Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA 9.14.10 Minutes Minutes For the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Held on September 14, 2010 The meeting was convened at 7:03 PM Present: Chairman John Young; Members Peter McClelland and Kurt Sigel Absent: Robert Powers Code Enforcement Officer: Brent Cross, Others: Attorney Kristen Gutenberger and Mary Jane Neff, Secretary to the Zoning Board of Appeals Guest: See attached list The public hearing on the variance request for 811 Triphammer Road was opened by Chairman Young who explained the procedure for the hearing and requested Code Officer to review the basis of his denying the building permit. Code Officer Cross premised his explanation by informing the Board that the property had received a variance alleviating the required set back for the pool house so it is not included with his determination for tonight’s hearing. He explained that the one foot over the allowable height had not been noticeable when he inspected the property for the pool house. However, due to the recent public discussion on fences, the property owner realized that he was over the allowable height and the property owner met with the Code Officer regarding the zoning laws. Upon inspection, the code officer determined that the fence was higher than four feet and that the fence did not meet the required setbacks. Code Officer Cross also noted that four foot fences or less did not require a building permit until this past year, so no permit was previously sought for the construction of the current fence and if it had been four feet high it could be constructed on the property lines as it is now. Mr. Brodhead explained that his grandchildren live in Cayuga Heights and have enjoyed his pool all summer. He also stated that he was not aware of the height limit prior to the recent publicity on the Village’s fence law. He went with his conscience for the construction of safe fence for the pool which looks nice and which was according to the law. Elizabeth Mount , who is an area neighbor and who walks in the area of Mr. Brodhead’s property stated that she had no problem with the fence. It is visibly discreet and is masked by the foliage and planting. Mr. Brodhead read into the record Alice Reid’s letter who is the immediate neighbor to the property and who has no problem with the fence. Mr. Brodhead also stated that he had reviewed his fence plan with Mrs. Reid prior to its construction. Sally Grubb commented that it was very sensible construction and that she thought that the 5 foot fence provided better safety for the pool and that she recommends approving the variance. Jerome VanBuren reviewed his understanding of the requirements for granting a variance. One of the requirements as he understood them was that following the law would create a hardship. He stated that it would be hard to prove a hardship for this fence that it was for the convenience of the property owner. He also expressed concern that there were other fences in the Village that exceeded the height allowance and does not meet the setback and that he hoped by granting this variance it would not set a precedent for future variance requests. Attorney Gutenberger explained that the laws had changed in 2000 so that the applicant did not have to prove a hardship for an area variance. She also explained that each application had to stand on its own, by granting or denying a variance, no precedents are set. Elizabeth Mount commented that the Village ordinances were written in the 1950’s and that she felt they had not kept up with the changes that have occurred in the Village. Holly Tavelli stated that she is a neighbor and that she recommends the granting of this variance request because it is attractive, serves a safety purpose for the pool. Member Sigel stated that he observed some areas where the fence appeared to be higher than 5 feet. Code Officer Cross explained his consistent way of measuring the height of the fence and that if Mr. Brodhead would allow him to check the areas he would do so. If it exceeded 5 feet per his way of measuring he would work with the applicant to adjust the fence accordingly. Member McClelland stated that his opinion was that the Village Legislature had a vision at the time they wrote and adopted the zoning ordinances. He consistently tries to keep the vision for the Village even if the ordinances may appear to be outdated. The public portion of the hearing was closed at 7:40 PM. The Board conducted their discussions and answered the five questions required by New York State Zoning Laws. VILLAGE OF CAYUGA HEIGHTS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS RESOLUTION ADOPTED ON SEPTEMBER 14, 2010 FOR APPEAL NO. 2010-4 Motion made by: Kirk Siegel Motion seconded by: Peter McClelland WHEREAS: A. This matter involves consideration of the following proposed action: granting an area variance for a front yard setback of 12 feet, side yard setback of 3 feet, and rear yard setback of 5 feet at 811 Triphammer Road (tax parcel #11.-2- 20), which are less than the 25 feet front yard set back and the 15 feet side yard set back required by Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Ordinance Section 6: Yard Requirements in a Residence District. B. On September 14th, 2010, the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing regarding such action, and thereafter reviewed and analyzed (i) the materials and information presented by and on behalf of the applicant(s) in support of this appeal, (ii) all other information and materials rightfully before the Board, and (iii) all issues raised during the public hearing and/or otherwise raised in the course of the Board’s deliberations; and C. On September 14th, 2010, the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Board of Appeals determined that the proposed action is an exempt action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQR"), 6 NYCRR Section 617.5(c)(12) & (13); and D. On September 14th, 2010, in accordance with Section 712-b of the Village Law of the State of New York and Village of Cayuga Heights Article IX§21, the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Board of Appeals, in the course of its deliberations, took into consideration the benefit to the applicant if the area variance is granted as weighed against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community by such grant; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Board of Appeals hereby makes the following findings with respect to the specific criteria for such area variance as set forth in Section 712-b of the Village Law of the State of New York and Village of Cayuga Heights Article IX§21: 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: YES_____ NO _X_ , because there are other factors to the request; specifically, the fence has a high percentage of openness and the design is such that it is not very noticeable due to the extensive amount of current landscaping. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an area variance. Finding: YES _X_ NO __, because the applicant could achieve the desired safety with a 4 foot fence, which could still be installed around the pool and also be within the setback requirements. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. Finding: YES _X_ NO ___, because reducing the setback requirements from 15 feet to 3 feet on the eastern property line and 5 feet on the southern property line and from 25 feet to 12 feet on the Sheldon Road property line is considered substantial. Whether the proposed area variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Finding: YES_-_ NO _X_, because a fence will not cause any adverse physical or environmental conditions - no trees need to be removed for its installation and the fence does not create a drainage issue in the neighborhood nor any other adverse effect that could be identified at this time. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. Finding: YES _X__ NO___, because although the applicant thought that he was following the law by enclosing his pool and yard with a 5 foot fence which is higher than the NYS Fire & Building Codes requirement of at least 4 foot, it was completed prior to obtaining a variance. 1. It is hereby determined by the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Board of Appeals that the following variance is granted with one condition, it being further determined that such variance is the minimum necessary and adequate to grant relief and at the same time preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community: Description of Variance: The granting of an area variance for a 5 foot fence with a 12 foot front yard set back from Sheldon Road and a 3 foot set back on the eastern side and 5 foot setback on the southern side for tax parcel # 11.-2- 20, providing relief from the 25 feet front yard and 15 feet side/rear yard setback allowed by the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Ordinance Section 6: Yard Requirements in a Residence District Conditions of Variance: 1. The fence must be maintained in its present design and landscaping, including that it must continue to have the same percentage of openness. The vote on the foregoing motion was as follows: AYES: Kirk Siegel Peter McClelland Jack Young NAYS: None The motion was declared to be carried. There being no other business to be brought before this Board, this meeting was duly adjourned at 8:19 PM. Respectfully submitted, Mary Jane Neff, Secretary