Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA 6-20-2012 minutes.pdfZBA 6-20-2012 minutes - 1 - Minutes for the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting June 20, 2012 MINUTES Present: Members Chair J. Young, K. Sigel, R. Parker, A. Watkins, and Alternate M. Eisner Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross, Attorney D. Dubow, and VCH Deputy Clerk A. Podufalski 1. Meeting called to order Meeting called to order by Chair J. Young at 7:05 pm. 2. Minutes APPROVING MINUTES OF JUNE 4, 2012 RESOLVE, that the written, reviewed and revised minutes of June 4, 2012 meeting are hereby approved with suggested corrections. Aye votes – K. Sigel, R. Parker, J. Young, A. Watkins. Nay votes- none Abstain- M. Eisner 3. Variance Requests  Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross informed the Board the applicants for the variance request involving 523 Highland Rd were out of town and had requested that the Board postpone the hearing. A) 303 E. Upland  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.  S. Grubb  Spoke in favor of variance  G. Brodhead Spoke in favor of variance  H. Tavelli Spoke in favor of variance  S. Schlaepfer Spoke in favor of variance  D. Nathaniels Spoke in favor of variance  D. Callahan Spoke in favor of variance  O. White Spoke in favor of variance  Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross shared 3 letters of support from neighbor R. & C. Schmitt and from non-residents P. Stein, M. Royer, and R. Calvo.  The Board asked the applicants questions regarding their request. ZBA 6-20-2012 minutes - 2 -  Attorney D. Dubow 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 JUNE 20, 2012 NO. 2012-22 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 existing 7’ high fence to remain at/near front property line, which is less than the 25’ front yard setback required by the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Section 6: Yards. The property in question is known as 303 E. Upland Road (see attached map) tax map # 11.-2-2; and B. On June 20, 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 June 20, 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 June 20, 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 6-20-2012 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 is pre-existing 2) There have been no objections from any neighbors and many are in support 3) The fence used less than 75% of the frontage and applicant could actually make the fence complaint by adding additional fencing to create an exclosure 4) The current 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 X NO______, because: Applicant could add additional fencing to create an exclosure. This is mitigated by the fact that this option would create a more visible impact. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. Finding: YES X NO______, because: The setback is 0’ instead of the required 25’. This is mitigated because it is a short 51’ section of fence. The alternative would cause a greater impact. 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: This is a pre-existing fence. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. Finding: YES X NO______, because: The 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: ZBA 6-20-2012 minutes - 4 - Description of Variance: Granting of an area variance to allow an existing 7’ high fence to remain at/near front property line, which is less than the 25’ front yard setback required by the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Section 6: Yards. Conditions of Variance: 1. Any added material to the fence above 4’ must comply with the definition in Fence Law D(ii). 2. The location of the fence will remain as it currently exists. The vote on the foregoing motion was as follows: AYES: Chair J. Young K. Sigel R. Parker A. Watkins M. Eisner NAYS: None The motion was declared to be carried. B) 523 Highland Rd Moved by: M. Eisner Seconded by: K. Sigel POSTPOING THE HEARING FOR 523 HIGHLAND ROAD. RESOLVE, that the hearing for 523 Highland Rd is postponed until July 10, 2012. Aye votes – K. Sigel, R. Parker, J. Young, A. Watkins and M. Eisner Nay votes- none C) 511 Cayuga Heights Rd  Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross gave a background summary on the case.  Attorney K. Gutenberger spoke on behalf of the applicant regarding the request.  Chair J. Young opened the floor for public comment.  S. Grubb  Spoke in favor of variance  Attorney D. Dubow 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. ZBA 6-20-2012 minutes - 5 - VILLAGE OF CAYUGA HEIGHTS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS RESOLUTION ADOPTED ON JUNE 20, 2012 NO. 2012-23 Motion made by: A. Watkins Motion seconded by: M. Eisner WHEREAS: A. This matter involves consideration of the following proposed action: granting of an area variance to allow for a variance to allow an existing 6’ high fence to remain at approximately 11.5’ from front property line (Cayuga Park Road), which is less than the 25’ side yard setback required by the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Section 6: Yards. The property in question is known as 511 Cayuga Heights Road (see attached map) tax map # 9.-1-3.1; and B. On June 20, 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 June 20, 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 June 20, 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: ZBA 6-20-2012 minutes - 6 - YES_____ NO X because: 1) The fence is pre-existing 2) It is a small portion of fence 3) The fence is downhill from street level which creates a low visual impact 4) It is a visually 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: The applicant wishes to retain the existing fence. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. Finding: YES X NO______, because: The setback is approximately 11.5’ instead of the required 25’, but it mitigated because it is a short section of fence. 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: This is a pre-existing fence with minimal impact. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. Finding: YES X NO______, because: The 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: Granting of an area variance to allow for a variance to allow an existing 6’ high fence to remain at approximately 11.5’ from front property line (Cayuga Park Road), which ZBA 6-20-2012 minutes - 7 - is less than the 25’ side yard setback required by the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Section 6: Yards. Conditions of Variance: The fence will remain substantially as built. The vote on the foregoing motion was as follows: AYES: Chair J. Young K. Sigel R. Parker A. Watkins M. Eisner NAYS: None The motion was declared to be carried. 4. Other Business  Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross discussed with the Board upcoming cases for the July 10, 2012 meeting. 5. Adjourned Meeting adjourned at 7:55pm