Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA 10.1.2012 MinutesZBA 10-1-2012 minutes - 1 - Minutes for the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting October 1, 2012 MINUTES Present: Members Chair J. Young, K. Sigel, A. Watkins, A. Shull and Alternate M. Eisner Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross, Attorney R. Marcus, VCH Deputy Clerk A. Podufalski, Members of the Public 1. Meeting called to order Meeting called to order by Chair J. Young at 7:05 pm. 2. Minutes APPROVING MINUTES OF AUGUST 22, 2012 RESOLVE, that the written, reviewed and revised minutes of August 22, 2012 meeting are hereby unanimously approved. Aye votes – J. Young, K. Sigel, , A. Watkins, A.. Shull, M. Eisner Nay votes- none 3. Variance Requests Chair J. Young appointed Alternate M. Eisner as a full voting member for the meeting. A) 215 Highgate Rd  Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross gave a background summary on the case and answered questions for the Board.  Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross received verbal support from the closest neighbor, R. Andolina of 221 Highgate Rd.  The applicant was given the opportunity to speak to the Board regarding the request.  Attorney R. Marcus informed the Board the variance request is a Type II action exempt under Section 617.5(c) of SEQR.  The Board discussed the findings questions. VILLAGE OF CAYUGA HEIGHTS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS RESOLUTION ADOPTED ON OCTOBER 1, 2012 FOR APPEAL NO. 2012-31 Motion made by: K. Sigel Motion seconded by: M. Eisner ZBA 10-1-2012 minutes - 2 - WHEREAS: A. This matter involves consideration of the following proposed action: granting of an area variance to allow construction of new sunroom addition has been denied. The sunroom is proposed to be located to within 12’ of the side property line (map attached), which is less than the 15’ required by Zoning Ordinance Section 6: Yard Requirements. The property in question is known as 215 Highgate Road (see attached map) tax map # 2.-4-10; and B. On October 1, 2012 the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing regarding such action, and thereafter thoroughly 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 October 1, 2012 in accordance with Article 8 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law - the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR), and 6 NYCRR Section 617.5 (c), the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Board of Appeals determined that the proposed action is a Type II action, and thus may be processed without further regard to SEQR; and D. On October 1, 2012 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: 1) The addition would not be visible from the public right of way 2) There is less than a 20% encroachment on the side property line 3) Only a small segment of the property line will be affected. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an area variance. ZBA 10-1-2012 minutes - 3 - Finding: YES_____ NO X because: The benefit the applicant I seeking is to utilize the existing pad and doorway from the house for the addition. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. Finding: YES_____ NO X because: 1) There is less than a 20% encroachment on the side property line 2) Only a small segment of the property line will be affected 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: By using the existing foundation any impacts would be minimal. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. Finding: YES X NO______, because: The applicant wishes to build the addition. 1. It is hereby determined by the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Board of Appeals that the following variance is GRANTED AND APPROVED (with conditions, if any, as indicated), 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: Granting of an area variance to allow construction of new sunroom addition has been denied. The sunroom is proposed to be located to within 12’ of the side property line (map attached), which is less than the 15’ required by Zoning Ordinance Section 6: Yard Requirements. Conditions of Variance: That the structure does not go beyond the existing foundation. The vote on the foregoing motion was as follows: ZBA 10-1-2012 minutes - 4 - AYES: M. Eisner NAYS: None K. Sigel J. Young A. Watkins A. Shull The motion was declared to be carried. B) 406 E. Upland Rd  The applicant was not present at the time the case was scheduled to be heard. The Board decided to move onto the next case on the agenda to allow the applicant more time to arrive. C) 816 Triphammer Rd  Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross gave a background summary on the case and answered questions for the Board.  The applicant was given the opportunity to speak to the Board regarding the request.  Public Comment  P. Salton of 206 E. Upland Rd expressed his belief that the new fencing ordinance is “arbitrary and capricious.” He also voiced his support for the variance request.  Attorney R. Marcus informed the Board the variance request is a Type II action exempt under Section 617.5(c) of SEQR.  The Board discussed the findings questions. VILLAGE OF CAYUGA HEIGHTS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS RESOLUTION ADOPTED ON OCTOBER 1, 2012 FOR APPEAL NO. 2012-33 Motion made by: A. Watkins Motion seconded by: K. Sigel WHEREAS: A. This matter involves consideration of the following proposed action: granting of an area variance to allow an existing 6’ high wood fence to remain has been denied. The fence is located at 1.1’ (parallel) to the side property line (map attached), which is less than the 15’ side yard setback required by Zoning Ordinance Section 6. Yard ZBA 10-1-2012 minutes - 5 - Requirements. The property in question is known as 816 Triphammer Road (see attached map) tax map # 11.