Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA draft minutes, 2-22-22 DRAFT1 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DRAFT MINUTES Town of Danby Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of Hearing and Meeting February 22, 2022 DRAFT PRESENT: Toby Dean Ted Jones Betsy Lamb Earl Hicks ABSENT: Lew Billington OTHER ATTENDEES: Town Planner David West Recording Secretary Alyssa de Villiers Public Leslie Connors (Town Board member), Mark Constas, Stephen Gibian, Thresa Gibian, Katharine Hunter (Town Board member), Wendy Millroy This meeting was conducted virtually on the Zoom platform. MEETING WITH STAFF (TOWN PLANNER) Planner West said he will be working in the coming year on several planning projects that will require small subcommittees. The topics will include short-term rentals of accessory buildings, laws for marijuana- focused businesses, the subdivision ordinance, and design guidelines for hamlet and cluster housing. He asked Board members to contact him if they are interested in working on any of these. The meeting was called to order at 7:07 p.m. MINUTES APPROVAL MOTION: Approve the minutes from October 26, 2021 Moved by Lamb, seconded by Dean The motion passed. In favor: Dean, Jones, Lamb, Hicks NEW BUSINESS VAR-2022-1 2 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DRAFT MINUTES Location: 1360 Coddington Rd., Millroy/Constas Residence Parcel: 6.-1-1.31 Applicant: Mark Constas Anticipated Board action(s) this month: Public Hearing, Review Planning Board Recommendation, Consider amending 1992 variance conditions. 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. Planner’s Description Planner West explained that the case started at the Planning Board after the applicant put forth a request to build a second home on the ten-acre lot. At the time of the public hearing, it was discovered that, when the lot was created in 1992, it was granted a variance from the BZA that allowed a reduction in frontage width—it had 120’ frontage rather than the required 150’—with the condition that the lot have only a single- family dwelling and no further subdivisions. Because that variance information was filed with the parent parcel, West had no information about it until a neighbor brought it to his attention. He said the Planning Board recommended the BZA take a look at the site and conditions and consider if there might be other conditions that could adequately protect the neighborhood while allowing a second dwelling. He said the case can be considered as an amendment of the conditions rather than a whole new variance according to the Town’s attorney. Since the variance was issued, both the zoning and the ownership have changed. The owners who did the subdivision said they would put a deed restriction on the lot, but that did not happen, so the current owners had no way of knowing there was a condition on the property when they purchased it. At the time the variance was granted, the parent lot had a four-dwelling-unit house, which exceeded the number of units allowed, and this was one of the reasons given for restricting the number of houses on the lot in question. The fourplex has now been converted back to single-family. This project is being considered under the old zoning, prior to the recently adopted zoning update, and the applicant has six months to move towards approval under the old zoning. Under the old zoning, five acres and 200’ frontage was required; under the new zoning, ten acres is required but without a frontage requirement. Board member Lamb clarified about the three relevant zoning laws. Board member Dean clarified that this was not a subdivision. Board member Jones asked about what the Board is ruling on today, and West said this could be considered a re-review of the original variance request, but the variance was granted and the subdivision already allowed, so it makes more sense to consider a resolution to (1) amend the approval to remove the condition, (2) amend the approval to remove and replace the condition, or (3) do nothing, which would leave the existing condition. Chair Hicks described the Board’s process to the applicant. He noted this is a Type II action with no further environmental review required under the State Environment Quality Review Act (SEQR). To pass, a vote would need a majority of the full Board, or three members, despite one member being absent. A decision must be made within 62 days. No Board members expressed a conflict of interest. 3 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DRAFT MINUTES Applicant’s Description The applicant, Mr. Constas, said their intention is that building another small dwelling would allow them to remain on the property in their retirement while one of their children returns home. He said they have tried to make the footprint small. It is located between two groves of trees, well-situated between the property lines, and well off the road; he felt the visual impact would be modest. Ms. Millroy agreed that it would not be very visible and said there would be no problem planting more trees. The public hearing was opened at 7:35 p.m. Public Comment Planner West said that no written correspondence was received in response to the BZA meeting. A letter from Stephen Gibian was received in response to the original application. West read the letter aloud. It noted the original variance considered the rural character, which the community was worried about losing, and said development pressure has only continued; he would like the rural character preserved as long as possible, and he asked that the Planning Board respect the conditions of the 1992 variance and deny the special permit for a second dwelling. Stephen Gibian, present with his wife, said they own 1380 Coddington Rd., the parent property for the subdivision, and 1379 Coddington Rd., which they purchased in 1983 and then converted a barn to a residence. He gave a history of the properties. He pointed out that they were the ones who put the farm back together and converted the four-unit dwelling back into one, and now that was being used as a justification for increasing the density on the lot in question. He did not feel