Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA 7.10.2012 Minutes.pdfZBA 7-10-2012 minutes - 1 - Minutes for the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting July 10, 2012 MINUTES Present: Members Chair J. Young, K. Sigel, R. Parker, A. Shull, and Alternate M. Eisner 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 7:05 pm. 2. Minutes APPROVING MINUTES OF JUNE 20, 2012 RESOLVE, that the written, reviewed and revised minutes of June 20, 2012 meeting are hereby unanimously approved with suggested corrections. 3. Variance Requests A) 523 Highland 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.  The Board asked the applicants questions regarding their 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 JULY 10, 2012 NO. 2012-24 Motion made by: K. Sigel Motion seconded by: M. Eisner WHEREAS: A. This matter involves consideration of the following proposed action: granting of an area variance to allow an existing 6’ high fence to remain at/near front property line, ZBA 7-10-2012 minutes - 2 - which is less than the 25’ front yard setback required by the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Section 6: Yards. The property in question is known as 523 Highland Road (see attached map) tax map # 12.-3-2; and B. On July 10, 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 July 10, 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 July 10, 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: It is an existing fence that is well hidden and the new proposed fencing will not be very noticeable. 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 picket fence could be removed and a new compliant fence could be built. However, the proposed variance would have less of a visual impact. ZBA 7-10-2012 minutes - 3 - Whether the requested area variance is substantial. Finding: YES X NO X because: 1) Yes, in regards to Upland Rd as there is a 0’ setback on a substantial portion. 2) No, in regards to Highland Rd as there is a 15’ setback on a small portion. 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: It is an existing fence and there have been no objections from neighbors regarding the current variance request. 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 an existing 6’ high fence (or a 7’ replacement as noted below in condition #1) to remain at/near front property line, which is less than the 25’ front yard setback required by the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Section 6: Yards. Conditions of Variance: 1) Fencing above 4’ along Upland Rd if replaced must be constructed of a similar wire material that is along the driveway and be no higher than 7’. 2) All other portions of the fence will remain substantially as constructed. The vote on the foregoing motion was as follows: AYES: J. Young, K. Sigel, R. Parker, A. Shull, and M. Eisner NAYS: None ZBA 7-10-2012 minutes - 4 - The motion was declared to be carried. B) 423 Highland 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.  The Board asked the applicants questions regarding their 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 JULY 10, 2012 FOR APPEAL NO. 2012-25 Motion made by: M. Eisner Motion seconded by: J. Young WHEREAS: A. This matter involves consideration of the following proposed action: granting of an area variance to allow the existing wood fences to remain at/near side property line, which is less than the 15’ side yard setback required by the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Section 6: Yards. The property in question is known as 423 Cayuga Heights Road (see attached map) tax map # 8.-3-2; and B. On July 10, 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 July 10, 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 July 10, 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 ZBA 7-10-2012 minutes - 5 - 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: It is an existing fence and there have been no apparent complaints. 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 wished to retain the privacy fence and the location of the house and the neighbor’s house does not leave another feasible option. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. Finding: YES X NO______, because: There is a 0’ setback instead of the required 15’. This is mitigated because it is not visible from the public right of way. 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: It is an existing fence and there is no new construction involved. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. Finding: YES X NO______, because: The applicant built the fence. ZBA 7-10-2012 minutes - 6 - 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 the existing wood fences to remain at/near side property line, which is less than the 15’ side yard setback required by the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Section 6: Yards. Conditions of Variance: The fences must remain substantially as they exist up to 6’. The vote on the foregoing motion was as follows: AYES: J. Young, K. Sigel, R. Parker, A. Shull, and M. Eisner NAYS: None The motion was declared to be carried. C) 110 Lexington Drive West  Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross gave a background summary on the case.  L. Hart, agent for the applicant, was given the opportunity to speak to the Board regarding the request.  The Board asked the applicants questions regarding their 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 JULY 10, 2012 FOR APPEAL NO. 2012-26 Motion made by: M. Eisner Motion seconded by: R. Parker WHEREAS: ZBA 7-10-2012 minutes - 7 - 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 at approximately 7.0’/12.1’ from side property lines, which is less than the 15’ side yard setback required by the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Section 6: Yards. The property in question is known as 110 Lexington Drive West (see attached map) tax map # 4.-3-11.36; and B. On July 10, 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 July 10, 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 July 10, 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 since 1989 2) If the fence were pushed back to be in compliance, there would be no significant change to its 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. ZBA 7-10-2012 minutes - 8 - Finding: YES_____ NO X because: The applicant is seeking to retain the existing fence. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. Finding: YES X NO X because: 1) No regarding the North side as there is only a 3’ encroachment. 2) Yes regarding the South side as there is a 7’ setback instead of the required 15’, but this is mitigated by it impacting less than 50% of the boundary length on this side. 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 fence is pre-existing. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. Finding: YES_____ NO X because: The fence was built prior to the applicant taking ownership. 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 at approximately 7.0’/12.1’ from side property lines, which is less than the 15’ side yard setback required by the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Section 6: Yards. Conditions of Variance: The fence must remain substantially as it exists. The vote on the foregoing motion was as follows: ZBA 7-10-2012 minutes - 9 - AYES: J. Young, K. Sigel, R. Parker, A. Shull, and M. Eisner NAYS: None The motion was declared to be carried. 4. Other Business  Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross informed the Board the Tompkins County Planning Dept. has offered municipalities the preference to opt out of County participation.  RESOLVE, that the Board by unanimous decision has agreed to hold the next meeting of the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Board of Appeals on Wednesday, August 22, 2012 at 7PM at Marcham Hall. Aye votes – All in favor Opposed- None  Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross discussed with the Board upcoming cases for the August 22, 2012 meeting. 5. Adjourned Meeting adjourned at 8:30pm