HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA 1.04.10 Minutes 1
Minutes
For the
Village of Cayuga Heights
Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing and Meeting
Held on January 4, 2010
The public hearing was convened at 7:05 PM
Present: Chairman John Young; Members Peter McClelland, Bob Powers, Fred Cowett,
Sarah How (arrived late) 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: Christina J. Lacey, Randall W. Nesbitt, Sarah Hatcher and David Weiss
The public hearing was opened at 7:05 PM
The Board approved Alternate Sally Grubb to hear and vote on tonight’s applications due
to the absence of Sarah How.
Chairman Young explained the proceedings and asked the Board to hear and consider the
applicants’ variance request for 322 Highland Road before the variance request for 318
Highland Road. Upon review of the published legal notice that was the way the hearings
were published. However, an error was found in the legal notice. Mr. Nesbitt is the
owner not the agent for 322 Highland Road and he is the agent for 318 Highland Road
not the owner. The Board consulted with Attorney Gutenberger.
Attorney Gutenberger asked if the information provided to the neighboring residents
were correct. Code Officer Cross stated that the information was hand delivered to the
neighboring residents and the information delivered was correct. Because the neighbor’s
notice, which is required by law, was presented correctly, Attorney Gutenberger
recommended that the ZBA continue with tonight’s hearing.
Board member Sarah How arrived at 7:25 PM. Alternate member Grubb recused herself
as a voting member of the ZBA for tonight’s hearings and meeting. The Board accepted.
Code Officer Cross explained that the ordinance requires a 15-foot set back on the side
and rear for any kind of construction including a fence. The applicants have requested to
construct a plus or minus 8-foot fence on their property line at the rear of their yard and
less than 15-feet on one side of their yard and to extend the fence to an area on the
neighboring property on the other side of their property.
2
Code Officer Cross also stated that he determined that both of these requests are a Type II
SEQR action which does not require the completion of a SEQR form. The Board
concurred.
Mr. Nesbitt then presented a power point presentation and explained his and Christina’s
reason for the variance request as follows:
1. Their property is located at the busy intersection of Highland Road, Kline
Road, Oak Hill Road, White Park Road and The Parkway.
2. This intersection is part of the bus route.
3. They have two large dogs that enjoy being outside.
4. They have several gardens that they enjoy working in.
5. They have an approximate 5-foot high hedge at the rear
6. The lot has varying elevations.
7. They enjoy entertaining outside in the summer time and would prefer not to
divide their back yard with a fence
8. They are concerned about the deer – dog interaction
9. They treat their dogs regularly for ticks
10. The proposed fence material is black Millennium Polyethilene which has
minimal vision impact to the neighbors.
11. They are in the process of getting an agreement with 318 Highland property
owners to extend the fence on to their property.
David Weiss, a neighbor at 511 Kline Road, stated that he had no problem with the fence,
but would like Mr. Nesbitt to consider a softer corner at the back corner of his property.
Mr. Nesbit agreed to work with Mr. Weiss during the fence design stage.
The members asked their questions.
Board asked if anyone else had comments on this variance request. Code Officer Cross
stated that he had not received any comments. There being no other comments from the
public this hearing was closed at 8:22 PM.
The ZBA members’ discussion commenced at 8:22 PM on the area variance request for
322 Highland Road.
Attorney Gutenberger reminded the Board that they are charged with weighing the
benefit to the applicant against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the
neighborhood. That is the standard of review for an area variance. She also reminded the
Board that this was an area variance to deviate from the set back requirements and that it
was not a height variance request.
The Board considered whether this request would create an undesirable change in the
character of the neighborhood. The consensus of the board was that a fence on the
property line would change the character of the neighbor since the neighboring properties
do no have fences. The Board considered whether this benefit could be achieved by other
means feasible to the applicants. The consensus of the board was that the desired quality
3
of life of the residents could be achieved in other ways because they are currently using
the back yard for the uses requested. They considered if the variance request was
substantial. The consensus of the Board was that allowing a zero set back would be a
substantial change from the required 15 feet set back. The Board considered if the
request had any environmental impact on the neighborhood. The consensus of the Board
was that granting the request did not have an environmental impact. Last the Board
considered if the request was self-created. The consensus of the Board was that it was
not entirely self-created due to the fact that it is a corner lot at a multiple road
intersection; that it has varying elevations, that it has a creek running through it and that
having to meet the set back requirements (25’, 25’, 15’ and 15’) would significantly
reduce the useable space in their rear yard.
The Board then considered possible conditions under which they would be inclined to
approve the requested variance.
Chairman Young offered the following resolution which was seconded by Member
McClelland:
RESOLVE, to grant a variance to allow zero set back with the following exceptions to
the variance request:
1. That a 4-foot fence be place on top of the retainage wall along the creek.
2. That the fence along the hedge row not exceed the height of the hedge row,
3. That the fence material be the black millennium polyethylene or equal
material.
4. That the fence can be constructed on the applicants’ south property line.
On the following roll call vote the resolution failed:
How – yes
McClelland – yes
Powers – no
Cowett – no
Chairman Young – no
At this time the applicants withdrew their application for 318 Highland Road because the
request was based on receiving the variance for 322 Highland Road.
There being no other business to be brought before this Board the meeting was
closed at 9:40 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Mary Jane Neff, Secretary