the proposed dwelling would be non-visible and thought there were multiple houses who would be able to see it . He said he was concerned about increased traffic on the driveway, which goes right along their property and the use of one of the buildings as a rental. He said he was more positive about the Millroy/Constas’ family being the ones to potentially move in, but that could change at any time as properties exist longer than the owners. Thresa Gibian commented on the character of the neighborhood. She said immediately nearby there are Queen Anne homes with standing barns and a Greek revival. It was easy to return their home to a single- family home because there were never four dwellings, there were four apartment units within the 1880s- built house. She said they were doing their part to try to maintain large tracts with historic buildings and open fields to continue the vision of Danby, and the original variance condition was in keeping with that. Mr. Constas said he was totally in line with the Gibians in terms of maintaining the integrity of their area from an aesthetic and habitat point of view. He felt the proposed building would fit well. He thought car traffic would not be increased as it would not be greatly increasing from when their three children were living at home. It is not envisioned as a rental, only for one of their children and their family. Board Questions and Discussion Lamb asked about possible mitigations and screening , and the applicants reiterated that the proposed house is as far as possible from the boundaries, the architecture style is in keeping with the neighborhood, it is small, and it has trees around it currently. Jones said the character of the neighborhood is always a concern, but he thought a new house on a vacant lot would have more weight. He did not necessarily agree with the neighbors that this would negatively affect the neighborhood. It was discussed that the applicants would only be having one driveway. 4 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DRAFT MINUTES Chair Hicks said, if it were not for the limited road frontage, it would have been allowed to have two dwelling units on it. This means that in terms of traffic, the lot very easily could have had traffic associated with two households. He thought it was clear in the original judgement that granting the variance on the subdivision (without conditions) would have perpetuated the non-compliance that already existed because of the four- unit house. Dean asked what was to prevent any of the houses in this zone from being divided into multiple units or becoming short-term rentals. West said that on this lot the zoning would prevent the creation of more dwelling units. Under the new zoning, if you are in a zone that requires 10-acres per dwelling and you have 30-acres, you can cluster the density into three dwelling units in an existing house instead of dividing off two lots. You cannot put a multi-family dwelling on sub-size lots. There are currently no rules for short-term rentals like Airbnb. Lamb asked about any effects of the deed restriction never having been put in place, and West said that could be relevant to the question of whether the difficulty was self-created. The public hearing was closed at 8:07 p.m. In response to a question from Hicks, Planner West discussed the reasonability of conditions and the Board’s ability to impose restrictive conditions if they are tied to an impact. Chair Hicks read the resolution from the Planning Board: “The Planning Board recommends that the BZA reconsider the variance with requirements for maximum size of additional dwellings, setbacks from surrounding lot lines, and requiring screening. The Planning Board would then support not having a condition that no further buildings could be added to the lot.” Area Variance Findings & Decision The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the appeal of Mark Constas regarding the property at 1360 Coddington Rd. (Tax parcel 6.-1-1.31) for an amendment to the 1992 variance approval. 1. The Board agreed no undesirable change would be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. Dean said during his site visit he found it was one of the less visible houses up the hill along Coddington Rd. with pretty effective natural screening. While any new building has an effect, he did not see this being a large one. He also felt that the fact that it could not be subdivided helped. Lamb agreed and added that the second house has a small footprint with one story and architecture that is trying to fit in well given that it cannot be a Queen Anne. Jones thought the applicants’ planning was consistent with a retirement home. Hicks said code allows a two-family residence generally and there are already houses further back on the hill in that area. 2. The Board agreed that the benefit sought by the applicant could not be achieved by a feasible alternative of the variance. Dean noted it was somewhat unusual for the 1992 BZA to impose this restriction. He did not see any alternatives other than not building it. Lamb said it is interesting the 1992 BZA 5 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DRAFT MINUTES based their decision on the four-plex. Jones said he had the idea the applicant could possibly buy more land to increase their frontage, but upon visiting the site he thought that was unrealistic and it also would not address the condition of the variance. Hicks said he had thought of attaching a building to their existing structure to make it two -family. 3. The Board felt the question of whether the requested variance was substantial was complicated. Dean felt the condition imposed in 1992 was pretty substantial. The justification for that (the fourplex) being no longer in play made it confusing. He said any other house with 10 acres would have been allowed to build a second dwelling (by special permit). But he felt it was a substantial action to reverse a decision from a previous BZA. Lamb said they would be removing something (a condition) not adding. Hicks thought it was complex, with legal and human factors. In terms of substantiality, West described the lot of the original variance. 