Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeigel Narrative-denied shed construction.pdf November 18, 2010 Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Board of Appeals: I am requesting an interpretation of the Village's Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Officer has determined that sheds that do not require a Building Permit are also not subject to regulation by the Zoning Ordinance. (See Zoning Officer's Report dated August 5, 2010.) Based on this determination, the Zoning Officer is not requiring that the shed at 906 Triphammer Road comply with the Zoning Ordinance. It is my belief that sheds such as the one at 906 Triphammer Road are subject to regulation by the Zoning Ordinance, even though they may not be occupied, may have less than 140 square feet of gross floor area, and may be moveable. That is the determination I am asking you to make. When interpreting the Zoning Ordinance there are two questions that you should ask yourself: What do I think the words in the Ordinance mean? and What do I think the original authors of the Ordinance intended? What do I think the words in the Ordinance mean? My interpretation is based on a straightforward reading of the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance says that buildings are regulated, a shed is clearly a building, so therefore sheds are regulated. It really is that simple. The Zoning Officer's interpretation is based on a more complicated understanding of a building (depends on size, foundation, and occupancy) that is not found in the Zoning Ordinance, but rather in definitions and classifications found in other documents (Village Article 34 and NYS Building Code) that allow certain buildings to be exempt from the need for a Building Permit (but not a Zoning Permit). While speaking with Randy Marcus (Village Attorney) about this, he told me that it is a basic tenet of law that you should look for the meaning of a legal document (a contract, law, etc.) "within the four corners" of that document whenever possible. I take this to mean that you should determine the meaning of the Zoning Ordinance from only the words contained in the Zoning Ordinance itself if at all possible. In this case, I think the Zoning Ordinance is very clear. Buildings are regulated, a shed is a building, so therefore sheds are regulated. What do I think the original authors of the Ordinance intended? The most obvious and significant restriction placed on something like a shed is the requirement that it meet the various yard setbacks. Here is a list of things not allowed in the Village within the required setbacks: "Buildings," "Swimming Pools," "Porches, Decks, or Carports open at the sides but roofed," "Unroofed Porches or Decks over two feet above the ground," and "Fences over four feet high." Conversely, this is what is allowed within the setbacks: "Unroofed Porches or Decks two feet or less above the ground" and "Fences four feet or less in height." Now I ask you, "Which group would a shed naturally fall into?" A porch or deck must be unroofed and two feet or less above the ground to exist within the setbacks. A fence must be four feet or less in height to exist within the setbacks. Buildings are never allowed to exist within the setbacks. But a 10 x 14 shed that is 12 feet high is allowed to exist within the setbacks? That doesn't make any sense. I cannot believe that is what the original authors of the Zoning Ordinance intended. The authors of the Zoning Ordinance were careful to explain that all roofed and some unroofed porches and decks were subject to setbacks. Why would they not intend for sheds to also be subject to setbacks and other requirements? After all, it is easy to argue that a shed has a greater visual impact on a neighbor than a deck slightly over two feet above the ground. I believe that the authors of the Zoning Ordinance knew that sheds were already covered by the word "buildings." In fact, a neighbor who spoke at the ZBA's August meeting indicated that the Village's previous Zoning Officer also knew that: "The structure was built less than 3' [from] the property line of I I I Northway Road and they had been told by the previous code officer that an accessory structure should meet the side and rear lot setback requirements." (See August ZBA Minutes, page 2.) Thank you for considering my appeal. Sincerely, Kirk M. Sigel 223 Highgate Road kmsigel&ksx.com 257-6413 Sample Motion: This board finds that the shed at 906 Triphammer Road is subject to compliance with zoning regulations because a shed, even though it may not be occupied, may have less than 140 square feet of gross floor area, and may be moveable, is nevertheless considered a building for the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance and is therefore subject to, among other provisions, Section 5 (Height of Buildings), Section 6 (Yard Requirements), Section 7 (Building Coverage), and Section 20 (Zoning Permits) of the Zoning Ordinance. ��K° " �� �'^^~~°�~ ~^ &Vug~ r^^~7�rs wmxCx^wHAu Telephone �6u^wanwwROAD an�uo�1�8 ' nHAc« �oso .N.Y. Fax - :N oo/'oar'4om ��- ----- Office Hours yx.M. «P.m. ZONING OFFICER'S REPORT DATE: Auguot5. 2018 TO; ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM: Brent A. Cross,Zoning Officer RE- 9D8 Triphammer Road REPORT: I have denied an application for a permit to construct a shed (accessory structure) at 906 Tripharnmer Road (tax parcel 10-6-5.1). The new footprint will result in a lot coverage to 12.9%,which is greater than the 12% allowed by the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Ordinance Section T Building Coverage in a Residence District. It should be noted the owner was initially provided with the information on how to construct a shed that would meet the requirements of an accessory structure that would not be subject to compliance with zoning regulations such as lot coverage and setbacks. These requirements are as follows:to qualify as on accessory structure: 1) must not be occupied; 2) shall not exceed 140st 38 must be moveable (not ona permanent h/undmtiun). Such structures do not require apermit. When the owner constructed the shed, ho did not comply usfollows: -although the footprint of the shed is 140 sf, there is a large roof overhang of approximately 5'on one side,which exceeds the 3' allowed by the zoning regulations. -originally,the shed attached to a concrete pad with no independent floor(since been modified) Since the footprint exceeds 140 sf(because of overhang)the entire structure must now be added into the lot coverage calculation.The newly constructed house occupies 11.9% of the lot, so the additional 230 sf results in the 12.9% lot coverage. Now that the floor structure has been modified, it is moveable. Therefore, a Public Hearing has been scheduled on August 23, 2010 @ 7:00 pm at the Village Hall, 836 Hanshaw Road to seek comments on the requested variance. The following properties are located within 2OO'and will receive this notice bymail: 10.