The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSheds and Accessory Structure 10-11-2010.PDFNorma Manning From: Kate Supron [katesupron@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, Octoberr 11,2010 2:36 PM To: VCH-Trustees Subject: $heds and Accerssory Structures Please review for discussion of sheds and information supplements the summary in Thanks. Kate Irorwarded messase From: Kate Supron <katesn Date: Mon, Oct 11,2011J at2:33 PM Subject: R.e: 906 Triphammer To: Kristin Gutenberger <kgulgn McClelland <pd!g[@g!rne_ll. ed uP, Bob Neff <mjneffr..0,,cayuga-lieiehts.n)r.us>,Rand <ksupron@cayusa-hei ghts. n)r.us> Thanks Kristin for this comprehensive su I will forward it to the T'rustees to help infi meeting. Best, Kate On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 x 3:51 PM, Kristin Dear All, the Trustees'discus;sion; Kirk rnay r0t12l20t0 luate the interpretation request. Page 1 of5 sory structures at Tuesday's meeting. This s report. molar.v.com) Cc: John Young <.lack(Dyoungbros.com>, B nt Cross <bcross(@cayuea-hei , Peter rs <bebpowers 1 4850@vahoQ.cpm>, Mary Jane I Marcus <rmarcus@bgdmlaw.com>, Kate Supron our discussion of this issue at our l0ll2 Board berger <keulgnbelger@)b gqlno law. qan> wrote : I have been in communication with past few weeks andL it is my understa Trustees at next Ttresday's meeting. r Supron regarding this issue ovet the ing that the topic will be addressed by the t was our hope that we cor-rld hold off scheduling aZBA thearing untii we h about their feeling on the subject in d a bit more suidance from the Trustees neral. It was also our hope that based upon Although, it is our position that the event Kirk does norr withdraw his req Since I have not seen the interpreta actually seeking to interpret. \Uith t to brief everyone on the issues at ha free to, and I encourage you to, co "Sheds", "Accesso4t Buildings" and " laws. Section 6 - Yard Requireme followine minimurn dimensions are requirerients). Section 7 - Building coverage, the area of any accessory 'lUhat I believe is being debated is w needs to adhere to set back requirem buildins" that should be included in understanding that Brent has not be as Code Enforcemr:nt Officer so th location relative to a property line (I rational as to why he has not been re explain his position). '$7hat Mayor Supron and I have bee situation. a few of 'which are as fol t. The Village Trustees passing a llocal Law defining clearly whLether or not these i calculations. The Trustees m prior to pa.ssing such a Local a Local Law that will be read and understand is the best guidance and clarity. Howeve considere<l. Should the Trustr r0n2t20r0 grandfathering all current mo e "sheds". Since the sheds have never been regulated, Page 2 of 5 illage should proceed with the interpretation in the L. n request, X am a bit at a loss as to what Kirk is t said though, this is probably a good a time as any that I am aware of at this time. (Brent please feel me if anything I state is not accurate). uildings" are not defined under the current VCH states that "yards free from buildings and of the uired (it then proceeds with the se?back overage states that "in computing the buiiding ildings shall be included in the computation." ther or not a movable "shed" is a "building" that nts and also whether or not it is an "accessory ot coverage calculations. It is also my regulating any movable "sheds" during his tenure is no list of how many "sheds" exist or their m going to step back now from stating Brent's lating them as I feel he is in the best position to discussing are potential possibiiities to rectifiz the y clear up the ambiguities in the cunent VCH code by ildings", "sheds", "accessory structures" and stating should adhere to set back requirements and lot coverage also refer the matter to the Planning Board for comment w if they choose. It is Randy and my opinion that passing y incorporated into the Village laws for any resident to of action. This will give your residents the most there is an issue of "grandfathering" that should be pass a Local Law addressing these issues, they will be they are in essence permitted law will allow them to remain i to be resulated and adhere to z.Another option is to ha what is the curuent intent of capacity asr a Village resident ( "sheds" should be included in there is NO grandfathering of "sheds" were never legal and adhere to permitted set backs Further things for the Trustees to 1.Arn interpretation entire zoning district, the i Village laws. Once this admi there is the potential for the i written witl still not sive the a will there ibe definitions relati vague and ambiguous. Again, issues cleairly and specifically i they are re,quired to adhere. z.If the Trustees decide determinaiion that the "sheds" calculatiotrs, how do the Trust compliant? A list would need calculations completed and en aJ.lf there is a new Local strusture" is, for example the category a.s a tree house or pl I am sure there &re: ffIarlv questions information, and probably many thi least touch upon the highlights of th knowledge of the situation before Have a wonderful 101t212010 holiday weekend! Page 3 of5 would be grandfathered. Therefore, any change in the their current location (assuming the Trustees WANT them back requirements, etc.). the ZBA make an interpretation (determination) as to law. This is the route that Kirk has chosen to pursue in his as an "aggrieved party"). Should the ZBA find that back requirements and lot coverage calculations, then existing "sheds". What it basically amounts to is that the that we know they exist, they should be move<lto included in lot coverase calculations. sider: is tied to a specific property, and although it affects the ion will not become an official part of the written tion, officets, and board members change over the years rpretation to be lost. Additionally, the current law as resident any clear guidance about these issues - nor to these items. Basically, the current language will remain and I feel that creating a Local Law addressing the the best way for residents to understand the laws to which to address this issue by Local Law and the ZBA makes a uld adhere to set back requirements and lot coverage s want to address the existing "sheds" that are non- be created fiust like the fences) and then lot coverage nt actions taken. w, it should also address what exactly an "accessory ustees would need to decide if a "shed" is in the same ground. Would those also be regulated? d comments that you all have given the above gs that I could have addressed, but I wanted to at issues so that the Trustees have some more discussion on J'uesday evening. Best regards, Kristin E. Gutenberger Associate Attorney Barney, Grossman, Dubow, Marcus Ll9 E, Seneca Street, Suite 400 Ithaca, New York 14350 607.273.6841 (P) 607.272.8806 (F) *Original Message* From: John Young [mailtorJack@*Y Sent: Monday, October 04,2010 5:Z To: Brent Cross; Peter McClelland; Cc: Mary Jane Neff; Randall Marcus; Subject' Re: 906 Triphammer Brent, I appreciate the surmmary, and agree to be looked into. My feeling is that here, but we can't be scared off bv th request. Kirk does have a great deal and we're forfunate to have him on r0n2t20r0 ur board. That being said, he has Page 4 of5 OrKin, LLP PM m8@cornell.edu: Bob Powers Kate Supron; Kristin Gutenberger hat the issues you noted ought need to proceed carefully fact that it's an unusual f experience in ZBA matters, a style that may offr:nd people on ion. and we don't want that to impact our thinking here. It's not rea . I think it's more case of us having a that will continue to throw up issues reviewed and rewritten holistically. ly Kirk vs your interpretation of antiquated zoning laws ike this until they can be Mary Jane, if you can give us some ring date options to consider while Kristin works up her recomme to proceed either way. Thanks again, ations, hopefully we can be ready Page 5 of5 Jack t0lt2l20r0