Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA 1-17-2012 MinutesZoning Board of Appeals Minutes 12/5/2011 - 1 - Minutes for the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting January 17, 2012 MINUTES Present: Members J. Young, K. Sigel, A. Shull and A. Watkins. Alternates M. Eisner and R. Parker Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross, Attorney K. Gutenberger, and VCH Deputy Clerk A. Podufalski Others: J. Novarr and B. Thursen 1. Meeting called to order Meeting called to order by Chair J. Young at 7:05 pm. Attorney Gutenberger informed the Board that her office has represented applicant, John Novarr, in the past. Attorney Gutenberger has not advised the applicant regarding this variance request. The Board had no objections with Attorney Gutenberger advising the board during the proceedings. Chair J. Young appointed Alternate M. Eisner to vote during the meeting. 2. Variance Request A. Area set-back variance for 876 Highland Rd The Board discussed whether the Public Notice provided in the Ithaca Journal was adequate enough to proceed with the hearing. Some of the Board members thought there was an issue with the Public Notice in the paper not mentioning the fact the applicant intends to build a 2nd story addition to a pool house. The Public Notice only stated the applicant sought a variance for the existing side yard set-back for the current structure to remain at 8’7”, even though regulations at the time it was built required 15’. A separate notice was sent to neighboring property owners that did mention the addition. Attorney Gutenberger advised the board there was no jurisdictional defect regarding the publication of the notice. The following was recorded verbatim: Attorney K. Gutenberger: “There has been some …confusion with regard to what the applicant actually was requesting. When I received the Zoning Officers report, which was all I saw until today, the way I read the Zoning Officers report, it starts out by saying a building permit for the addition of a 2nd story on an existing pool house has been denied. I was under the assumption the applicant applied for a building permit for a 2nd story and that is what he was going forward with. The application that was filled out yesterday and the notice that was in the paper and on the website just states that it was for the existing building. Code Enforcement Officer Cross has confirmed with the applicant today, at least that is my understanding, that the intention was to construct a 2 story pool house with no more encroachment than the current pool house...” Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 12/5/2011 - 2 - Code Enforcement Officer Cross: “The statement as written in the report is as was intended. A building permit, not a zoning permit, a building permit was denied. At that time there was discussion with myself and John, as the applicant, of how he wanted to approach it and the decision was to proceed with initially getting a variance for the non compliant existing structure. Due to some confusion, I didn’t feel there was any confusion in the way that I wrote it, but clearly it lead to confusion from the people who were reading it as to whether or not there was a need for either a separate variance or combining the action into one variance…John called me today in light of the potential confusion …and opted to just simply proceed with an application that is a variance for both the existing footprint of the structure to remain as well as the addition of a 2nd floor…we need to now address it as a modified application.” Attorney Gutenberger: “I confirmed with some legal research with this. Based on the Zoning Officers Report that is sent to all of the applicants who will be most affected within the 200 ft; it states there is contemplation of a 2nd story. Based on my legal research, I can not deem this to be a jurisdictional defect with regard to notice. The board needs to discuss that and make their determination themselves if you are comfortable with this notice to the neighbors. If you are, I recommend you going forward with this application. If you do not deem this notice adequate, you have the right to postpone until next month.” After discussion, the Board decided not to move forward with the hearing until a new Public Notice was sent out that discloses the applicants intentions for the addition. Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross will work with Attorney Gutenberger on more suitable wording for the new Public Notice. The Public Hearing will take place at the next meeting on Monday, February 6th. The applicant presented the plans for the proposed 2nd story addition to the Board. 3. Approval of December 5, 2011 Minutes Motion: M. Eisner Second: J. Young APPROVING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 5, 2011 RESOLVE, that the written, reviewed and revised minutes of December 5, 2011 meeting are hereby approved. Aye votes – K. Sigel, M. Eisner, A. Shull, J. Young and A. Watkins. Opposed- None 4. Adjourned Meeting adjourned at 8:17pm