4. The Board agreed the variance would not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. Dean thought not given the placement within the lot, the size and single story, screening, and an approved septic system. Lamb agreed and added that it is as far as possible away from the boundary lines so it is not encroaching. Jones agreed. Hicks confirmed with the applicants and neighbors that they did not have water/well issues. 5. The Board agreed that the alleged difficulty was not self-created. Dean said the failure of the previous owner to put a deed restriction on the property meant the applicants did not know about it. But their decision to put a second house is self- created. Lamb said they bought the house intending to be able to put a second dwelling, there was a mis-file on the variance, and the zoning just changed, which is also not self- created. Jones added that it would have taken a lot of research on the owners’ part to have found out about the restriction. Hicks agreed with what had been said. Mr. Gibian said he had spoken with Code Enforcement Officer Beeners about the filing in 1995 and she had said she would put both conditions on the building permit and certificate of occupancy. West noted that those documents would not be in the chain of title like a deed restriction or a listing on the plat or a plat amendment, which is where it is now best practice to put conditions. West said the original variance applicant had volunteered to put a deed restriction, but it was not a condition of the variance. Discussion of conditions West reminded the Board that they were considering an amendment of the variance to change the original conditions—based on the amount of variance granted, what conditions are required to protect the neighborhood? Hicks reminded the Board that the Planning Board had suggested conditions regarding size, setbacks, and screening. Secretary de Villiers asked whether there was anything at this point in the process to tie the applicant to the proposed house plan if no conditions were imposed; West said no, although they will need to go through special permit and site plan approval with the Planning Board. Possible conditions were discussed. The Board felt the footprint, location, and single story were important to mitigate the potential change to the neighborhood. In terms of the character of the neighborhood, it was 6 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DRAFT MINUTES felt a single driveway ensured a second residence would be more of an extension of the first one and it was noted the lot had reduced frontage under the zoning it was being considered under. The idea of putting trees by the bottom of the driveway was brought up, but the applicants said there are trees there already. A draft resolution was read aloud by Planner West and reviewed by the Board. 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 approved the variance with the following conditions added: 1. Any second primary residential structure be limited to one story and be substantially similar in footprint and location to that included in the site plan. 2. No new curb cut or driveway be added to the property, that access to both houses be made through a single driveway to preserve the rural character along Coddington Road. The BZA found that amending the conditions of the 1992 variance was the minimum variance that should be granted in order to preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community because of all of the above discussed reasons. MOTION: Accept the resolution as read by Planner West Moved by Dean, seconded by Lamb The motion passed. In favor: Dean, Jones, Lamb, Hicks ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:08 p.m. ___________________________________________ Alyssa de Villiers – Recording Secretary 7 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DRAFT MINUTES Town of Danby Board of Zoning Appeals Resolution Number 1 of 2022 Amending Variance Granted Sept. 10, 1992 1. Whereas the Board of Zoning Appeals did grant a variance to the subject parcel on September 10, 1992 to parcel 6.-1-3.3; and 2. Whereas the Board of Zoning Appeals 1992 variance included a condition that no more than a single family home be allowed on the lot and no further subdivision be allowed on the lot that came to be 1360 Coddington Rd.; and 3. Whereas the Planning Board did in December of 2021 make the following resolution: “The Planning Board recommends that the BZA reconsider the variance with requirements for maximum size of additional dwellings, setbacks from surrounding lot lines, and requiring screening. The Planning Board would then support not having a condition that no further buildings could be added to the lot.”; and 4. Whereas legal notice was published and adjacent property owners within 500 feet notified in accordance with the Town of Danby Zoning Ordinance, Section 904; and 5. Whereas the Board of Zoning Appeals held a Public Hearing on 2-22-22; and 6. Whereas per the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) (6 CRR-NY 617.5(c)(9&11)), as well as Local Law #2 of 1991, Section VI (Providing for Environmental Review in the Town of Danby), construction of a 1 or 2 family home is a Type 2 action as is granting of an area variance; and 7. Whereas the Board of Zoning Appeals finds that the conditions in the neighborhood that were in place in 1992 have materially changed; and 8. Whereas the Board of Zoning Appeals desires to amend the variance granted Sept. 10, 1992 to change the conditions required. Now Therefore, be it Resolved that the Town of Danby Board of Zoning Appeals does amend the variance granted September 10, 1992 to remove the condition that only a single-family home be allowed on the lot and to replace that condition with the following conditions: 1. Any second primary residential structure be limited to one story and be substantially similar in footprint and location to that included in the application site plan. 2. No new curb cut or driveway be added to the property, that access to both houses be made through a single diveway to preserve the rural character along Coddington Rd. Approved Feb. 22, 2022