Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board of Appeals Shed Report- presented on Dec 13, 2010 Mtg.PDFNovember 18,2010 Village of Cayuga I-Ieights ZoningBoard of Appeals: I anr requesting an interpretation of the Village's ZoningOrdinance. The Zoning Oflloer has determined that sheds that do not require a Building Permit are also not subject to regulation by the Zoning Ordinance. (See ZoningOfficer's Report dated August 5, 2010.) Rased on this determination, the Zoning Offlcer 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 Itoad are subjeot to regulation by the Zoningordinance, 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 Ordtnance intended? What clo I think the words in the Ordinance mean? My interpretation is based on a straightforward reading of the ZoningOrdinance. 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 doouments (village Artiole 34 andNyS Building code) that allow ceflain buildings to be exempt from the need for a Building Permit (but not aZoning Pennit). While speaking with Randy Marcus (Village Attorney) about this, he tol<lme that it is a basio tenet of law that you should look for the meaning of a legal clocument (a cclntract, 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 ZoningOrdinance 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 intencled? 'I'he 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 i'the village within the required setbacks: .,Buildings,,, ,,swiiming \ 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: "IJnroofed Porches or Decks two feet or less above the eround" 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 i0 x 14 shed that is 12 teet 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 ar-rthors of the ZoningOrdinance were careful to explain that all roofed and some unroofed porches and decks were subject to setbacks. Why would they not intend fbr 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 c<rvered by the word "buildings." In fact, a neighbor who spoke at the ZBA's August meeting indicated that the Village's previotts Zoning Officer also knew that: "The structure was built less than 3' [from] the property line of 111 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. Sincerelv. Kirk M. Sigel 223 Highgate Road kmsigel@ksx.com 2s1-6413 Sample Motion: This board finds that the shed at 906 Triphammer Road is subject to compliance with zoning regulations beciuse a shed, even though it rnay not be occupied, may have less than 140 square feet of gross floor area, and, may be moveable, is nevertheless considetrd u building For the purpor., of thezoning ordinance and is therefore subject to, amo-ng other provisions, l_..119n 5 (Height of Buildings), section 6 (yard Reluirernents), section 7(Building coverage), and Section 20 (zoning permits) of the zoning Ordinance ^tt-tt r til tlT ' 1r JIliilngr nt Qlugugil lnrTfiqls MANOF]A.M I"IALL 036 l lAl'.lsl-lAvt FO1\t) lTFIAOA, N'Y 14850 'leli?tt,i t 'r ril (tlo7 -:,,;i 1,,'?r: I ilI (i0i'.'}irr.ii:1i 0fiiilc 1-l:)lrlr' 9Al\"'i ,iil TJATE: TO: FR*M: fiiE: REPORT: zCINt N_G QFFIGER'S EEPpBI Augilst 5,2CI10 ZONING BOARB OF APPCAL$ Brent A. Cross, Zoning Officer 9Q6 Tripharnmer Road I have denied an application for a perffit to construct a shod (accessory structure) ai 'QOS T!"ipharnmer Rnad (tax p*rcel 10-6-5.ii rr.',* newtootprint.wlll result in a lot coverago to 12.9Yo, which is *,r€aterlh*rr the 1lolo ailowed nv fi.re viliags oi Cayugi, Heights Zoning c)rdinance $ecticn 7: Builcling coverage in a Residence nl$rict. It. should b0 noted the owrler was initially provided with the information on how tc) cons1ruct a srled thal would meet the requirements Ot an accessory structufe that would not be subject to compliance vlith zoilir.l$ regulffticns sucil ai l,tt coverage and setbacks. These requiremenis are as follows: to qualify as; an scces$ory structure; 1) rnust not be offiupied; 2) shall not exceed 140 sf; 3) rnust be moveable (not onapennansntfoundati0n)'$uchstrugiurescionotrequireapermit. \A/hen the $wnel consiructed the shed, hs did not comply as follows: . -although the footprint of tfr* *t *o is 140 sf, there is a taige roof overhang of spproximetely 5' on one side,whichexceedsthe3'allowerlbythezoningregulations' -originally, the shod *tt"*n*A to a concrete 6d with no lndependent floor (since been modified) $ince the footprint exceeds 140 sf (becauss of overhang) the eniire structurs rnust now be added iilt0 thc lot coverftgs calfi,tatio;:;i* nu*f' *on*tructed house n*icupies 11'9% of the lot, sa the edditionsl 23ti sf results in tlre 1l.go,{ lot coverage. fuow that the floor structufe has t}een mpdified' it is ffiovsabt€' Therefore, a public t-learing has been schedulecl on Augu$t 23, 2010.@ 7:00 pm at the village Hall, 83il Hanshaw R$pd to seek comments on the requested uailance. The {olltlwing propertiss are located withjti 20tl' and will receive this notice by mail: 10.-1-7 W,lliam Pr*tchen & Karen Kaufman' 110 Northway Roaci 10.-1-B Vincent Lukas' 108 Northway F'oad 1CI"-1-g Kenneth & Ni$hiRassnick,106 Northway Road 10.-1-10 $ydney & Mclly Shoemaker,104 Northway Road 1 0.-3-1 1 .1 Maryse $erernet, 995 Triphammet Road 10.-3-1 1.5 Catherine Friend, 999 Triphammer Road 10.-3-15 Milton & Janics Esman, 903 Tdphammer Road 10.-3-1S Margaret Washington, 905 Tripharnmer Road 10.