Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA 5-7-2012 minutes.pdfZBA 5-7-2012 minutes - 1 - Minutes for the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting May 7, 2012 Present: Members J. Young, K. Sigel, R. Parker, A. Watkins, and A. Shull Alternate M. Eisner. Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross, Attorney R. Marcus, and VCH Deputy Clerk A. Podufalski 1. Meeting called to order Meeting called to order by Chair J. Young at 7:06 pm. 2. Variance Requests A) 205 Oak Hill Rd  Chair J. Young disclosed he is a neighbor and knows the applicant personally.  Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross gave a background summary on the case and stated applicant is the owner on record.  The applicant was given the opportunity to speak to the Board regarding the request. The applicant also stated he has spoke with neighbors Bael from 201 Oak Hill Rd and Silbert from 105 Oak Hill Place; neither voiced any objections to the variance request.  The architect for the addition testified he had explored other locations for the addition, but neither of these alternate locations are feasible.  Chair J. Young opened the floor for public comment. No members of the Public wished to speak.  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 MAY 7, 2012 FOR APPEAL NO. 2012-14 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 addition to be built at 9’ from the side property line which is less than the 15’ setback required by Zoning Ordinance Section 6: Yard ZBA 5-7-2012 minutes - 2 - Requirements. The property in question is known as 205 Oak Hill Road (see attached map) tax map # 14.-3-2; and B. On May 7, 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 May 7, 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 May 7, 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: The addition is not visible from the street and the applicant went to great lengths to preserve the character of the house. 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 architect testified that there were no other feasible options. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. ZBA 5-7-2012 minutes - 3 - Finding: YES_____ NO X because: The addition is less than 50% of the setback which is mitigated by the fact it only occupies 18 feet and other areas of the house are more substantially set into the setback. 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 are no substantial changes to the grade of the property. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. Finding: YES X NO______, because: The applicant is building 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 an addition to be built at 9’ from the side property line which is less than the 15’ setback required by Zoning Ordinance Section 6: Yard Requirements. Conditions of Variance: The addition must remain substantially as indicated in the proposed plans. The vote on the foregoing motion was as follows: AYES: A. Watkins K. Sigel R. Parker A. Shull J. Young NAYS: None The motion was declared to be carried. ZBA 5-7-2012 minutes - 4 - B) 211 Hanshaw Rd  Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross gave a background summary on the case.  The applicant was given the opportunity to speak to the Board regarding the request.  Chair J. Young opened the floor for public comment.  B. Shullman spoke in favor of the request  E. Mount spoke about annual fence maintenance  S. Grubb stated this fence is the least obtrusive type of fencing and approves of the fence.  D. Cornell had no objections  J. Thomas had no objections  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 MAY 7, 2012 FOR APPEAL NO. 2012-15 Motion made by: K. Sigel Motion seconded by: R. Parker WHEREAS: A. This matter involves consideration of the following proposed action: granting of an area variance to allow an 8’ high fence (90% open) to be erected on/near the front property line (on Highland Road) which is less than the 25’ setback required by Zoning Ordinance Section 6: Yard Requirements. The property in question is known as 211 Hanshaw Road (see attached map) tax map # 12.-2-3; and B. On May 7, 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 May 7, 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 May 7, 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 ZBA 5-7-2012 minutes - 5 - 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 X NO______, because: By having the fencing it causes the deer to move into the neighbor’s yards. However, by moving the fence to the required 25’ setback would not cause a significantly lesser impact on detriment to the neighborhood. There is only a small visual impact which does not diminish the character of the area. 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 X because: The fence could be moved to 25’. However, due to topographical issues and the cost of having to build a 2nd fence would not offer the benefit sought by the applicant. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. Finding: YES X NO______, because: The fence extends the full length of property perimeter and is almost 0’ from the 25’ setback requirement. Whether the proposed area variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. ZBA 5-7-2012 minutes - 6 - Finding: YES X NO X because: Some Board members felt that based on information from deer behavior expert Paul Curtis there would be safety concerns. Other Board members felt there would be no environmental impact as the fence is an extension of an existing fence and does not cause safety issues. