Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA 2.6.2012 Minutes.pdfZBA Appeal No. 2012-2 Res. February 6, 2012 Minutes for the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting February 6, 2012 MINUTES Present: Members J. Young, K. Sigel, A. Shull and A. Watkins. Alternates M. Eisner and R. Parker Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross, Attorney K. Gutenberger, and VCH Deputy Clerk A. Podufalski 1. Meeting called to order Meeting called to order by Chair J. Young at 7:08 pm. Chair J. Young gave a tribute to Bob Powers who passed away on Friday, February 3, 2012. Bob Powers served as a dedicated member of the Zoning Board of Appeals for many years. Chair J. Young expressed appreciation for Bob’s many years of service to the Village. Bob Powers will be fondly remembered for his many contributions to the community. Chair J. Young appointed Alternate M. Eisner as a voting member for the first hearing. 2. Approval of January 17, 2012 Minutes Motion: K. Sigel Second: A. Shull APPROVING MINUTES OF JANUARY 17, 2012 RESOLVE, that the written, reviewed and revised minutes of January 17, 2012 meeting are hereby approved. Aye votes – K. Sigel, M. Eisner, A. Shull, J. Young and A. Watkins. Opposed- None 3. Variance Requests A. Interpretation, area set-back and height variance for 876 Highland Road  Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross gave an overview of the side-yard set- back variance request for an existing pool house. The applicant also seeks a height variance so he may build a 2nd story addition on the pool house. The Board decided it would be more efficient to first determine the interpretation of the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Ordinance Section 5: with regard to how the height of buildings shall be calculated.  Chair J. Young opened the floor for public comment. ZBA Appeal No. 2012-2 Res. February 6, 2012  Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross gave a presentation as to how he would calculate the height of a building.  Attorney K. Gutenberger informed the Board the interpretation of the ordinance is Type 2 SEQR exempt.  The following resolution was then discussed and voted upon: VILLAGE OF CAYUGA HEIGHTS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS RESOLUTION ADOPTED ON FEBRUARY 6, 2012 FOR APPEAL NO. 2012-1 Motion made by: Alison Shull Motion seconded by: Kirk Sigel WHEREAS: A. This matter involves consideration of the following proposed action: interpretation of the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Ordinance Section 5: with regard to how the height of buildings shall be calculated. The current language of said Section 5 reads as follows: SECTION 5. HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS No building or structure shall be erected in a residence district so as to exceed twenty-five (25) feet in height; or in any other district so as to exceed thirty (30) feet in height. The limitations of height shall not apply to chimneys, ventilators, skylights, or other necessary features usually carried above roofs nor to spires of churches or other buildings if such features are in no way used for living purposes. The height of a building shall be measured from the lowest point of the base of the building at the elevation of the proposed grade line of the ground to the average height between eaves and ridge for pitched roofs and to the highest part of the parapet for flat roofs. In cases where the proposed grade line of the ground is higher than the existing ground, the change must be approved by the Zoning Officer at the time of issuance of the zoning permit. B. On February 6, 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 ZBA Appeal No. 2012-2 Res. February 6, 2012 C. On February 6, 2012, in accordance with Article 8 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law - the State Environmental Quality Review Act (ASEQR), and 6 NYCRR Section 617.5, 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 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Board of Appeals hereby makes the following interpretation of the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Ordinanc e Section 5: Height of Buildings: I. The Village Zoning Ordinance states: “The height of a building shall be measured from the lowest point of the base of the building at the elevation of the proposed grade line of the ground to the average height between eaves and ridge for pitched roofs and to the highest part of the parapet for flat roofs.” II. No portion of the perimeter, however narrow, shall be exempted from consideration as the lowest point. III. For example, in the case of Mr. John Novarr’s pool house, the “lowest point of the base of the building at the elevation of the proposed grade line of the ground” is at the bottom of the doorway to the existing basement. IV. Based on the plans submitted by Mr. Novarr, this height appears to be approximately 30 feet 10 inches, which exceeds the maximum allowed height of 25 feet. Therefore, a height variance is required for the proposed pool house addition. The vote on the foregoing motion was as follows: AYES: Unanimous - Anita Watkins, Alison Shull, Kirk Sigel, Mark Eisner, Jack Young NAYS: None The motion was declared to be carried.  The Board then discussed the granting of an area variance to permit an existing non- compliant pool house to remain in the side-yard set-back and also permit the expansion of said pool house to include a second story addition by the granting of a height variance.  The applicant was given the opportunity to give more details regarding the proposed 2nd story addition.  