Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA draft 8-3-2020 1 Minutes VILLAGE OF CAYUGA HEIGHTS Monday, August 03, 2020 Marcham Hall ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:00 p.m. Present: Members: Chair L. Staley, R. Parker, S. Barnett, J. Sauer, M. Friend, VCH Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross, Attorney R. Marcus, Trustee M. McMurray, Mayor L. Woodard, and Village Deputy Clerk P. Rich. Absent: All present 1. Call to order: Chair L. Staley called meeting to at 7:04 p.m. 2. Approval of Meeting Minutes: August 05, 2019 Motion: R. Parker Second: J. Sauer Ayes: L. Staley, R. Parker, M. Friend, J. Sauer, and S. Barnett Abstentions: None BE IT RESOLVED THAT: The Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Board of Appeals approves the August 5, 2019 minutes as presented. 3. Chair L. Staley: Explained the process of the Zoning Board of Appeals to new members of the ZBA and to applicants. 4.Variance Application: Requested by Kenneth and Sarah Subin (owners) of 602 The Parkway (tax parcel 6.-8-2.1)to allow fence facing Comstock Road to remain as constructed with a 7.5’ solid wood wall 9’ from property line at close st point which is less than the 25’ set back as required in Zoning Law 305-19.A.1. ●Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross: Construction of a new fence, to replace an existing fence at 602 The Parkway has been denied. The new fence is a 7.5” high solid wood w all located approximately 9’ (at closest point) to the front of the property line on Comstock Road, side of the property. This is considered a “front yard” by the Zoning Regulations, therefore the fence would need to be at least 25’ from the property line as required by the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Law section 305-19. A.1-yard regulations. B. Cross saw fence in the process of being built and explained to applicants the need of an application/permit to replace existing fence. ●S. Barnett: Fence is inconsistent on West end and got farther away from road. ● B. Cross: Pointed out that the issue before the ZBA is a decision on the location of the fence, that is “proposed” to be less than the required 25’ front yard setback for a fence exceeding 4’ height, but that the height of the fence (exceeds 4”) can b e taken into consideration, and a limitation of the height could be considered as a condition of such approval. ●J. Sauer: The height of the fence is an issue, does the ZBA include it in the variance application? ● R. Marcus: The Zoning Board of Appeals tonight is reviewing the whole of what is the fence; the material, location, impact, and height. The location of the fence within the required setback is the variance being requested by the applicant. 5.. Presentation: Applicants Kenneth and Sarah Subin- First, we want to apologize to the ZBA for misunderstanding proper ty facing Comstock Road, side yard vs front yard. Second, we incorrectly assumed that the placement distance of a fence greater than 4’ high would be from the center line of Comstock Road. It was a n honest mistake. However, we believe that, functionally, our property facing Comstock Road is a side yard. We are not challenging the definitions and zoning ordinances put forth by the Village of Cayuga Heights, we are asking you to consider the practical use and appearance of Comstock Road as a truly low traffic volume road as you contemplate your decision for our variance request. We feel we have added to the appeal and beauty of our home and neighborhood. We asked some of our neighbors to add their name to a letter of 2 support, due to COVID-19 they did not sign but gave verbal support. The Comstock Road portion of the fence is hidden by a dense tree line, and barely visible from either vantage point looking west down Comstock Road or east towards The Parkway from the Western end of Comstock Road. The wood construction allows the structure to blend in with the natural environment. Our dog is vocal and protective of backyard space. His barking can be intimidating to those passing by. Since the construction of the fence as it exists, his barking has become nearly no nexistent. This fence was a family project during our quarantine time due to COVID-19. Because of this, we are invested in maintaining the fence as is, without modification s. To view the applicant’s presentation, click here: https://lfweb.tompkins-co.org/laserfiche/Docview.aspx?db=CayugaHeights&docid=356067 ●M. Friend: Is concerned with the closeness of the fence to the road at the section closest to Comstock -Parkway intersection. ●L. Staley: Where is the sewer line in relation to the fence and on what side of the fence? ●K. Subin: By front of property, inside fenced area. ●S. Barnett: The distance from the edge of the property line, when measured more than doubles in footage. ●B. Cross: Visually it doesn’t seem like that much footage. Also, reminded the ZBA they have up to 62 days to make decision regarding variance. ●R. Marcus: Recommendation – When the ZBA is considering a variance for a proposed physical feature, actual dimensions are relevant to decisions. In this case, since the physical feature already exists, if you choose to grant the variance as applicant has presented, it can be granted for the fence as it exists, in its present location, without regard to the actual measurements. ●J. Sauer: The fence is not parallel to the road. ●K. Subin: Due to the non-paved area. ●J. Sauer: Why put the sewer inside fence line? ●K. Subin: We followed the old fence line. If we move the fence more inside, we run into a large tree root and more large trees. ●S. Barnett: If the fence placement was in code, sewer line and tree roots would be outside of fence. ●K. Subin: We could not move the fence more inside as we have more large Spruce trees inside yard. ●B. Cross: Explained that it doesn’t matter if you move the fence in or out, you would still crisscross the sewer line. ●S. Barnett: Suggested moving the fence in 16’ to avoid t he sewer. ●B. Cross: Moving the fence in the corner would not avoid the sewer line. ●J. Sauer: Does the tree affect the fence line; the fence doesn’t have to be straight. ●L. Staley: Inquired about moving the fence. ●K. Subin: Fence post and angles would run into the tree. We followed railing system, angles would not work, post would not fit except at 180◦ or 90◦. ●M. Friend: Asked the applicants if they could remove some of the topmost boards? ●S. Barnett: Another fence design could have been chosen. 