-1-7; and B. On October 1, 2012 the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing regarding such action, and thereafter thoroughly 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 October 1, 2012 in accordance with Article 8 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law - the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR), and 6 NYCRR Section 617.5 (c), the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Board of Appeals determined that the proposed action is a Type II action, and thus may be processed without further regard to SEQR; and D. On October 1, 2012 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: 1) The fence has existed for many years 2) The fence has been well maintained 3) The fence has a low visual impact. 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_____ NO X because: The footprint of the house is already within the setback. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. ZBA 10-1-2012 minutes - 6 - Finding: YES X NO______, because: 1) This is mitigated by the fact that the fence only occupies a small portion of the perimeter of the property 2) The applicant’s house and the neighboring house are very close to the property line. 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: 1)The fence has existed for many years 2) There is no new construction involved. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. Finding: YES X NO______, because: The applicant replaced the fence. 1. It is hereby determined by the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Board of Appeals that the following variance is GRANTED AND APPROVED (with conditions, if any, as indicated), 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: Granting of an area variance to allow an existing 6’ high wood fence to remain has been denied. The fence is located at 1.1’ (parallel) to the side property line (map attached), which is less than the 15’ side yard setback required by Zoning Ordinance Section 6. Yard Requirements. Conditions of Variance: That the fence remains substantially as it exists. The vote on the foregoing motion was as follows: AYES: M. Eisner NAYS: None K. Sigel J. Young A. Watkins A. Shull ZBA 10-1-2012 minutes - 7 - The motion was declared to be carried. D) 406 E. Upland Rd.  The applicant arrived.  Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross gave a background summary on the case. He also stated he received verbal support from P. Salton of 206 E. Upland Rd for the variance request.  The applicant was given the opportunity to speak to the Board regarding the request.  Attorney R. Marcus informed the Board the variance request is a Type II action exempt under Section 617.5(c) of SEQR.  The Board discussed the findings questions. VILLAGE OF CAYUGA HEIGHTS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS RESOLUTION ADOPTED ON OCTOBER 1, 2012 FOR APPEAL NO. 2012-32 Motion made by: K. Sigel Motion seconded by: A. Shull WHEREAS: A. This matter involves consideration of the following proposed action: granting of an area variance to allow existing 6’ high wood fence(s) to remain has been denied. The fences are located at approximately 0’ (parallel) and 15’ (perpendicular) to the side property line (map attached), which is less than the 15’ side yard setback required by Zoning Ordinance Section 6. Yard Requirements. The property in question is known as 406 E. Upland Road (see attached map) tax map # 10.-3-7; and B. On October 1, 2012 the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing regarding such action, and thereafter thoroughly reviewed and analyzed (i) the materials and information presented by and on behal f 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 October 1, 2012 in accordance with Article 8 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law - the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR), and 6 NYCRR Section 617.5 (c), the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Board of Appeals determined that the proposed action is a Type II action, and thus may be processed without further regard to SEQR; and D. On October 1, 2012 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 ZBA 10-1-2012 minutes - 8 - 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 b y 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: The fence has existed for decades. 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_____ NO X because: There is no means to bring the fence into compliance without erecting part of the fence in the pool. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. Finding: YES X NO______, because: This is mitigated because only a small portion of the property line is affected. 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: 1)There have been no complaints from the neighbors 2) The fence has existed for many years 3) There is no new construction. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. Finding: ZBA 10-1-2012 minutes - 9 - YES_____ NO X because: 1)It is required that a pool have a fence 2) The fence pre-dates the applicants ownership. 1. It is hereby determined by the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Board of Appeals that the following variance is GRANTED AND APPROVED (with conditions, if any, as indicated), 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: Granting of an area variance to allow existing 6’ high wood fence(s) to remain has been denied. The fences are located at approximately 0’ (parallel) and 15’ (perpendicular) to the side property line (map attached), which is less than the 15’ side yard setback required by Zoning Ordinance Section 6. Yard Requirements. Conditions of Variance: That the fence remains substantially as it exists. The vote on the foregoing motion was as follows: AYES: M. Eisner NAYS: None K. Sigel J. Young A. Watkins A. Shull The motion was declared to be carried. 4. Other Business No new business. 5. Adjourned Meeting adjourned at 8:00pm.