HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Draft 4-2-19
1
Minutes VILLAGE OF CAYUGA HEIGHTS Tuesday, April 02, 2019
Ronald E. Anderson Fire Station ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:00 p.m.
Present: Members Chair J. Young, M. Eisner, M., R. Parker, L. Staley, VCH Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross, VCH
Deputy Clerk P. Rich: Attorney R. Marcus
Absent: S. Manning
1. Call to Order: Chair J. Young called meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
2. Approval of Meeting Minutes: Tabled due to invalid vote
3. Chair J. Young appointed Mark Eisner as a voting member of the Zoning Board of Appeals for the
April 2,2019 meeting.
4. Public Comment: No members of the Public wish to comment at this time.
5. Sign in Sheet:
2
6. Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross: Variance application: An application for a building permit for
construction of a new carport at 130 Sunset Drive has been denied. The carport is proposed to be located
at 10.5’ from the front of the property line and 9’ from the side property line. The set backs are less than
the 25’/15’ (respectively) that a that are required by the 2018 Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Law
Section 5.5: Yard Requirements. Area Variance for carport located at 130 Sunset Drive, Village of Cayuga
Heights Tax Parcel #13.-6-2, Uttara Prasad, Owner/Appellant; Bruno Schickel, Agent.
Village Attorney R. Marcus stated for the record he represents Mr. Schickel (agent) from time to time but never
in connection with this matter and there is not a conflict of interest.
Code Officer B. Cross: Project is not out of proportion for neighborhood and straight forward. The foot print of
the addition of the carport which is in front of the building creates setbacks that are less than the front and side
yard required. Complexity of project is: some of the house and entire back yard are in the Town of Ithaca. What
portion of the property is to be determined in calculating lot coverage, use just what is in the Village or entire
property? If the entire property were in the Village then the entire lot coverage is 4.8% which is under the
maximum of 12%. The 2nd element of the complexity is the project is within 500’of corporation boundary between
the Village of Cayuga Heights and the Town of Ithaca. Tompkins County Department of Planning and Sustainability
had to be contacted pursuant to §239 m of the New York State General Municipal Law. The Department has
reviewed the proposal, as submitted, and has determined that it has no negative inter-community, or county-
wide impacts.
Chair J. Young: Opened the Floor for public comment: 7:10 p.m.
Mr. Schickel explained why the applicant requested the variance, due to garage being very small and unable to
park vehicle in it. Garage would become mud room then add the car port with the slanted roof, you will be able
to see over the roof from the road.
M. Eisner: Went to view garage and concurred no one can park in the garage and asked about missing siding on
house.
Mr. Schickel: stated the siding will be replaced as it was taken down due to damage.
L. Staley: Asked if there will be sides on the car port?
Mr. Schickel: There would be no sides on the car port, the owner has no interest in walls.
R. Parker: Asked Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross to confirm no part of carport was within the Village Right of
Way, and to confirm that if the owner puts a roof on carport the ZBA cannot stop them from adding walls.
R. Marcus: ZBA can make a condition to granting the variance to prohibit walls.
M. Eisner: Asked owner why not build a garage?
Mr. Schickel: The owner wants to keep it small as possible.
B. Cross: Received a letter from some neighbors in support of Carport.
3
Public Comments Closed: 7:30 p.m.
Chair J. Young: Asked Village Attorney R. Marcus regarding SEQR, R. Marcus confirmed this is an exempt action
under 617.5 (c ) # 12, granting of individual set back variance.
4
The Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Board of Appeals determined that the proposed action is a Type II action,
specifically under 6 NYCCR Section 617.5 (c ) # 12, and thus the ZBA may consider the variance request without
further review under SEQR. In accordance with Section 712-b of the Village Law of the State of New York and the
Village of Cayuga heights Zoning Law Article 20, the Village of Cayuga Heights considered the benefit to the
applicant if the area variance is granted as weighted against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the
neighborhood or community by such grant.
The Zoning Board of Appeals, then considered each of the five required questions:
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.
