamanske said it would be prudent to adopt as much of the Board’s recommendation as possible. He said
if the BZA hears the case, they may decide they have enough information to consider the questions on the
variances. Rundle seconded Richard’s motion and opened the floor for discussion.
Scott Davis said, even discounting the necessary well and septic information, and as much as they would
want to be kind to the applicant, the situation was less an appeal for a variance than a request to dismiss
the Town’s zoning. He thought a kindness to the applicant represented a potential cruelty to other Danby
residents in that granting the variances could set a precedent and mean others were vulnerable to a house
between them and their neighbors that they assumed was not possible. He thought, given all the
parameters of the situation, the Board should recommend the proposal be denied regardless. Rundle later
added, along similar lines, that he was concerned that if somebody buys a house with land adjoining it and
2
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
3
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
they think the zoning law means their neighbor cannot subdivide, but then all of sudden you can get a
bunch of variances and indeed subdivide, it would not be fair and could erode the zoning law.
Elana Maragni said she thought the draft resolution captured the Board’s compassion and considerations
but also highlighted their concerns. She thought the number of variances was unacceptable and it was time
to vote nay.
Jody Scriber said that after reading the draft resolution, looking at the number of variances, and not having
the information they need, she did not see how they could move forward right now.
Ed Bergman said he knew it was a fast turnaround, but they were not the ones who set the timeline. The
applicant set the timeline to have the information by this week, and she did not. The way it was, and with
the lack of information, he did not support all the variances, so he would support the motion.
Ms. Farbman asked the Board to put in that she can go for a special permit. She said she would not give up
or accept that her parents are not allowed to offer her somewhere for her to place a house for her and her
son’s future, which the Board is choosing to take away from her. Rundle said this was only a
recommendation to the BZA. Ms. Farbman said she would reapply and ask for a special permit; Chair
Rundle said she could to that, but that was something separate.
MOTION: Adopt the resolution recommending the BZA deny the variances with the deletion of paragraph
9(b)
Moved by Richards, seconded by Rundle
The motion passed.
In favor: Bergman, Davis, Maragni, Richards, Scriber, Rundle
(3) ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:22 p.m.
___________________________________________
Alyssa de Villiers – Recording Secretary
Planning Board Resolution #21 of 2020, Recommendation to BZA re Farbman appeal 89 Layen Rd.
1
Town of Danby
Planning Board Resolution Number 21 of 2020
November 24, 2020
Recommendation to the Board of Zoning Appeals regarding
Appeal by Corinna Farbman, 89 Layen Road, for multiple area variances for
creation of a substandard lot on a portion of tax parcel 8.-1-1.13
in the Low Density Residential Zoning District
1. Whereas, Corinna Farbman has submitted a sketch plan for a subdivision of tax parcel 8.-
1-1.13 at 89 Layen Road, located in the Low Density Residential Zoning District which
subdivision and proposed development would require multiple variances; and
2. Whereas, the Zoning Ordinance provides for appeals of dimensional standards according
to the area variance review processes of NYS Town Law 267-b; and
3. Whereas, from the subdivision process an appeal may be made to the Board of Zoning
Appeals, Ms. Farbman has made such an appeal, and the BZA Chairman has requested a
written recommendation from the Planning Board as required by the Subdivision and
Land Division Regulations, Section 601-E1; and,
4. Whereas, while being a pre-application sketch plan which does not show all of the
information which would be required for a minor subdivision plat and so not possible for
the Planning Board to know of many aspects which would come to bear on consideration
of a proposed subdivision, it is possible to assess certain things based on what is shown
and what limited other information available in order to provide guidance to the Ms.
Farbman and make a written recommendation to the Board of Zoning Appeals regarding
the multiple variances requested; and
5. Whereas, the Planning Board appreciates the quantity and quality of affordable housing
in the Ithaca area is limited, and appreciates the desirability of having multi-generational
housing in close proximity; and
6. Whereas, Section 101 of the Subdivision Regulations states they are intended to guide
and protect the community's physical, social, and aesthetic development in accordance
with the Town of Danby Comprehensive Plan, and to help the Town of Danby grow in an
orderly, efficient, and economical manner and, states among other goals Section 101-C:
“that proposed lots be so laid out and of such size as to be in harmony with the
development pattern of the neighboring properties and with the character and contour of
the land”; and
7. Whereas, lots approved by the town will likely last as created long after the individuals
involved have moved on; and
Planning Board Resolution #21 of 2020, Recommendation to BZA re Farbman appeal 89 Layen Rd.