3 ●R. Parker: In almost every variance, there are always other options, though they don’t meet the applicant’s needs. ●J. Sauer: What are the limiting factors that you had to place fence where it is? The east side of the fence, the section that turns 90◦towrds the house, can this section be moved 20’ to the west, thus shortening the the long part of the fence in question. ●K. Subin: We have a concrete patio, AC unit, we can’t shift west as we are unable to shift starting point. ●S. Barnett: Placement 10’ from the house will not hit AC unit, you have options. ●J. Sauer: How does this wood age, will it change color over time, does it darken? Do you have any plans to paint it? ●S. Subin: It weathers well according to our carpenter; we want to put an oil stain on it. 6. Chair L. Staley opened meeting for Public Hearing at 7:50 p.m. ●Michael Strausser of 210 Comstock Road: Stated he was not for or against the fence, has no objection if ZBA approves variance if color of fence is maintained and seeking variance after the fact does not become a precedent in the Village. ●Jed Ostrom of 520 The Parkway: View is directly across street from the fence, trees over the fence, helps with situation of dog and the Subin’s have my full support of the fence. I question why the ZBA is spending time on the color of the fence? ●E. Quaroni of 115 Cayuga Park Circle: This is a large fence and a large fence across the street, I am not used to seeing such large fences in the Village. Did any of the ZBA members drive or walk down Comstock and notice the two fences? ●R. Parker: I noticed a fence across the street, I didn’t feel closed in. ●B. Cross: The Ostrom’s have a batting cage up which is a temporary situation, not permanent. The wood fence, they sought a building permit approximately 10 years ago, I have no measurements at this time regarding the fence ●J. Ostrom: We have small kids and dogs, and in the past issues with deer. 7. Chair L. Staley closed the public hearing at 8:10 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 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, Chapter 305 of the Village Code, 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 neighbors are supportive of the fence as built with conditions. The fence does not reflect the “park like” atmosphere desired by the founders of the Village, and by many current residents of Cayuga Heights. There is concern of how close to fence is to the road. 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 4 Findings: Applicants could train the dog or could lower the fence. They could move the fence inward, although the terrain and sewer line placement are problematic. YES X NO Whether the requested area variance is substantial. Findings: The southeast corner, at 16’ over the setback line, is substantial. At the southwest corner, the area variance would not be substantial. Most of the fence along Comstock Road (south length) has landscaping that mitigates the visibility. 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: No environmental issues, no water or streams on property, and the fence does not extend the entire length of property. YES NO X Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. Findings: The fence is “essentially” at the position of the prior fence; the existing landscaping of the yard made that the logical positioning. However, the prior fence was both shorter and significantly more transparent then the fence in the variance request. As built, the fence meets the applicants’ reasons for building the fence to deter their dog from seeing and barking at pedestrians and bicyclist. YES X NO The Zoning Board of Appeals continued a discussion of the variance request, using the answers from the 5 questions as input. ●M. Friend: Concerned about the closeness of the fence to the road. ●S. Barnett: Voiced that the ZBA seems more concerned about the height of the fence instead of the closeness to the road. ●R. Parker: Yard has a large slope and drop off and to move fence one would need to have major excavation. ●S. Barnett: Asked the applicants if they had any ideas regarding the fence.? ●K. Subin: Very difficult to move fence since posts are cemented in the ground. We would be willing to reduce the height of fence to 6’ in area of concerns. ●L. Staley: Asked how wide the planks are in the fence? ●K. Subin: Each plank is 6” wide. 5 Motion: R. Parker made motion: To grant the requested variance for the fence substantially as built, at current height with condition to maintain natural wood color. No second on motion Pictures of fence were reviewed ●S. Barnett: Asked how many panels are there to the gate and how many after gate? ●K. Subin: Went outside and counted, 9 panels to the gate and 10 panels after gate. ●L. Staley: Asked applicants if they would reduce the fence height to 6’? ●K. Subin: Responded they would reduce the height of fence. Motion: S. Barnett made a motion to grant the variance substantially as described in the variance application with the conditions that the fence height will be reduced to 6’ from the southeast corner back to the gate along Comstock Road, and on two panels heading north from the southeast corner. Seconded: J. Sauer Motion: R. Parker made motion to accept motion as previously stated but to add to maintain natural wood finish. Seconded: J. Sauer ●J Sauer: Asked applicant if they are okay with variance as stated? ●R. Marcus: ZBA is unable to revise the terms of the variance that applicant is requesting, or applicant would have to seek new variance. Because the applicant has voluntarily stated that they would reduce the height of a portion of the fence, which would reduce the impact of the variance being requested, the ZBA could consider this revision to the application. It is hereby determined by the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Board of Appeals to grant the variance as substantially described in the variance application with the conditions that fence height reduced to 6’ from the SOUTHEAST corner back to the gate along Comstock Road and for two panels heading north from the southeast corner and to maintain natural wood finish. Motion to approve: R. Parker Second: J. Sauer Ayes: L. Staley, R. Parker, M. Friend, J. Sauer and S. Barnett. Abstention: None Motion: Carried Chair L. Staley: Informed applicant that anyone can appeal within 30 days. Applicant has 60 days to comply with the ZBA conditions. Village of Cayuga Heights Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross will enforce. New Business: Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross, no new business noted at this time. ●R. Marcus: Highlighted that most variances don’t go this way, the applicants were willing to voluntarily reduce height of the fence, and thereby reduce the impact of the requested variance. Also, most ZBA meeting do not last this long. Chair L. Staley: Closed the meeting at 10:28 p.m.