Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 7-1-2019 1 Minutes VILLAGE OF CAYUGA HEIGHTS Monday, July 01, 2019 Marcham Hall ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:00 p.m. Present: Members Chair J. Young, M., R. Parker, L. Staley, VCH Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross, VCH Deputy Clerk P. Rich: Absent: S. Manning, Attorney R. Marcus 1. Call to Order: Chair J. Young called meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. 2. Approval of Meeting Minutes: November 2, 2018. BE IT RESOLVED THAT: The Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Board of Appeals approves the November 5, 2018 minutes as presented. Motion: R. Parker Seconded: L. Staley Ayes: Chair J. Young, R. Parker, and L. Staley. Abstentions: None 3. Approval of Meeting Minutes: April 2, 2019. BE IT RESOLVED THAT: The Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Board of Appeals approves the April 2, 2019 minutes as presented. Motion: L. Staley Seconded: R. Parker Ayes: Chair J. Young, L. Staley, and R. Parker Abstentions: None 4. Public Comment: No members of the public wish to speak. 5. Variance Request: 701 Highland Road 2 An application to construct a new 7’ tall wood fence at the above address has been denied. One of the new fences is proposed to be located at 6” from the side property line which is less than 15’ that is required by the 2018 Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Ordinance Section 5.5: Yard Requirements. • Chair J. Young explained the process of the Zoning Board of Appeals to property owner David Mohler and David Fernandez from Cayuga Landscape Company. • Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross: Chris Gruber (agent) of 701 Highland Road Completed a Variance Application for fencing. 4’ fences in front yards are subject to permits. The variance requested is for the 80’ stretch of fence along the north side of the property. The fence is a 6’ fence on a grade and the top could be 7’ at the highest point. The variance is not for the height of the fence but for the portion of the fence over 4’ tall and located less than the required 15’ set back. The dimension that we are giving the variance for is the 6” set back. 6. Chair Jack Young opened the Public hearing at 7:07 p.m. David Fernandez from Cayuga Landscape Company presented the Zoning Board of Appeals with handouts of pictures and diagrams: The fencing is to provide privacy and will not be visible to public, 7’ is only the tip of each section. • Property owner David Mohler: We get along great with our neighbors who are in support of the fence, we have open areas to preserve openings for kids to play, it’s more of a privacy screen. • R. Parker: If I stand on the deck there is no privacy, if privacy was an issue why not build a higher fence? 3 • Property Owner David Mohler: We didn’t want to block the view totally, we just want some privacy screening. • R. Parker: With a 6” setback, will the fence run into existing shrubs or trees and what will happen when it does? • David Fernandez: There are notches in fence to avoid the trees. • Property Owner David Mohler: We want to avoid harming any trees, the fence may be more than 6” from the property line in places to avoid trees. Letter from neighbor in support of fence: 4 5 6 Chair J. Young Closed the Public Hearing at 7:20 p.m. 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) (16), 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: Granting this variance would only affect one neighbor who is in favor of the fence and wrote a letter of support. The fence is hidden and will not be visible to the public. YES NO X 7 Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than the variance Findings: Increased landscaping and planting of trees could increase privacy although it would use a significant percentage of yard space. YES X NO Whether the requested area variance is substantial. Findings: Yes, the variance is substantial, 15’ vs 6”, but only affects half of the north property line. 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 fence will not stop wildlife or affect drainage and does not block any neighbors’ view. YES NO X Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. Findings: Yes, the property owners want the fence as a privacy screen. YES X NO Motion to approve: R. Parker Second: L. Staley It is hereby determined by the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Board of Appeals to grant the requested variance, it being further determined that such variance is the minimum necessary and adequate to grant the relief sought and at the same time preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community, on the condition that the proposed fencing is to be installed substantially as indicated in the application. Ayes: J. Young, R. Parker, L. Staley Abstention – None Motion: carried J. Young informed applicant that anyone can appeal within 30 days. NEW BUSINESS: Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross: There is a potential for a new variance application as a landscape feature installed on one property crosses into another neighbor’s property. They are currently trying to work out the issue. Chair J. Young closed meeting at 7:30 p.m.