Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Draft Minutes 8-5-19 1 Minutes VILLAGE OF CAYUGA HEIGHTS Monday, August 05, 2019 Marcham Hall ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:00 p.m. Present: Members Chair J. Young, 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 at 7:03 p.m. 2. Approval of Meeting Minutes: July 1, 2019 Motion: L. Staley Second: R. Parker Ayes: J. Young, L. Staley, and R. Park Abstentions: None BE IT RESOLVED THAT: The Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Board of Appeals approves the July 1, 2019 minutes as presented. 3.Public Comment: Maggie MacDougall of 20 Sunset Drive voiced her displeasure regarding the renumbering of her home from 120 to 20. She also voiced frustrations with some of her property that is in the Town of Ithaca, she cannot build on it or do anything with it and requested the Zoning Board transfer the land to the Village of Cayuga Heights. 4.Chair J. Young: Explained to M. MacDougall that the Zoning Board of Appeals is not the board she should speak to, as they have no legal authority regarding either issue. She was encouraged to attend the next Board of Trustees meeting on August 19, 2019 at 7:00p.m. regarding the renumbering of homes on Sunset Drive and to contact Town of Ithaca about her property in that jurisdiction. 5.Variance Application: Request by Michael and Ayako Timmons (owners) of 26 Sunset Drive (tax parcel 13.-6-3.2) to allow relocation of side property line to Uttara Prasad (no new lot created) that would result in diminished side yard setback for the garage of 10.9’, which is less than the 15’ 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 applicant Ayako Timmons and neighbor Uttara Prasad. ●Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross: Michael and Ayako Timmons (owners) of 26 Sunset Drive completed a Zoning Permit to transfer a section of land to neighbor Uttara Prasad (owner) of 30 Sunset Drive which will result in a side yard setback of 10.9’ which is less than the 15’ required. Therefore, a side yard setback variance is needed to permit the property line adjustment. There is only minimal impact to lot coverage, no front yards would be impacted by transfer of property. 6.Chair J. Young opened the Public hearing at 7:06 p.m. 2 ●M. Mac Dougall asked if this is a transfer of property or an easement? ●Chair J. Young explained it is a transfer of property. ●U. Prasad stated for the Timmons to access the land requested in the variance they would have to come through my yard to gain entrance. It has been very inconvenient for the Timmons and they have not utilized the property. ●A. Timmons, we have looked at many options to try and make this piece of property useful, there is no easy option. ●R. Parker asked who built the wall on the property? ●M. MacDougall stated it was built by architect Leroy Burnham in approximately 1920. ●R. Marcus questioned if the County Planning Department was sent a 239-m notice as the property that is the subject of the requested variance is within 500’ of the Town of Ithaca. ●B. Cross stated side yard set backs are exempt on contractual basis. Tompkins County Planning does not wish to be involved with variance request. The notification that was provided to adjacent property owners within 200’ spilled over into the Town of Ithaca. Several people who were notified by Certificate of mailing are entirely in the Town of Ithaca. 7.Chair J. Young closed the public hearing at 7:15p.m. The Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Board of Appeals determi ned 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 withou t 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. 3 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 structure involved is not being changed and is not visible to anyone other than 2 parties involved. 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: No other method seems feasible due to physical features and elevation changes that already exist. YES NO X Whether the requested area variance is substantial. Findings: The reduction in the setback is less than 1/3rd (15’ vs. 10.9’), but only a tiny bit of building would be out of compliance. 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 condition of the retaining wall already exist, and no new construction is involved. YES NO X Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. Findings: The yard and wall configuration were constructed prior to the current owners of the properties i nvolved. YES NO X 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 parcel to be transferred is merged with the adjoining parcel currently owned by the proposed grantees and does not become a separate lot. Motion to approve: R. Parker Second: L. Staley Ayes: J. Young, R. Parker, and L. Staley Abstention: None Motion: Carried Chair J. Young informed applicant that anyone can appeal wit hin 30 days. New Business: Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross, no new business noted at this time. Chair J. Young Closed the meeting at 7:23 p.m.