Chair J. Young opened the floor for public comment.  Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross gave an overview of the variance request.  Attorney K. Gutenberger advised the board the request is Type 2 SEQR exempt.  The Board discussed the findings questions and voted on the following resolution: VILLAGE OF CAYUGA HEIGHTS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS RESOLUTION ADOPTED ON FEBRUARY 6, 2012 FOR APPEAL NO. 2012-2 ZBA Appeal No. 2012-2 Res. February 6, 2012 Motion made by: Alison Shull Motion seconded by: Kirk Sigel WHEREAS: A. This matter involves consideration of the following proposed action: granting of an area variance to permit an existing non-compliant pool house to remain in the side-yard set-back and also permit the expansion of said pool house to include a second story addition by the granting of a height variance. The property in question is known as 876 Highland Road (tax map # 7.-4-2.2). The pool house is approximately 8 feet 7 inches from the side property line at its closest point. 15 feet is required. The height of the structure after the construction of the second floor will be approximately 30 feet 11 inches where only 25 feet is permitted. B. On February 6, 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 February 6, 2012, in accordance with Article 8 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law - the State Environmental Quality Review Act (ASEQR), and 6 NYCRR Section 617.5, 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 February 6, 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. ZBA Appeal No. 2012-2 Res. February 6, 2012 Finding: YES_____ NO X , because: The structure has existed for many years. The width on the side that exceeds the height permitted is relatively narrow and the face of the building is not very visible. 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 structure is already built and not moveable. A height variance is needed to retain egress from the lower level. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. Finding: YES_____ NO X , because: 1) The setback variance requested impacts only a small portion of the building since it is on an angle. 2) The height variance is for a narrow space. 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 addition will decrease noise level from the pool and no foundation work is being contemplated. ZBA Appeal No. 2012-3 Res. February 6, 2012 : Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. Finding: YES X NO X , because: No, regarding the setback because the existing structure pre-dates the owner’s acquisition of the property. Yes, regarding the height because the applicant does not need to add a second story. 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: The granting of an area variance to permit an existing non-compliant pool house to remain in the side-yard set-back and also permit the expansion of said pool house to include a second story addition by the granting of a height variance. The property in question is known as 876 Highland Road (tax map # 7.-4-2.2). The pool house is approximately 8 feet 7 inches from the side property line at its closest point. 15 feet is required. The height of the structure after the construction of the second floor will be approximately 30 feet 11 inches where only 25 feet is permitted Conditions of Variance: The project is to be built substantially as indicated on the applicant’s submitted plans. The vote on the foregoing motion was as follows: AYES: Unanimous - Anita Watkins, Alison Shull, Kirk Sigel, Mark Eisner, Jack Young NAYS: None The motion was declared to be carried. B. Area Variance 706 The Parkway  Chair J. Young appointed Alternate R. Parker to vote during the hearing.  Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross gave an overview of the variance request.  The applicant seeks the granting of an area variance to allow an existing 6’ high (varies) lattice fence located at 706 The Parkway to remain on a portion of the front and side property lines (0’ setback), which is less than the 25’/15’ ZBA Appeal No. 2012-3 Res. February 6, 2012 required by the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Ordinance Section 6: Yard Requirements.  The applicant was given the opportunity to speak to the Board regarding the request.  Chair J. Young opened the floor for public comment.  Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross shared an email he received from Joanne Gardella of 707 The Parkway supporting the variance request.  Attorney K. Gutenberger advised the board the request is Type 2 SEQR exempt.  The Board discussed the findings questions.  The Board discussed and voted on the following resolution: VILLAGE OF CAYUGA HEIGHTS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS RESOLUTION ADOPTED ON FEBRUARY 6, 2012 FOR APPEAL NO. 2012-3 Motion made by: Kirk Sigel Motion seconded by: Alison Shull WHEREAS: A. This matter involves consideration of the following proposed action: granting of an area variance to allow an existing 6’ high (varies) lattice fence located at 706 The Parkway to remain on a portion of the front and side property lines (0’ setback), which is less than the 25’/15’ required by the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Ordinance Section 6: Yard Requirements; and B. On February 6, 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 February 6, 2012, in accordance with Article 8 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law - the State Environmental Quality Review Act (ASEQR), and 6 NYCRR Section 617.5, 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 February 6, 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 ZBA Appeal No. 2012-3 Res. February 6, 2012 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: The fence has been built for many years and there will be no change. The portion of the fence in the front yard does not appear to be a safety issue as it is a small portion of the front property line. 