-1-7 William Potuhon & Karen Kaufman, 110NorthvwyyRoad 10,1'8 Vincent Lukas, 1D8NorthwoyRoad 10,1'9 Kenneth& NishiRaaon|uk. 1OGNodhvwyyRoad 10,1'10 Sydney&Molly Shoemaker, 104NnMhwmyRoad 10,3'11.1 K8mryno8ormme{. &Q5 Triphammer Road 18,3-11.5 Catherine Friend,&&Q Triphammer Road 10,8-15 Milton &Janice Eumun. 508ThphommorRoad 10,3'16 Margaret Washington, BO6 Triphammer Road 10,3'17.1 Alexander YNikhai|iuhenhu.Q0Q Triphammer Road 10,6-3 Kevin O'Connor&Joy Miller. 1OANortbwayRoad 10.'$-4 Leonard &Rosemary Lohm' 11iNorthwayRoad 10,6'5.1 Pwtnu&EoatorinaPedhoa, Y06 Triphammer Road 10.'6-6 Paul &Anga|o Martin,9O4 Triphammer Road 10,6'7 Chmbad House of Ithaca.0U2 Triphammer Road 10,8-8 Edward &Sonja Kelly,J14E. Upland Road 10.-6'9 Louis& Elizabeth Hand,210E. Upland Road Minutes For the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Held on August 23, 2010 The meeting was convened at 7:04 PM Present: Chairman John Young;Members Peter McClelland and Kurt Sigel Absent: Robert Powers Code Enforcement Officer: Brent Cross, Others: Attorney Kristin Gutenberger and Mary Jane Neff, Secretary to the Zoning Board of Appeals Guest: See attached list On a motion by Siegel, seconded by McClellan the following resolution was passed: RESOLUTION NO. 8-23-10-1 ADJOURNING TO PRIVATE SESSION RESOLVE,that this meeting was adjourned to private session for Attorney-client discussion at 7:04 PM. The public hearing on the variance request for 906 Triphammer Road was opened at 7:28 PM. Chairman Young explained the procedure for the hearings and requested Code Officer to review the basis of his denying the building permit. Code Officer Cross explained that the property owner had obtained information from him regarding the construction of an accessory structure on his property for storage. Cross explained that according to NYS building codes an accessory structure 140 sq. ft. or less,uninhabited, and moveable is unregulated and does not need a building permit. He further explained that when he went to check on the structure,he found that the property owner had a 5 ft overhang and the shed had been attached to a concrete pad. The property owner modified the structure so that it is no longer attached to the concrete pad. Code Officer Cross also explained that per Village Ordinances any structure with an overhang greater than 3 feet had to be included in lot coverage calculation which also caused the structure to exceed the 140 sq. ft. allowance. Cross stated that he gave the property owner two options. The first option was to alter the structure by cutting the overhang back to 3 feet or less which would allow the structure to remain unregulated by the building and fire codes. The second option was to apply for a variance to allow the property owner to exceed the lot coverage allowance of 12%. The property owner elected to file for a variance. Mr. Petrina stated that he had contacted Code Officer Cross and understood that an accessory structure less than 140 sq. ft.,movable, and uninhabited was no regulated and could be placed on the property where he felt was most convenient to him. He further stated that he was not aware of the 3 foot or less overhang ordinance and did not think that his structure violated any local laws. He stated that he thought that the overhang looked nice and he would like to keep it. He stated that this was the reason for applying for a variance. McClelland asked the applicant if there was any other place on the lot that the structure could be placed. The applicant replied that he built the accessory structure where he thought it would be most useful to him. The neighbors presented their concerns(See attached). In their view the structure that included the overhang and has a concrete pad is 210 sq. ft.which is greater than an unregulated structure of 140 sq. ft. and does not appear to be moveable. The structure is also 12 ''/z'. The structure was built less than 3' for the property line of I I I Northway Road and they had been told by the previous code officer that an accessory structure should meet the side and rear lot setback requirements. Other accessory structures in the neighborhood are smaller, moveable wooden structures. There is a door at the back of the house which appears that a porch or deck will be constructed in the future. The neighbors asked if the property owner wished to build a porch or deck off this door would they need another variance for additional lot coverage. Code Officer Cross replied that they would for two reasons— 1)as a permanent structure it would count in the lot coverage calculation would put them over the 11.9%that the property owner currently has and 2) since the current building permit was issued for only a set of stairs for egress purpose, a second building permit would also be required. Sally Grubb asked if a neighbor could bring an appeal to the ZBA for an interpretation of the Zoning Officers approval or denial of a building permit. Attorney Gutenberger stated that a resident can request the ZBA to interpret a Code Enforcement's decision as it relates to Cayuga Height's laws,but that this ZBA did not have jurisdiction over NYS Building and Fire Codes. The Board discussed this issue. Since it would take the approval of all three members present and since they had two options— 1)to table a decision until the full Board could assemble or 62 days or 2)the applicant can withdraw his application and alter the structure so that it complies with local laws. After due consideration, it was the decision of the applicant to withdraw his variance request. He stated that he would remove at least 2 ft of the overhang and that he will make it look nice. The public hearing on the variance request exceed the lot coverage at 1 Strawberry Lane was opened at 9:07 PM.