Findings: The carport will barely be visible from the road due to grade of slope. No neighbors have objected. Four
adjacent neighbors have signed a letter of support.
YES NO X
Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue
other than the variance
Findings: Due to slope of the property, there is limited area on which to build a carport, which would be within
the topography is such that any other layout would result in more disruption.
YES NO X
Whether the requested area variance is substantial.
Findings: The reduction of setbacks will be by 58% and 42%. However, the area occupied by the carport that will
not satisfy the setback requirements does not occupy a substantial portion of the frontage.
YES X NO
Whether the proposed area variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental
conditions in the neighborhood or district.
Findings: Impervious surface already exists where the carport is to be constructed, no increase in impervious
surfaces.
YES NO X
Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created.
Findings: Owner purchased home as it is.
YES X NO
Motion to approve: R. Parker Second: L. Staley
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Board of Appeals hereby grants the requested area
variance for addition of a Carport to the property of 130 Sunset Drive, with the condition that the c onstruction
will be substantially as described in the application.
Ayes: J. Young, R. Parker, L. Staley, M. Eisner
5
Abstention – None
Motion carried
7.Variance Application: Luben Dimcheff (agent) of 404 Triphammer Road (tax parcel 14.-2-13) to allow
construction of a new 1 story residential addition that would result in 15% lot coverage, which is greater than
the 12% allowed by 2018 Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Law Section 5.6: Lot Coverage.
J. Young asked Village Attorney R. Marcus whether he should recuse himself from participating in variance appeal
as he is a neighbor of the applicant. R. Marcus informed J. Young decision is up to him: if he can be objective, there
is no requirement to recuse himself, J. Young stated he can be objective.
Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross: Addition to the back side of the house results in 15% lot coverage which is
greater than the 12% allowed. B. Cross has a surveyor’s map associated with project and the architect chose not
to overlay the foot print of the addition, he just transferred outline.
Chair J. Young opened Public Hearing at 7:35 p.m.
M. Eisner: Asked B. Cross if the architect perception is accurate and B. Cross stated it was correct.
L. Staley: Asked owner Creig Fennie if addition would impact stonewall.
C. Fennie: It will impact the stone wall, we plan to reuse it and make a court yard in front, like a fence with the
intention of having a new garden similar to the front garden and landscaping.
B. Cross provided an aerial map of property for ZBA members to review and to assist to better understand concept.
Chair J. Young closed Public Hearing 7:50 p.m.
Chair J. Young asked Village Attorney R. Marcus regarding SEQR. R. Marcus stated this appeal was an exempt
action under 617.5 (c) #9, construction or expansion of a single-family residence on approved lot.
In accordance with the article 8 of the New York Environmental Conservation Law-the State Environmental Quality
Review Act (SEQR), and specifically 6 NYCCR Section 617.5 (c) (#12), 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
review under SEQR. In accordance with Section 712-b of the Village Law of the State of New York and the Village
of Cayuga Heights Zoning Law Article 20, the Village of Cayuga Heights considered the benefit to the applicant if
the area variance is granted as weighted against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the
neighborhood or community by such grant:
The Zoning Board of Appeals, then considered each of the five required questions:
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.
Findings: No neighborhood opposition. The change in grade between this property and the neighbors closet to
the addition makes the change less visible. The Cornell housing is shielded from the addition by a row of garages.
The addition is 1 story.
YES NO X
6
Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue
other than the variance.
Findings: It would be possible to relocate the addition or add to part of the existing house, however, this is a
distinct property with unique architecture, and the entire house would have to be redesigned.
YES X NO
Whether the requested area variance is substantial.
Findings: Rear boundary line between 404 Triphammer Road and adjacent property’s boundary is between the
residential and multi housing district. In that district, the setbacks would be permitted.
YES NO X
Whether the proposed area variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental
conditions in the neighborhood or district
Findings: Not visible to the public.
YES NO X
Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created.
Findings: Owner purchased the property as it is.