2
8. Whereas, the Zoning Ordinance states (sec. 504): “No lot shall hereafter be reduced or
altered, by subdivision or otherwise, so as to result in a lot that does not meet the
minimum area or yard requirements prescribed by this Ordinance.”; and
9. Whereas, the Planning Board has requested that the applicant provide information
regarding the location of the existing well and septic systems on the property, and if
possible to determine where new well and septic systems might be located according to
the Health Department regulations, but such information has not been provided and
therefore until and unless such information is provided the Planning Board cannot
determine whether the location of the existing septic system would preclude the creation
of a new lot (without the prior construction of a new septic leach field) given that a septic
system must be located entirely on the lot which it serves; and
10. Whereas, while Planning Board members may and do sympathize and empathize
generally with those seeking to build dwellings near other family members to foster
current and future interrelations, and specifically with Ms. Farbman’s situation as she has
described at three board meetings, the Planning Board and the Board of Zoning Appeals
must objectively apply the zoning and subdivision standards as they presently exist; and
11. Whereas, both boards must consider and weigh precedence of their decisions for future
applications, but especially the Board of Zoning Appeals, which is a quasi-judicial body
which is bound to consider precedent when deciding appeals,
Now, Therefore, Be it Resolved That:
1) As a subdivision matter, and while it may not approve or disapprove a subdivision sketch
plan, the planning board feels that this proposed subdivision as currently sketched would
not result in lots laid out and of such size as to be in harmony with the development
pattern of the neighboring properties and with the character and contour of the land; and
2) As proposed, this application would result in a lot that does not meet the minimum
frontage requirements, may not meet the lot area requirement, and the proposed house
placement would not meet the side yard requirements on two sides, which requirements
are prescribed by the zoning ordinance:
a. A minimum of 200 feet of frontage is required in the LD zone, while 140 feet is
proposed; and
b. Lot area calculations are to exclude the area under a road right of way (ROW);
while it is not clear from a previous survey if the parent parcel area of 4.03 acres
includes or excludes such ROW area, if the old survey’s 4.03 acre notation does
include the ROW area, it is clear that one or both of the proposed new parcels
would not be able to meet the area requirement; and
c. The proposed location of a new dwelling would not meet the 50 foot side yard
setback on both the west and east sides; and
3) Resolved that because no specific information has been provided as to the location of the
existing septic system and well or that information has been provided which shows the
Planning Board Resolution #21 of 2020, Recommendation to BZA re Farbman appeal 89 Layen Rd.
3
septic extends onto the area of the proposed lot, the Planning Board recommends that the
Board of Zoning Appeals not hear the appeal until, or not determine that the appeal
documentation be complete, until such time as Ms. Farbman has provided the location of
the existing septic system and well, and, further, if either system is found to be located in
the area of the proposed new substandard lot that Ms. Farbman would need to revise her
sketch plan in order to take such circumstance into account and present such revised plan
to the Planning Board so that it may consider a revised recommendation to the BZA prior
to being heard by the BZA.
4) As to the five area variance test criteria of Town Law 267-b, the Planning Board believes
that overall, the detriments likely outweigh the benefits to the applicant after considering
the five tests:
a. That, as to undesirable changes: The town has created its zoning standards for
various reasons, which provide minimum lot area, set back and other basic
dimensional standards. On its face, a substandard sized and very oddly shaped lot
would by definition be an undesirable change. Section 504 of the zoning is very
specific: “No lot shall hereafter be reduced or altered, by subdivision or
otherwise, so as to result in a lot that does not meet the minimum area or yard
requirements prescribed by this ordinance.” This particular proposal may also
produce a less than desirable change in the character in the immediate
neighborhood and in fact seems to not even be desirable for the applicant who no
doubt would prefer to have more land to work with; and
b. As to alternatives: there clearly are alternatives to this proposal, both as to a
subdivision application and an appeal. One alternative mentioned almost
immediately by the Planning Board at its meeting in October was for the applicant
to consider an addition to the existing house, either simply as such (which would
only require a building permit) or as a full second dwelling (by special permit).
There appear to be enough area and dimension to the existing lot to allow for such
alternatives without seeking for the zoning standards to be varied. It might also be
possible to build a second dwelling on the same lot (by special permit) though a
second principal building will be difficult to site on the property with itself raising
non-conformity issues or be aesthetically and/or financially unacceptable to the
owners. While the applicant may have gone through her own decision processes
in order to reject all of these alternatives for herself, the Planning Board and the
Board of Zoning Appeals must nonetheless look at the feasible alternatives
available to the applicant before considering varying the standards. Further, and
while it would still require variances, less variances would be needed for a
proposal to build on the back of an oddly shaped lot such as this, where a house
could very likely be built in back within the setbacks; ignoring for a moment the
deficient frontage and likely also area; and
c. As to being substantial: The number of standards which are requested or would
need to be varied are together quite substantial: frontage, both side setbacks,
possibly lot area. The frontage requested is 140’ which is 30% less than required
(60/200). The side setbacks requested are 30’ and 40’ of 50’ required, so 40% less
Planning Board Resolution #21 of 2020, Recommendation to BZA re Farbman appeal 89 Layen Rd.
4
on one side and 20% less on the other side. It is not yet known if and to what
degree the proposed lot(s) might be deficient as to area; and
d. The proposal may have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and
e. This difficulty is indeed self-created, as the very proposal is such that it cannot go
forward without these multiple variances; and
5) In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the Planning Board does hereby recommend that
the Board of Zoning Appeals deny the multiple variances sought for this proposal.
Approved November 24, 2020
________________________________________
James R. Rundle, Chairperson