Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA 7-12-21 Minutes Final Zoning Board of Appeals Monday, July 12, 2021 7:00 p.m. Present: Chair: L. Staley; R. Parker; J. Sauer; S. Barnett; M. Friend; Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross; Attorney R. Marcus; Deputy Clerk P. Rich; B. Ramshaw. 1. Call to Order: Chair L. Staley called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes of Zoning Board of Appeals meeting: June 7, 2021 BE IT RESOLVED THAT: The Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Board of Appeals approves the May 3, 2021 minutes as presented. Motion: R. Parker Second: M. Friend Ayes: L. Staley; R. Parker; M. Friend Nays: None Abstentions: S. Barnett 3. Variance Request: 402 Hanshaw Road (Tax Parcel 9.-3-7.2) An application to construct a new 8’tall open mesh fence at the above referenced address has been denied. A portion of the new fence is proposed to be 3’ from the front property line on Highland Road, which is less than the 25’ required by the 2018 Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Ordinance Section 305-19. A: Yard Requirements. ● B. Cross: A Zoning Permit Application for 402 Hanshaw Road (Tax Parcel 9.3-7.2) Brad Ramshaw and Natasha Holmes (owners) are seeking a front yard variance. Requirement is to be no closer to the property line than 25”: they are seeking a reduced set back to 3’. The fence is 90% see through mesh and is allowed on an 8’fence, the variance request is limited to the setback reduction. ● B. Ramshaw made the following presentation: ●M. Friend: What is the difference with this variance from previous variance request? ●B. Ramshaw: Removed about 100’ of fencing, moved much of it back within the 25’ setback. ●L. Staley: Is the gate straight? ●S. Barnett: What material is the gate made from? ●B. Ramshaw: The gate is made from the same material as the fence mesh and 90% see through. The gate is 10’ wide so if we need to have a truck get in, we can. ●S. Barnett: What is the set back of the gate? ●B. Ramshaw: The gate is setback 14’. The property line is weird, it’s at an angle. ●M. Friend: The gate, what is it for? Is it just to have for when and if it’s needed? ●S. Barnett: To clarify, the gate is as needed, mostly to have available when needed? ●B. Ramshaw: The primary purpose of the gate is to pull logs through, not just for trucks to be able to drive through. ●B. Cross: The culvert needs to be addressed. (ZBA members saw communication vis email between B. Cross and B. Ramshaw) The culvert was put in 10 years ago. It has been treated and maintained by the Village of Cayuga Heights. If this variance request is passed and the fencing will be placed, it will be the responsibility of the property owners to maintain. PUBLIC HEARING Opened at 7:27 p.m. ●. B. Cross: A letter was sent to the Zoning Board of Appeals by village member P. Schwartz who was unable to attend meeting. The letter was provided to all ZBA members prior to meeting. ●J. Ehrenreich: Requested what height is the fence? ●B. Cross: The variance is not about the height of the fence as it is 90% see through, it’s about the setback which is 3’ from property line. ●J.Ehrenreich: If the fence is to keep the deer out, where do the deer go? ●B. Cross: That question comes up with almost every fence variance. ZBA members have guidelines; they never let fences go end to end so that deer can slip through. ●K. Lacson: I have been staring at the orange stakes, the fence would be very visible and would be an eyesore. In the last few years, the deer population has declined. The culvert is dry most of the year and I don’t think it’s that big of a responsibility to maintain it. ●J. Halpin: The fence on Highland Road would be very visible and an eyesore. No one else in the neighborhood has one. Since April I have only seen 6 deer. In the presentation the pictures are while the shrubs and bushes are all green. Personally, I feel other things can be done, the fence should be further back. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 7:39 p.m. Variance is SEQR Exempt: 617.5(c)(16). 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. Finding: Two neighbors voiced the fence will be intrusive and an “eyesore” The length of exposed fencing is small (approximately 30-32 feet) compared to the length of the property and the remainder of the fence (over 200 ft.). The ZBA members split on the following findings: The fence is mostly transparent. The use of black post and wire minimize the visibility, especially given the shrubbery behind the fence. It would not be an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. The fence will be tall and visible especially in the winter. It will be an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. Left blank due to tie among the ZBA members. YES NO Whether the benefit sought by applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than the variance. Finding: The fence could be built at 25’ set back but would entail crossing of the stream. One of the applicants’ goals is to avoid crossing the stream. The fence could be on the south side of the stream. The applicant wishes to have the stream a part of the landscaping within his yard. A culvert could be inserted within the setback to allow at-grade crossing without a variance. The creek has a very wide bed and has knee-high fast flow in the spring and during heavy rain. B. Cross agreed with the applicant that putting in a culvert would be both expensive and likely unsuccessful. YES X NO Whether the requested area variance is substantial. Finding: The setback is reduced from 25’ to 3’, which is substantial but is only 10-15% of the property length on that side. 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. Finding: The fencing material will not hinder small animals, water, or wind. There is room for deer to pass through the property outside the fence. The additional portion of the property that will exclude deer by virtue of the variance is a very small portion compared to what is allowed without the variance. YES NO X Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. Finding: The applicant wishes to include the stream within their backyard without actually putting the fence through the stream. A shorter, allowed fence at the same location would not exclude deer. YES X NO ●R. Marcus: For any resolution to pass it needs 3 votes, without 3 votes then there is no grant of a variance. Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals discussed the following about the fence portion subject to the variance: ●The property map does not show the stream accurately ●The stream wanders within a broad bed and the “bump out” to cross the culvert is the minimum width to avoid posts within the stream bed. ●The gate is angled to avoid additional shrub and tree removal but is not contributing to the width of the fence. ●M. Friend: Asked if there are other options for the fencing and the gate that would be visible on Highland Road such as aluminum, brown, and or wood? ●R. Parker: Black is the least visible. The opinions of neighbors are very important, and we always consider that in deciding variances. The decision is a balance between the applicant and the community, not just the neighbors. ●Motion: R. Parker made a motion to approve variance with the condition the fence be built substantially as described in the application and the applicant should maintain significant shrubbery in the area to the extent possible while allowing access to the culvert as needed. Seconded: L. Staley Resolution # 2101 BE IT RESOLVED THAT: The Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Board of Appeals grants the variance at 402 Highland Road with the provision that the condition of the fence be built substantially as described in the application and the applicant to maintain significant shrubbery in the area to the extent possible while allowing access to the culvert as needed. Ayes: L. Staley, R. Parker, and S. Barnett Nays: M. Friend Abstentions: None ●B. Cross: Informed the applicant the Variance has been approved and permit issued effective immediately, anyone can appeal the decision within 30 days. ●L. Staley: Inquired if there was any new business for the ZBA? ●B. Cross: Currently there is no new busines. ●L. Staley: Adjourned the meeting at 8:35 p.m.