YES X NO
Motion to approve: L. Staley Second: R. Parker
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Board of Appeals hereby grants the requested area
variance for a 1 story addition to the property of 404 Triphammer Road, with the condition that the construction
will be substantially as described in the application.
Ayes: J. Young, L. Staley, R. Parker
Abstention: M. Eisner
8. Variance Application: John Young (owner) of 107 Oak Hill Place (tax parcel 14.-2-10) to construct a new
2 car garage that would be located at 5’ from the side property line, which is less than the 15’ required
by the 2018 Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Law Section 5.5: yard requirements; and would result in
15.1% lot coverage, which is greater than the 12% allowed by the 2018 Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning
Law Section 5.6: Lot Coverage.
Chair J. Young recused himself as he is the property owner.
Village Attorney R. Marcus: For the record J. Young and I have an ongoing relationship as attorney and client, so
I cannot answer questions on the substance but will answer questions on the procedure.
R. Parker has stepped into the role of Chair for the Variance regarding 107 Oak Hill Place.
7
B. Cross: Currently 107 Oak Hill Road without the proposed project is non-compliant with a setback of 5’ for
existing garage and foot print creates lot coverage that exceeds the allowable amount. Upon removing the current
garage all grandfathering is lost.
R. Parker: Opened the Public Hearing at 8:10 p.m.
L. Staley: Asked if old garage must be torn down for new garage to be built or is that a separate condition?
B. Cross: Stated that he believes that is the proposal.
L. Staley: Asked B. Cross when he is calculating the lot coverage, he is taking out the old garage?
B. Cross: Stated he is taking out the old garage and adding a slightly bigger garage back in, so the number that
we are looking at for contemplation is 15.1%, he is not looking at an incremental amount from what is there now
simply going back to compliance then adding the proposed garage.
R. Marcus: Stated that the lot is in the Residential Zoning District, so 12% lot coverage is the limit.
M. Eisner: Requested what is the current lot size in SF?
B. Cross: Roughly 15,848 SF taking in the trapezoidal overall shape.
M. Eisner: Asked if the current garage is a 1 or 2 car garage?
B. Cross: Responded the current garage is a 2-car garage.
L. Staley: Asked if any neighbors have made any comments?
B. Cross: No comments from any neighbors.
J. Young: Property owner stated they had tenants in this property last year and they parked cars next to the road
all year as the driveway is so narrow and had a big rut on side from driving off the pavement so often. We patched
up the driveway and put some pavement in a ditch to widen and repair it, wasn’t a good job. We thought about a
turnaround as the driveway is so narrow and if you parked in the garage you would have to back up 100’ to get
out to road. The house doesn’t have much of a back or side yard, so we decided to slide the garage where it is by
60% of the way to the road and place it there. We would be widening the driveway a little and would give room
for 2 cars to park side by side and get into garage easily. Tear up the slab that the current garage is on and put
approximately 2’ of top soil down and make a garden. The lot coverage is going to be slightly more now than it
was, we would make the doors 9’ wide so you can put recycling/garbage on the side. Since it a de tached garage,
the builder stated he would put a 4’overhang on the side toward the house so you can walk under it when it is
raining. Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross stated that any over hang over 3’ wide counts as building coverage.
Mr. Young replied that he could have made the overhang 2’9” wide and reduce the lot coverage slightly but
preferred a 4’ wide overhang as that would be more functional in bad weather.
M. Eisner: Asked B. Cross if the overhang was included in the calculations as part of the dimension of the
proposed building.
J. Young: It’s not in either. We added 4’ in each dimension of the old garage, thus the 20’ garage turns into 24’on
the drawing, the 22’ turns into 26’ on the drawing overhang. Thus, the overhang isn’t part of the 20’x26” footprint.
The garage will also be 1.5 stories as we are adding storage above the garage. The goal was to move the garage and
8
make more up to modern standards and increase storage. Also, I put together a summary with the 5 questions in
mind. One of the positives is we are getting rid of a lot of pavement making room for more grass, trees and a garden.
R. Parker: Asked Village Attorney R. Marcus regarding the 5 questions if they need to be done separately as there
is lot coverage and set back.
