Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA 5-23-2012 Minutes.pdfZBA 5-23-2012minutes Minutes for the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting May 23, 2012 MINUTES Present: Members J. Young, K. Sigel, R. Parker, A. Watkins, and A. Shull Alternate M. Eisner. Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross, Attorney R. Marcus, and VCH Clerk M. Mills 1. Meeting called to order Meeting called to order by Chair J. Young at 7:02 pm. 2. Minutes Moved by: J. Young Seconded by: R. Parker APPROVING MINUTES OF MAY 7, 2012 RESOLVE, that the written, reviewed and revised minutes of May 7, 2012 meeting are hereby approved with suggested corrections. Aye votes – K. Sigel, R. Parker, J. Young, A. Watkins and A. Shull. Nay votes- none 3. 505 The Parkway Rehearing  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  The Board re-visited the findings questions from Resolution 2012-8A passed on April 4, 2012.  A change was made to the fourth finding. The finding will now read: YES X NO X because: 1) Yes, because it could potentially affect deer movement patterns due to the length of the fence and how close it is to the road. 2) No, because the Parkway has a larger than typical right of way with about 20’ from asphalt to edge of property. 3) No, because to require a 25’ setback would create a deer pen if the existing 4’ fence remains.  A change was made to the first finding. The finding will now read: YES X NO X, because: 1a) Yes, because it creates a burden on the neighbors by forcing the deer into their yards. 2a) No, because the Parkway has a larger than typical right of way with about 20’ from asphalt to edge of property. 2b) No, the applicant has minimized the visual impact. ZBA 5-23-2012minutes  The 3rd and 4th conditions were removed. The conditions will now read: 1) Fence must remain constructed of lightweight, collapsible, plastic mesh and bamboo materials which will allow a panicked deer the ability to get through. 2) The configuration of the fence must remain as is with regard to the picket fence and deer fence being co-located and the deer fence (both the plastic mesh and bamboo posts) remaining inside of the picket fence. Moved by: K. Sigel Seconded by: A. Watkins APPROVING THE MODIFIED VARIANCE FOR RESOLUTION 2012-8A RESOLVE, that the variance of Resolution 2012-8A is hereby approved with suggested modifications as described during the meeting of May 23, 2012. Aye votes – K. Sigel, R. Parker, J. Young, A. Watkins and A. Shull. Nay votes- none VILLAGE OF CAYUGA HEIGHTS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS RESOLUTION MODIFIED AND ADOPTED ON MAY 23, 2012 FOR APPEAL NO. 2012-8A 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 at 505 The Parkway Lane, Tax ID# 6.-5-2, to allow an existing 8’ high (90% open mesh) fence to remain along the property line on The Parkway side and part of the property line on the Forest Drive side to remain as constructed. The fences are located on the property line (0’ setback) which is less than the 25’ front yard setback required by Zoning Ordinance Section 6. Yard Requirements ; and B. On May 23, 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 5-23-2012minutes C. On May 23, 2012, in accordance with Article 8 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law - the State Environmental Quality Review Act (ASEQR), and 6 NYCRR Section 617.5, 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 May 23, 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 X NO X, because: 1a) Yes, because it creates a burden on the neighbors by forcing the deer into their yards. 2a) No, because the Parkway has a larger than typical right of way with about 20’ from asphalt to edge of property. 2b) No, the applicant has minimized the visual impact. 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: There is no other way for the applicant to enclose the entire yard. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. Finding: YES X NO______, because: There is a complete elimination of the setback. ZBA 5-23-2012minutes 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 X NO X because: 1) Yes, because it could potentially affect deer movement patterns due to the length of the fence and how close it is to the road. 2) No, because the Parkway has a larger than typical right of way with about 20’ from asphalt to edge of property. 3) No, because to require a 25’ setback would create a deer pen if the existing 4’ fence remains. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. Finding: YES X NO______, because: The applicant put up 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 at 505 The Parkway Lane, Tax ID# 6.-5-2, to allow an existing 8’ high (90% open mesh) fence to remain along the property line on The Parkway side and to remain between 7’ and 15’ from the property line on the Forest Drive side as constructed. The fences are located as close as 0’ from the property line (0’ setback) which is less than the 25’ front yard setback required by Zoning Ordinance Section 6. Yard Requirements Conditions of Variance: 1. Fence must remain constructed of lightweight, collapsible, plastic mesh and bamboo materials which will allow a panicked deer the ability to get through. 