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. Finding: YES X NO______, because: The applicant wishes to build the fence, but this is mitigated by the applicant having a backyard that is subject to front yard setback requirements and had frontage on 2 roads. 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 8’ high fence (90% open) to be erected on/near the front property line (on Highland Road) which is less than the 25’ setback required by Zoning Ordinance Section 6: Yard Requirements. Conditions of Variance: The fence must be built substantially as indicated in the proposed plans, including bamboo poles as illustrated in the mock-up photos. The vote on the foregoing motion was as follows: AYES: A. Watkins K. Sigel R. Parker A. Shull NAYS: J. Young The motion was declared to be carried. C) 206 Oak Hill Rd.  Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross gave a background summary on the case.  The applicant was given the opportunity to speak to the Board regarding the request. ZBA 5-7-2012 minutes - 7 -  Chair J. Young opened the floor for public comment.  S. Grubb spoke in favor of the fence  The Board asked the applicant questions regarding the proposed fence.  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 MAY 7, 2012 FOR APPEAL NO. 2012-16 Motion made by: M. Eisner Motion seconded by: K. Sigel WHEREAS: A. This matter involves consideration of the following proposed action: granting of an area variance to allow to allow an 8’ high fence (privacy) to be erected on/near the front property line (on Triphammer Road) which is less than the 25’ setback required by Zoning Ordinance Section 6: Yard Requirements. The property in question is known as 206 Oak Hill Road (see attached map) tax map # 14.-1-10; and B. On May 7, 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 May 7, 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 May 7, 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, safet y and welfare of the neighborhood or community by such grant; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: ZBA 5-7-2012 minutes - 8 - 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 X NO______, because: A solid fence so close to the setback is a detriment to the character, but is mitigated by the property being surrounded on 3 sides by roads and is replacing a less appealing fence. 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 other means to provide privacy. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. Finding: YES X NO______, because: The 0’ setback from the required 25’ setback is mitigated by it only being a small portion of the front yard frontage. 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 a large enough gap underneath for deer to pass under. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. Finding: YES_____ NO X because: The property is surrounded on 3 sides by roads and the house is already close to the road. 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 ZBA 5-7-2012 minutes - 9 - 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 8’ high fence (privacy) to be erected on/near the front property line (on Triphammer Road) which is less than the 25’ setback required by Zoning Ordinance Section 6: Yard Requirements. Conditions of Variance: 1) The fence will remain substantially as indicated in the proposed plans and as clarified by the applicant. 2) The fence will be located between the spruce trees adjacent to the sidewalk and the existing chain link fence. 3) The color of the fence will be similar to the current color of the house (dark brown) or left as the natural wood color. The vote on the foregoing motion was as follows: AYES: M. Eisner K. Sigel R. Parker A. Shull J. Young NAYS: None The motion was declared to be carried. 3. Minutes M. Eisner abstained has he was not present during the meetings. APPROVING MINUTES OF APRIL 4, 2012 AND APRIL 30, 2012 RESOLVE, that the written, reviewed and revised minutes of April 4, 2012 and April 30, 2012 meeting are hereby approved with suggested corrections. Aye votes – K. Sigel, R. Parker, J. Young and A. Shull. Abstained- M. Eisner 4. Other Business  Adopting the Town of Ithaca Zoning Forms The Board discussed with Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross having the Village of Cayuga Heights start using forms similar to the Zoning forms used by the Town of Ithaca. Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross ZBA 5-7-2012 minutes - 10 - explained the Village already is using forms that are very similar to the Town with the exception of having the applicants answering the 5 variance questions. Motion: J. Young Second: R. Parker TO ADOPT THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING FORMS FOR USE IN THE VILLAGE. RESOLVE, that the Village will adopt to use forms like those used in the Town of Ithaca. Aye votes – K. Sigel, R. Parker, J. Young, M. Eisner and A. Shull. Nay votes- None 5. Adjourned Meeting adjourned at 10:20pm