The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZBA 4.30.2012 Minutes.pdfZBA Appeal No. 2012-11 Res. (4.30.2012) Minutes for the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting April 30, 2012 MINUTES Present: Members J. Young, K. Sigel, R. Parker, A. Watkins, and A. Shull. Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross, Attorney R. Marcus, and VCH Deputy Clerk A. Podufalski 1. Meeting called to order Meeting called to order by Chair J. Young at 7:03 pm. 2. Variance Requests A) 717 Hanshaw Rd  Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross gave a background summary on the case.  The applicant was given the opportunity to speak to the Board regarding the request.  Chair J. Young opened the floor for public comment.  B. Auble stated she had no objections to the variance request  E. Carey stated she supports the request.  Attorney R. Marcus informed the Board the variance request is a Type II action exempt under Section 617.5(c) of SEQR.  The Board discussed the findings questions. VILLAGE OF CAYUGA HEIGHTS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS RESOLUTION ADOPTED ON April 30, 2012 FOR APPEAL NO. 2012-10 Motion made by: A. Watkins Motion seconded by: R. Parker WHEREAS: A. This matter involves consideration of the following proposed action: granting of an area variance to allow existing 6’ high vinyl fence(s) to remain in the side/rear yards. The fence is not 90% open and is located at approximately 0’ from the side/rear property line which is less than the 15’ side/rear yard setback required by Zoning Ordinance Section 6. Yard Requirements. The property in question is known as 717 Hanshaw Road tax map # 6-3-5 ; and ZBA Appeal No. 2012-11 Res. (4.30.2012) B. On April 30, 2012, , the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing regarding such action, and thereafter thoroughly reviewed and analyzed (i) the materials and information presented by and on behalf of the applicant(s) in support of this appeal, (ii) all other information and materials rightfully before the Board, and (iii) all issues raised during the public hearing and/or otherwise raised in the course of the Board’s deliberations; and C. On April 30, 2012, in accordance with Article 8 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law - the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR), and 6 NYCRR Section 617.5 (c), the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Board of Appeals determined that the proposed action is a Type II action, and thus may be processed without further regard to SEQR; and D. On April 30, 2012, in accordance with Section 712-b of the Village Law of the State of New York and Village of Cayuga Heights Article IX #21, the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Board of Appeals, in the course of its deliberations, took into consideration the benefit to the applicant if the area variance is granted as weighed against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community by such grant; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Board of Appeals hereby makes the following findings with respect to the specific criteria for such area variance as set forth in Section 712-b of the Village Law of the State of New York and Village of Cayuga Heights Article IX #21: Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting the area variance. Finding: YES_____ NO X because: There have been no objections from the neighbors and the fence was built a few years ago. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an area variance. Finding: YES X NO______, because: The fence could be altered to be within compliance and still keep the applicant’s dogs in the yard. Compliant deer fencing could also be added to deter deer from entering the yard. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. ZBA Appeal No. 2012-11 Res. (4.30.2012) Finding: YES X NO______, because: There is a 0’ set back instead of the required 15’. Whether the proposed area variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Finding: YES_____ NO X because: There is no more impact than if it were a compliance fence and the upper 2’ of the fence is more than 50% see-through. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. Finding: YES X NO______, because: The applicant built the fence. 1. It is hereby determined by the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Board of Appeals that the following variance is GRANTED AND APPROVED (with conditions, if any, as indicated), it being further determined that such variance is the minimum necessary and adequate to grant relief and at the same time preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community: Description of Variance: Granting of an area variance to allow existing 6’ high vinyl fence(s) to remain in the side/rear yards. The fence is not 90% open and is located at approximately 0’ from the side/rear property line which is less than the 15’ side/rear yard setback required by Zoning Ordinance Section 6. Yard Requirements. Conditions of Variance: The fence must remain substantially as constructed. The vote on the foregoing motion was as follows: AYES: A. Watkins K. Sigel R. Parker A. Shull ZBA Appeal No. 2012-11 Res. (4.30.2012) J. Young NAYS: None The motion was declared to be carried. B) 2 Winthrop Place  Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross gave a background summary on the case. He also informed the Board the applicant would be requesting a refund of the application fee from the Board of Trustees.  The applicant was given the opportunity to speak to the Board regarding the request.  Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross shared with the Board two letters of support from neighbors L. Hollenbeck and R. Demarest.  Chair J. Young opened the floor for public comment.  S. Grubb mentioned the fence has already existed for a considerable amount of time.  Attorney R. Marcus informed the Board the variance request is a Type II action exempt under Section 617.5(c) of SEQR.  