Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA 11.5.2012 Minutes.pdfZBA 11-5-2012 minutes - 1 - Minutes for the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting November 5, 2012 Present: Members Chair J. Young, K. Sigel, A. Watkins, A. Shull, R. Parker 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 OCTOBER 1, 2012 RESOLVE, that the written, reviewed and revised minutes of October 1, 2012 meeting are hereby unanimously approved. Aye votes – Chair J. Young, K. Sigel, A. Watkins, A. Shull Nay votes- none Abstain- R. Parker 3. Variance Requests A) 201 Cayuga Heights 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- Members of the public were given the opportunity to comment on the variance request. o Resident This fence has existed for several years, is there any sort of grandfather clause? o Reply from Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross There is no opportunity for grandfathering if the fence or wall or non-compliance did not exist at the time of the law enactment. There has only been a change in the law within the last year or two. There has been a law that has limited the height of fences to within 4 feet of the setback since 1953. o Resident from Cayuga Heights Rd  The fence has existed for 25-30 years and was put in place by the previous owner.  Attorney R. Marcus informed the Board the variance request is a Type II action exempt under Section 617.5(c) of SEQR. ZBA 11-5-2012 minutes - 2 -  The Board discussed the findings questions. VILLAGE OF CAYUGA HEIGHTS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS RESOLUTION ADOPTED ON NOVEMBER 5, 2012 FOR APPEAL NO. 2012-34 Motion made by: K. Sigel Motion seconded by: A. Watkins WHEREAS: A. This matter involves consideration of the following proposed action: granting of an area variance to allow an existing wood fence to remain at the top of an existing retaining wall, with a total combined height of 10.92’. The fence/wall located at approximately 2.5 (closest point) to the front property line (Wyckoff Road), which is less than the 25’ front yard setback required by Zoning Ordinance Section 6. Yard Requirements. The property in question is known as 201 Cayuga Heights Rd (see attached map) tax map # 13.-2-7; and B. On November 5, 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 November 5, 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 November 5, 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: ZBA 11-5-2012 minutes - 3 - 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 20-30 years. 2) The fence is not very noticeable. 3) There have been no complaints from neighbors. 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 applicant wishes to keep the retaining wall where it is. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. Finding: YES X NO______, because: The fence is only 2 ½ feet from the setback, but is mitigated because it only affects a small portion of the property. 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: The fence is pre-existing and there is no new construction. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. Finding: YES_____ NO X because: The fence was built by the previous owners. 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: ZBA 11-5-2012 minutes - 4 - Granting of an area variance to allow an existing wood fence to remain at the top of an existing retaining wall, with a total combined height of 10.92’. The fence/wall located at approximately 2.5 (closest point) to the front property line (Wyckoff Road), which is less than the 25’ front yard setback required by Zoning Ordinance Section 6. Yard Requirements. Conditions of Variance: The fence and retaining wall must remain substantially as they exist. The vote on the foregoing motion was as follows: AYES: R. Parker NAYS: None K. Sigel J. Young A. Watkins A. Shull The motion was declared to be carried. B) 204 Klinewoods Rd  Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross gave a background summary on the case and answered questions for the Board.  Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross shared with the Board he received a letter of support from the Szekely’s at 104 Klinewoods Rd.  The applicant was given the opportunity to speak to the Board regarding the request.  Public Comment- Members of the public were given the opportunity to comment on the variance request. o G. Gillespie of 112 Comstock Spoke in support of 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 NOVEMBER 5, 2012 FOR APPEAL NO. 2012-35 Motion made by: R. Parker Motion seconded by: A. Watkins WHEREAS: ZBA 11-5-2012 minutes - 5 - A) This matter involves consideration of the following proposed action: granting of an area variance to allow erection of an 8’ high wood fence. The fence is proposed to be located at approximately 3’ (parallel) to the rear property line, which is less than the 15’ side/rear yard setback required by Zoning Ordinance Section 6. Yard Requirements. The property in question is known as 204 Klinewoods Rd (see attached map) tax map # 6.-7-7; and B) On November 5, 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 November 5, 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 November 5, 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 could be considered to be an enhancement. 2) There have been no complaints from the neighbors. 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: ZBA 11-5-2012 minutes - 6 - YES_____ NO X because: It would be difficult to have sufficient space within an area that was in compliance due to the proximity of the house to the setback. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. Finding: YES X NO______, because: The fence would only be 2’ from the setback, but is mitigated because the material is very transparent, more than 60% open, and only affects a small portion of 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: There will be no impact on wildlife and the construction is minimal. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. Finding: YES X NO______, because: The applicant wishes to build then 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 erection of an 8’ high wood fence. The fence is proposed to be located at approximately 3’ (parallel) to the rear property line, which is less than the 15’ side/rear yard setback required by Zoning Ordinance Section 6. Yard Requirements. Conditions of Variance: The fence shall be built substantially as indicated in the plans submitted by the applicant. The vote on the foregoing motion was as follows: AYES: R. Parker NAYS: None K. Sigel ZBA 11-5-2012 minutes - 7 - J. Young A. Watkins A. Shull The motion was declared to be carried. 4. Other Business  Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross spoke to the Board regarding his progress on the remaining non-compliant fence cases. If he is unable to connect with the property owners and no new cases are presented, there may be no need for a December meeting.  A resident inquired about regulations regarding raising chickens in the Village. The Board informed her that there is no current law which prohibits the raising of chickens within the Village and it would be up to the Board of Trustees to address the issue. 5. Adjourned Meeting adjourned at 7:55pm.