R. Marcus: Can be done either way because they are so much interrelated, maybe easier to do separately.
R. Parker: Asked if there were any more questions from the ZBA or members the public?
M. Eisner: The increase of the garage is 171 SF out of compliance relative to the current coverage, the increase
in the size of the garage is more than that.
B. Cross: If you delete either garage you gain back a buffer.
M. Eisner: You go from 440 SF (old garage) to 624 SF (new garage).
R. Marcus: The other structure/house does not consume the full 12% of lot coverage, there is some cushion.
M. Eisner: It’s a substantial increase of 40%-50% bigger in SF, happens because the increase is less than the
increase in lot coverage 14% to 15.1%, am I construing that correctly?
L. Staley: Asked property owner J. Young if the 24x26 garage structure includes an overhang?
B. Cross: The building is a 24x26 garage structure.
R. Parker: Asked M. Eisner if he has any more questions.
M. Eisner: I have all the data now.
R. Parker Closed the public hearing at 8:40 p.m.
R. Parker asked Village Attorney R. Marcus regarding the SEQR. R. Marcus stated that this appeal is an exempt
action under 617.5 (c) # 12- granting of individual set back variance.
In accordance with the article 8 of the New York Environmental Conservation Law- the State Environmental
Quality Review Act (SEQR), and specifically 6 NYCCR Section 617.5 (c) (#12), 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 review under SERQ. In accordance with Section 712-b of the Village Law of the State of New York and the
Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Law Article 20, the Village of Cayuga Heights considered the benefit to the
applicant of the area variance is granted as weighted against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of
the neighborhood or community by such grant:
The Zoning Board of Appeals, then considered each of the five required questions:
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.
Findings: The plan reduces non-compliance for set back and there was no neighbor objection.
YES NO X
9
Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue
other than the variance.
Findings: If the garage were moved to a compliant position it would be very prominent and would substantially
reduce the front yard. Moving the garage to the front yard would be esthetically worse then the proposal.
YES NO X
Whether the requested area variance is substantial.
Findings: Already out of compliance but is a 2/3rd reduction. The set back reduction is 67%, which is substantial,
but it is not a net change from existing, while eliminating the existing rear lot set back issue.
YES X No
Whether the proposed area variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental
conditions in the neighborhood or district.
Findings: The total impermeable surface will be reduced by the approximately the difference of 1800 SF due t o
proposed changes in the driveway.
YES NO X
Whether the alleged difficult was self-created.
Findings: Purchased home with smaller garage.
YES X NO
Motion to approve: L Staley, Second: M. Eisner
Ayes: L. Staley, R. Parker, M. Eisner
Abstentions: None
BE IT RESOLVED: The Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Board of appeals hereby grants approval of variance of set
back to the property of 107 Oak Hill place with the condition that the construction will be substantially as
described in the application.
SERQ Exemption 617.5C # 10 – Lot Coverage
The Zoning Board of Appeals, then considered each of the five required questions:
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.
Findings: No neighbors complained, compatible with other homes with standalone garages.
YES NO X
10
Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue
other than the variance.
Findings: To be within the allowed lot coverage, the garage would have to be even smaller than the current garage
or be eliminated.
YES NO X
Whether the requested area variance is substantial.
Findings: Although the new garage is larger, the increase over the allowed surface coverage is only 26%.
YES NO X
Whether the proposed area variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental
conditions in the neighborhood or district.
Findings: The increase is off set by the decrease of impermeable surface.
YES NO X
Whether the alleged difficult was self-created.
Findings: The garage could be made smaller.
YES X NO
Motion to approve: L. Staley, Second: R. Parker
Ayes: L. Staley, Second: R. Parker, M. Eisner
Abstention: None
Be it Resolved: The Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Board of Appeals hereby grants the approval of variance for
lot coverage for 107 Oak Hill Place with the condition that the construction will be substantially as described in
the application.
New Business: No new Business currently.
Meeting Adjourned 8:50 p. m.
11