The Board discussed the findings questions. VILLAGE OF CAYUGA HEIGHTS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS RESOLUTION ADOPTED ON April 30, 2012 FOR APPEAL NO. 2012-11 Motion made by: A. Watkins Motion seconded by: A. Shull WHEREAS: A. This matter involves consideration of the following proposed action: granting of an area variance to allow existing 6’ high wood fence(s) to remain in the side/rear yards. The fence is not 90% open and is located at approximately 0’ from the side/rear property line which is less than the 15’ side/rear yard setback required by Zoning Ordinance Section 6. Yard Requirements. The property in question is known as 2 Winthrop Place tax map # 4-3-19; and B. On April 30, 2012, , the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing regarding such action, and thereafter thoroughly reviewed and analyzed (i) the materials and information presented by and on behalf of the applicant(s) in support of this appeal, (ii) all other information and materials rightfully before the Board, and (iii) all issues raised during the public hearing and/or otherwise raised in the course of the Board’s deliberations; and ZBA Appeal No. 2012-11 Res. (4.30.2012) C. On April 30, 2012, in accordance with Article 8 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law - the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR), and 6 NYCRR Section 617.5 (c), the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Board of Appeals determined that the proposed action is a Type II action, and thus may be processed without further regard to SEQR; and D. On April 30, 2012, in accordance with Section 712-b of the Village Law of the State of New York and Village of Cayuga Heights Article IX #21, the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Board of Appeals, in the course of its deliberations, took into consideration the benefit to the applicant if the area variance is granted as weighed against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community by such grant; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Board of Appeals hereby makes the following findings with respect to the specific criteria for such area variance as set forth in Section 712-b of the Village Law of the State of New York and Village of Cayuga Heights Article IX #21: Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting the area variance. Finding: YES_____ NO X because: There have been no objections from the neighbors Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an area variance. Finding: YES_____ NO X because: It would not be feasible for the applicant to move the fence. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. Finding: YES X NO X because: Yes, there is a 0’ set back instead of the required 15’. However, this is mitigated by the fact the length is a small percentage of the perimeter of the property. ZBA Appeal No. 2012-11 Res. (4.30.2012) Whether the proposed area variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. ZBA 4-30-2012 minutes - 7 - Finding: YES_____ NO X because: The length is a small percentage of the perimeter of the property. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. Finding: YES X NO______, because: The applicant built the fence. 1. It is hereby determined by the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Board of Appeals that the following variance is GRANTED AND APPROVED (with conditions, if any, as indicated), it being further determined that such variance is the minimum necessary and adequate to grant relief and at the same time preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community: Description of Variance: Granting of an area variance to allow existing 6’ high wood fence(s) to remain in the side/rear yards. The fence is not 90% open and is located at approximately 0’ from the side/rear property line which is less than the 15’ side/rear yard setback required by Zoning Ordinance Section 6. Yard Requirements. Conditions of Variance: The fence must remain substantially as constructed with no expansion into the non- compliant set back. The vote on the foregoing motion was as follows: AYES: A. Watkins K. Sigel R. Parker A. Shull J. Young NAYS: None The motion was declared to be carried. C) 105 Winthrop Drive  Chair J. Young disclosed he is an acquaintance of the applicant.  Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross gave a background summary on the case. He also informed the Board the applicant would be requesting a refund of the application fee from the Board of Trustees. ZBA 4-30-2012 minutes - 8 -  The applicant was given the opportunity to speak to the Board regarding the request.  Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross shared with the Board two letters of support from neighbors M. Wheelock and N. Sherwood.  Chair J. Young opened the floor for public comment.  S. Grubb mentioned the fence has already existed for a considerable amount of time.  Attorney R. Marcus informed the Board the variance request is a Type II action exempt under Section 617.5(c) of SEQR.  The Board discussed the findings questions. VILLAGE OF CAYUGA HEIGHTS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS RESOLUTION ADOPTED ON April 30, 2012 FOR APPEAL NO. 2012-12 Motion made by: K. Sigel Motion seconded by: A. Shull WHEREAS: A. This matter involves consideration of the following proposed action: granting of an area variance to allow existing 6’ high wood fence(s) to remain in the side/rear yards. The fence is not 90% open and is located at approximately 3’ from the side/rear property line which is less than the 15’ side/rear yard setback required by Zoning Ordinance Section 6. Yard Requirements. The property in question is known as 105 Winthrop Drive tax map # 4-3-20; and B. On April 30, 2012, , the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing regarding such action, and thereafter thorou ghly reviewed and analyzed (i) the materials and information presented by and on behalf of the applicant(s) in support of this appeal, (ii) all other information and materials rightfully before the Board, and (iii) all issues raised during the public hearing and/or otherwise raised in the course of the Board’s deliberations; and C. On April 30, 2012, in accordance with Article 8 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law - the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR), and 6 NYCRR Section 617.5 (c), the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Board of Appeals determined that the proposed action is a Type II action, and thus may be processed without further regard to SEQR; and D. On April 30, 2012, in accordance with Section 712-b of the Village Law of the State of New York and Village of Cayuga Heights Article IX #21, the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Board of Appeals, in the course of its deliberations, took into consideration the benefit to the applicant if the area variance is granted as weighed against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community by such grant; ZBA 4-30-2012 minutes - 9 - NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Board of Appeals hereby makes the following findings with respect to the specific criteria for such area variance as set forth in Section 712-b of the Village Law of the State of New York and Village of Cayuga Heights Article IX #21: Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting the area variance. Finding: YES_____ NO X because: There have been no objections from the neighbors Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an area variance. Finding: YES_____ NO X because: Visual and noise screening can not be obtained and still have full use of yard should fence be moved. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. Finding: YES X NO X because: Yes, there is a 3’ set back instead of the required 15’. However, this is mitigated by the fact the length is a small percentage of the perimeter of the property. Whether the proposed area variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Finding: YES_____ NO X because: The length is a small percentage of the perimeter of the property. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. Finding: YES X NO______, because: The applicant built the fence. 1. It is hereby determined by the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Board of Appeals that the following variance is GRANTED AND APPROVED (with conditions, if any, as ZBA 4-30-2012 minutes - 10 - indicated), it being further determined that such variance is the minimum necessary and adequate to grant relief and at the same time preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community: Description of Variance: Granting of an area variance to allow existing 6’ high wood fence(s) to remain in the side/rear yards. The fence is not 90% open and is located at approximately 3’ from the side/rear property line which is less than the 15’ side/rear yard setback required by Zoning Ordinance Section 6. Yard Requirements. Conditions of Variance: The fence must remain substantially as constructed with no expansion into the non- compliant set back. The vote on the foregoing motion was as follows: AYES: A. Watkins K. Sigel R. Parker A. Shull J. Young NAYS: None D) VILLAGE OF CAYUGA HEIGHTS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS RESOLUTION ADOPTED ON April 30, 2012 FOR APPEAL NO. 2012-13 Motion made by: K. Sigel Motion seconded by: A. Watkins WHEREAS: A. This matter involves consideration of the following proposed action: granting of an area variance to allow existing 6’ high chain link fence to remain in the front yard. The fence is located at approximately 3’ from the front property line which is less than the 25’ front yard setback required by Zoning Ordinance Section 6. Yard Requirements. The property in question is known as 600 Cayuga Heights tax map # 1.-3-9; and B. On April 30, 2012, , the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing regarding such action, and thereafter thoroughly reviewed and ZBA 4-30-2012 minutes - 11 - analyzed (i) the materials and information presented by and on behalf of the applicant(s) in support of this appeal, (ii) all other information and materials rightfully before the Board, and (iii) all issues raised during the public hearing and/or otherwise raised in the course of the Board’s deliberations; and C. On April 30, 2012, in accordance with Article 8 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law - the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR), and 6 NYCRR Section 617.5 (c), the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Board of Appeals determined that the proposed action is a Type II action, and thus may be processed without further regard to SEQR; and D. On April 30, 2012, in accordance with Section 712-b of the Village Law of the State of New York and Village of Cayuga Heights Article IX #21, the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Board of Appeals, in the course of its deliberations, took into consideration the benefit to the applicant if the area variance is granted as weighed against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community by such grant; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Board of Appeals hereby makes t he following findings with respect to the specific criteria for such area variance as set forth in Section 712-b of the Village Law of the State of New York and Village of Cayuga Heights Article IX #21: Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting the area variance. Finding: YES X NO X because: No- there have been no complaints from the neighbors and the fence has existed for 30+ years. Yes- A chain link fence with barbed wire that will eventually deteriorate would create an undesirable effect on the neighborhood’s character. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an area variance. Finding: YES X NO______, because: The applicant could build a compliant fence. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. Finding: ZBA 4-30-2012 minutes - 12 - YES X NO___ because: Yes, the setback reduction of 25 feet to 3 feet is large, but it is mitigated by the fact that the fence runs less than 50% of the street frontage. Whether the proposed area variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Finding: YES_____ NOX because: The fence has existed for 30+ years. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. Finding: YES_____ NO X because: The current owners purchased the property 3 years ago and then fence was pre-existing. The prospective buyers were not aware of the compliance issue until after they had submitted a purchase offer. Description of Variance: Granting of an area variance to allow existing 6’ high chain link fence to remain in the front yard. The fence is located at approximately 3’ from the front property line which is less than the 25’ front yard setback required by Zoning Ordinance Section 6. Yard Requirements. Conditions of Variance: This variance only applies to the existing fence and is extinguished if any part of the fence is removed. 1. It is hereby determined by the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Board of Appeals that the proposed variance is DENIED. The vote on the foregoing motion was as follows: AYES: A. Watkins K. Sigel NAYS: R. Parker A. Shull J. Young The motion was declared to be turned down. 3. Minutes ZBA 4-30-2012 minutes - 13 - Motion: A. Watkins Second: J. Young APPROVING MINUTES OF APRIL 4, 2012 RESOLVE, that the written, reviewed and revised minutes of April 4, 2012 meeting are hereby approved. Aye votes – K. Sigel, M. Eisner, R. Parker J. Young and A. Watkins. Opposed- None 4. Other Business 5. Adjourned Meeting adjourned at 9:30pm