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 modify the top portion of the fence with compliant material with minimal expense. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. Finding: YES X NO______, because: However, the fence is mitigated because this street has a large right of way and it only encompasses a small portion of the property line. It is further mitigated by openness of lattice. 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: It involves no new construction. Regardless, this type of fence would not typically result in an adverse change in physical environment. ZBA Appeal No. 2012-4 Res. February 6, 2012 Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. Finding: YES X NO______, because: Applicant built 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: The granting of an area variance to allow an existing 6’ high (varies) lattice fence located at 706 The Parkway to remain on a portion of the front and side property lines (0’ setback), which is less than the 25’/15’ required by the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Ordinance Section 6: Yard Requirements. Conditions of Variance: The fence is to remain substantially as it exists and that any expansion of the fence in the set- back would require a further variance. The vote on the foregoing motion was as follows: AYES: Unanimous - Anita Watkins, Alison Shull, Kirk Sigel, Rosemarie Parker, Jack Young NAYS: None The motion was declared to be carried. C. Area Variance for 7 Highland Park Lane  Chair J. Young appointed Alternate R. Parker to vote during the hearing.  Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross gave an overview of the variance request.  The request is for the granting of an area variance to allow an existing 7’-8” high wood fence located at 7 Highland Park Lane to remain on a portion of the side and rear property lines (0’ setback), which is less than the 15’/15’ required by the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Ordinance Section 6: Yard Requirements.  The applicant was given the opportunity to speak to the Board regarding the request.  Chair J. Young opened the floor for public comment. ZBA Appeal No. 2012-4 Res. February 6, 2012  The Board discussed the findings questions.  Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross shared letters of support from Kerry Boisvert of 6 Highland Park Lane, Carl King of 4 Highland Park Pane, and Martin & Jill Wells of 5 Highland Park Lane.  The Board discussed and voted on the following resolution: VILLAGE OF CAYUGA HEIGHTS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS RESOLUTION ADOPTED ON FEBRUARY 6, 2012 FOR APPEAL NO. 2012-4 Motion made by: Kirk Sigel Motion seconded by: Rosemarie Parker WHEREAS: A. This matter involves consideration of the following proposed action: granting of an area variance to allow an existing 7’-8” high wood fence located at 7 Highland Park Lane to remain on a portion of the side and rear property lines (0’ setback), which is less than the 15’/15’ required by the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Ordinance Section 6: Yard Requirements; and B. On February 6, 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 February 6, 2012, in accordance with Article 8 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law - the State Environmental Quality Review Act (ASEQR), and 6 NYCRR Section 617.5, 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 February 6, 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: ZBA Appeal No. 2012-4 Res. February 6, 2012 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: It is already built and the neighbors deem it an asset to the community. The percentage of openness is substantial even if it does not meet 90% openness requirement. There are no identifiable safety concerns. 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: It could be modified, but is not practical. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. Finding: YES X NO______, because: The set-back variance requested is substantial, but is mitigated by the openness of the fence. Whether the proposed area variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 12/5/2011 - 12 - Finding: YES_____ NO X , because: It involves no new construction. Regardless, this type of fence would not typically result in an adverse change in physical environment. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. Finding: YES X NO______, because: Applicant built 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: The granting of an area variance to allow an existing 7’-8” high wood fence located at 7 Highland Park Lane to remain on a portion of the side and rear property lines (0’ setback), which is less than the 15’/15’ required by the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Ordinance Section 6: Yard Requirements. Conditions of Variance: The fence is to remain substantially as it exists and that any expansion of the fence in the set-back would require a further variance. The vote on the foregoing motion was as follows: AYES: Unanimous - Anita Watkins, Alison Shull, Kirk Sigel, Rosemarie Parker, Jack Young NAYS: None The motion was declared to be carried. 4. No other business. 5. Adjourned Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 12/5/2011 - 13 - Meeting adjourned at 10:00pm