-3-17.1 AlexanderMikhailichenko, g0gTripharnmerRoarl 10.-6-3 Kevin O'Connor & Joy Miller" 109 Northway Roarl 10.-6-4 !-eonarcl& Rosemary Loria.1ll Northway Road 10.-6-5.1 Petru & Eceterina Petrina, 906 Triphammer Road 10.-6-6 Paul & Angela Martin, 904 Tripharnnier Road 10.-6-7 Chabad House of lthaca, 9CI2 Triphammer Raad 10.-6-8 Edward & $onj* Kelly.214 E' Upland Ro*d 10.-S-S l-ouis & Etizebeth Hand,210 E' Upland Road zrCIB$s1 0File: Minutes For the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Held on August 23,2010 "llre nreeting was conven ed at 7:04 pM Present: chairman John Young; Members Peter Mcclella'd and Kurl Sieel Absent: Robert powers Code llnforcelnent Officer: Brent Cross, others: Attorney Kristin Gutenberger and Mary Jane Neff, Secretary to the Zo'ing Boardof Appeals Guest: See attacherl list on a motiotr by Siegel, seconded by Mcclellan the following resolution waspassed: RESOLUTION NO. 8-23-10-1 ADJOURNING TO PRIVATE SESSION RESOLVE, that this meeting was adjourned to private session forAttorney-client discussion aiZ:O+ pM. The public hearing on the variance rcquest for 906 Triphamrner Road was openedat7:28 PM' chairman Young explained the procedure for the hearings a'd requestedcode officer to review the basis ornir o"nying the bu'dinJp"*rir. code officer-cross explained that the property owner had obtained infcrrmationfl'orn hi'r rcgardi'g the construction of an accessoly structure on his property for storage.cross explained that according to NyS building.od., un u"."rrory structure 140 sq. ft.or Iess' uninhabited, and rnoveable is unregulated and does norneed a building pennit.He further explained that when he went to'check on the struciure, he found that thepfopefty owner had a 5 ft overhang and the shed had been attached to a concrete pad.The property owner rnodified tn" t"tru"tur. so that it is no longer attachecl to the concrerepad' code officer cro-s5-at5e explained that per village ordinances any structure with anoverhang greater tlran 3 feet hadio be included in lot covemge calculation which alsocaused the srructure r::i::.qjhe 140 sq. ft. ailowance. crols ,tut"a thut he gave trreproperty owner two options. rhe first option was to alter the structure by cutting theoverhang back to 3 feet or less which would allow the ,r.u"rur" to remain unregulated bythe building ancJ fire codes. The second ofiion *u, to appry for a variance to agow the propertyowneftoexceedthelotcoverageallowanceofl2%.Thepropertyowner elected to file for a variance. Mr. Petrina stated that he had contacted code officer cross and unclerstood that an accessorytru"t.,r" l"rs 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 u*u." of the 3 foot or less overhang ordinance and dicl not think that his structure violated any local laws. He statecl that he thought that the overhang looked nl".-uno t't" *orld like to keep it. He stated that this was the reason for applying for a varianc.. rur"cr.ilund asked the applicant if there was any other place on the lot that the strr.rcture could be placed. The applicant replied that he built the accessory strllctllre where he thought it would be most useful to him' The neighbors presented their concerns (See attached)' In their view the structure that inclucled the overhalg and has a concrete pad is 210 sq. ft' which is greater than an unregulatecl structure oi t?O sq. ft. and does not appear to be moveable' The structure is also i2 /2,. 'fhestructure wasiuilt less than 3' for the propefly line of 111 Northway Roacl ancl they had been told by the previous code offtcer that an accessory structure should meet the side and ,"o1" lot setLack requirements. Other accessory structures in lhe neighborhooa o.. ,nlloii.i rnoueuute wooclen structures. There is a door at the back of the house which upp"u., ihut a porch or deck will be constructed in the future' The neighbors asked if the ;6;tty ;;ner wished to build a porch or deck off this door would they neecl another uutiun". fbr additional lot coverage' Code Offrcer Cross replied that they woulcl for two reasons - 1) as a pefmanent structure it would count in the lot coverage calculation would put them overlhe ll.9% that the propefty owner currently has and 2) since tf," ".tr.nt fuilding permit was issued for only a set of stairs for egress ;;il;;, a s"con,l building permit would also be required' Sally Grubb asked*ii a neighbor could bring an appeal to the ZBA fbr an interpretation of the Zoning Officers approval or denial of a building permit' Attorney Gutenbergel stated that a resident can request the ZBA to interpret a code Enforcemelrt's decision as it reiates i"'C"ytg" Ueight's iaws, br-rt that this ZBA did not have iurisdiction over NYS Building and Fire Codes' The Board discussed this issue. Since it would take the approval of ail three.. members present ancl since they had two options - 1) to table a decision until the fuli Board coulci urr"*t t. ol. 62 diysor 2) the applicant can withdraw his application and alter the structure so that it cornplies with local laws' After due consideration, it was the decision of the applicant to withdraw his variance request. U. ,tut"a that he would remove at least 2 ft of the overhang and that he will make it look nice. ThepublichearirrgonthevariancereqLlestexceedtlrelotcoverageati Strawberry Lr,n. *ut opened at 9:07 PM'