2. The configuration of the fence must remain as is with regard to the picket fence and deer fence being co-located and the deer fence (both the plastic mesh and bamboo posts) remaining inside of the picket fence. The vote on the foregoing motion was as follows: AYES: R. Parker K. Sigel J. Young ZBA 5-23-2012minutes A. Shull A. Watkins NAYS: None The motion was declared to be carried. 4. Variance Requests A) 711 The Parkway  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. No members of the public wished to comment.  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 MAY 23, 2012 FOR APPEAL NO. 2012-17 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 an existing 6’ high wood fence to remain 0.2’ from rear property line which is less than the 15’ setback required by Zoning Ordinance Section 6: Yard Requirements. The property in question is known as 711 The Parkway (see attached map) tax map # 6.-2-4 and B. On May 23, 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 May 23, 2012 in accordance with Article 8 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law - the State Environmental Quality Review ZBA 5-23-2012minutes 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 May 23, 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: 1) The fence has existed for many years without complaints. 2) The fence is a short section compared to the perimeter of the property. 3) The material is natural wood and blends in with the surrounding landscape. 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: The applicant does not want to removed the fence. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. Finding: YES X NO______, but is mitigated because the fence is a short section of fence. Whether the proposed area variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. ZBA 5-23-2012minutes - 7 - Finding: YES_____ NO X because: There is no new construction. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. Finding: YES_____ NO X because: The fence was pre-existing. 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 an existing 6’ high wood fence to remain 0.2’ from rear property line which is less than the 15’ setback required by Zoning Ordinance Section 6: Yard Requirements. Conditions of Variance: The fence must remain substantially as currently constructed. The vote on the foregoing motion was as follows: AYES: R. Parker K. Sigel J. Young A. Shull A. Watkins NAYS: None The motion was declared to be carried. B) 102 Forest Drive  Alternate M. Eisner took the place of R. Parker as voting member.  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.  O. White- In favor of variance. ZBA 5-23-2012minutes - 8 -  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 MAY 23, 2012 FOR APPEAL NO. 2012-18 Motion made by: M. Eisner Motion seconded by: K. Sigel WHEREAS: E. This matter involves consideration of the following proposed action: granting of an area variance to allow an existing 8’ high fence (privacy) to remain on/near the side property line which is less than the 15’ setback required by Zoning Ordinance Section 6: Yard Requirements. The property in question is known as 102 Forest Dr. (see attached map) tax map # 6.-5-3 and F. On May 23, 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 G. On May 23, 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 H. On May 23, 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: ZBA 5-23-2012minutes - 9 - 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: 1) The fence has existed for many years without complaints. In addition, the neighbor most affected is in support of the fence. 2) The fence is a short section compared to the perimeter of the property. 3) The material is natural wood and blends in with the surrounding landscape. 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: The house is located at the 15’ setback. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. Finding: YES X NO______, but is mitigated because the fence is a short section of fence. 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 new construction. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. Finding: YES_____ NO X because: The fence was pre-existing. 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: ZBA 5-23-2012minutes - 10 - Granting of an area variance to allow an existing 8’ high fence (privacy) to remain on/near the side property line which is less than the 15’ setback required by Zoning Ordinance Section 6: Yard Requirements. Conditions of Variance: The fence must remain substantially as currently constructed. The vote on the foregoing motion was as follows: AYES: M. Eisner K. Sigel J. Young A. Shull A. Watkins NAYS: None The motion was declared to be carried. 5. Other Business  Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross informed the Board of pending new fence construction cases and discussed scheduling an additional meeting to be held in June. 6. Adjourned Meeting adjourned at 8:07pm