HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-02-2009 1
Minutes
For the
Village of Cayuga Heights
Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing and Meeting
Held on November 2, 2009
The public hearing was convened at 7:05 PM
Present: Chairman John Young; Members Peter McClelland, Bob Powers, Fred Cowett,
Sarah How and alternate member Sally Grubb
Absent: Alternate member Alison Smith
Code Enforcement Officer: Brent Cross,
Others: Kristin Gutenberger, Attorney and Mary Jane Neff, Secretary
Guest: Micah Cormier and Peter Grossman
The public hearing was opened at 7:05 PM
Chairman Young explained the proceedings.
Code Officer Cross stated that there had been an error in the Public hearing date
on the letter sent to the neighbors. When he found the error, he contacted Attorney
Gutenberger to get a determination if the public hearing could proceed this evening.
Attorney Gutenberger stated that she recommends that the public hearing proceed
because this is a regular meeting night for the ZBA and because neighbors had time in
which to contact the Village if they had questions on the meeting time, place and date.
Code Officer Cross explained that, although the Board had granted Mr. Cormier a
variance to exceed the 12% lot coverage at its September 8, 2009 meeting, Mr. Cormier
had since contacted an architect who had recommended demolishing the screen porch,
extending the kitchen into the garage, and adding an addition to the garage. This change
would reduce the 16.8% variance granted on September 8, 2009 to 14.8% lot coverage.
Code Officer Cross stated that he has denied the new building permit request because of
the change from the prior request and because the request still exceeds the zoning
allowance for 12% lot coverage. He reminded the Board that this was an unusual lot
because it fronts on two streets and is smaller than the current required lot size.
Mr. Cormier stated that it is still his goal to increase the size of the kitchen for his
family. The current kitchen size is too small for his wife to cook in and have their small
child in the kitchen with her. He further explained that since his last hearing, he had
contracted with a contractor/architect for the project he proposed at the last hearing.
Upon review by the contractor, the contractor recommended that he demolish the screen
porch, enlarge the kitchen into the garage and extend the garage.
2
Minutes of November 2, 2009 (Con’t)
Member McClelland asked if the shed would be removed. Mr. Cormier stated
that it has already been removed.
The public hearing was closed at 7:20 PM.
The Board went into their meeting to discuss the change requested and to discuss
their response to the five elements for approving or denying a variance request.
The Board noted at this time that this action was a type II SEQR and would not
require a SEQR review.
The first consideration being could the applicants’ goal be achieved by another
alternative? The consensus of the Board was no. The second consideration is does this
request create an undesirable change in the neighborhood or to the near by property
owners? The consensus of the Board was that it would not because it is less lot coverage
than the previous request. The third consideration, is this request substantial? The
consensus of the Board was that the request is substantial, but less that what had been
granted at the September 8, 2009 meeting. The fourth consideration is does this request
have an adverse physical or environmental effect? The consensus of the Board was no.
The fifth consideration is, was the difficulty self-created by the owner? The consensus of
the Board was that since the house was built prior to zoning regulations that the owner
had restraints that were not self created.
The Board asked the staff if any of the neighbors had contacted them. Code
Officer Cross reported that Pam Quick was away at time of this meeting, but she
conveyed that she did not have a problem with this request.
On a motion by Powers, seconded by Cowett and with Cowett, Powers, How,
McClelland and Young voting yea, the following was adopted:
RESOLVED, that an area variance is hereby granted to 204 Cayuga Heights
Road for the increase of lot coverage from the required 12 % lot coverage to the
proposed lot coverage of 14.8%.
Chairman Young reminded the applicant that the residents had 30 days to bring a
petition to reverse the Board’s decision.
The Board went into a discussion with Attorney Gutenberger and Code Officer
Cross about possible changes in the application form and process. In a prior e-mail to the
Board members, Attorney Gutenberger stated that she had sent a copy of the Town of
Ithaca application and procedures for the members to review. Peter McClelland stated
that he had reviewed the town’s application and found it to be cumbersome and on the
verge of discriminatory. Residents who may not be highly educated may find the Town’s
3
Minutes of November 2, 2009 (Con’t)
application too hard to complete. Attorney Gutenberger stated that the Board could
recommend the use of 1 or 2 pages of the Town’s format. Peter McClelland stated that
he did not feel that the current application was a problem and that he did not want to
make the application process too cumbersome for the residents. The Board discussed
alternatives.
Contrary to Attorney Gutenberger’s advice, it was the consensus of the Board that
the application remain the same format that is being used by the Code Officer and
requested Code Officer Cross, in the future, to request a narrative of the project from the
applicant and to provided all applicants with a copy of the Board’s finding criteria, as
described by the Department of State. It is the Board’s hope that if the applicant is
prepared and understands the criteria under which the Board approves or denies an
application, meeting time may be lessens.
There being no other business to be brought before this Board the meeting was
closed at 8:40 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Mary Jane Neff, Secretary