Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA 6-4-2012 minutes.pdfZBA 6-4-2012 minutes - 1 - Minutes for the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting June 4, 2012 MINUTES Present: Members J. Young, K. Sigel, R. Parker, A. Watkins, and A. Shull Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross, Attorney P. Grossman, and VCH Deputy Clerk A. Podufalski 1. Meeting called to order Meeting called to order by Chair J. Young at 7:13 pm. 2. Minutes Moved by: A. Watkins Seconded by: K. Sigel APPROVING MINUTES OF MAY 23, 2012 RESOLVE, that the written, reviewed and revised minutes of May 23, 2012 meeting are hereby approved with suggested corrections. Aye votes – K. Sigel, R. Parker, J. Young, A. Watkins and A. Shull. Nay votes- none 3. Variance Requests A) 103 Simsbury  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.  The Board asked the applicants questions regarding their request.  Chair J. Young opened the floor for public comment.  O. White Spoke in favor of variance  Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross confirmed the next door neighbor, Cathy, spoke to him and is in favor of the fence  S. Grubb sent Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross an email stating she is in favor of the variance.  The Board discussed information gathered from both the applicant and their site visits.  Attorney P. Grossman 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 6-4-2012 minutes - 2 - VILLAGE OF CAYUGA HEIGHTS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS RESOLUTION ADOPTED ON JUNE 4, 2012 FOR APPEAL NO. 2012-19 Motion made by: K. Sigel Motion seconded by: J. Young WHEREAS: A. This matter involves consideration of the following proposed action: granting of an area variance to allow an 8’ high wood fence to be located at approximately 0’ from the side property line, which is less than the 15’ side yard setback required by Zoning Ordinance Section 6: Yard Requirements. The property in question is known as 103 Simsbury Drive (see attached map) tax map # 4.-3-27.4; and B. On June 4, 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 4, 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 4, 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 6-4-2012 minutes - 3 - YES_____ NO X because: The fence will not have a large visual impact on the neighborhood and will be an attractive fence made of natural wood. 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: A compliant fence or some form of landscaping could be installed, but the proposed fence is the quickest way to effectively solve the applicant’s problem. A mitigating factor is that building the proposed fence is a quicker way to effectively solve the applicant’s problem. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. Finding: YES X NO______, because: The setback is 0’ instead of the required 15’ with an approx. 152 ft stretch of fence. This is mitigated, however, because the fence is only along one side 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 will not prevent any animal traffic. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. Finding: YES_____ NO X because: The primary motivation is safety and screening from hazards on the neighbor’s property. 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 6-4-2012 minutes - 4 - Granting of an area variance to allow an 8’ high wood fence to be located at approximately 0’ from the side property line, which is less than the 15’ side yard setback required by Zoning Ordinance Section 6: Yard Requirements. Conditions of Variance: 1) The upper 2’ of the fence must be at least 25% open. 2) The fence must be constructed significantly as discussed by the Board and the applicant during the meeting. The vote on the foregoing motion was as follows: AYES: R. Parker K. Sigel J. Young A. Shull A. Watkins NAYS: None The motion was declared to be carried. B) 507 The Parkway  Alternate M. Eisner took the place of R. Parker as voting member.  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.  The Board asked the applicants questions regarding their request.  Chair J. Young opened the floor for public comment.  S. Grubb sent Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross an email stating she is in favor of the variance  O. White Spoke in favor of variance  R. Robinson Spoke in favor of variance  Attorney P. Grossman 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 4, 2012 FOR APPEAL NO. 2012-20 Motion made by: A. Watkins Motion seconded by: R. Parker WHEREAS: ZBA 6-4-2012 minutes - 5 - A. This matter involves consideration of the following proposed action: granting of an area variance to allow 2 existing 5’ high iron fences to remain at approximately 0’ (perpendicular) from the side property line, which is less than the 15’ side yard setback required by Zoning Ordinance Section 6. Yard Requirements. The property in question is known as 507 The Parkway (see attached map) tax map # 6.-5-1; and B. On June 4, 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 4, 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 4, 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 is pre-existing and has been in place for a few years 2) The fencing consists of 2 short fences 3) The fences have 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 applicant wishes to keep the fences. ZBA 6-4-2012 minutes - 6 - Whether the requested area variance is substantial. Finding: YES X NO______, because: There is a 0’ setback instead of the required 15’. However, the 0’ setback is only at one point and is close to meeting the 90% openness requirement. 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 already in place and there will be no new construction. 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 2 existing 5’ high iron fences to remain at approximately 0’ (perpendicular) from the side property line, which is less than the 15’ side yard setback required by Zoning Ordinance Section 6. Yard Requirements. Conditions of Variance: The fence must remain substantially as currently constructed. The vote on the foregoing motion was as follows: AYES: R. Parker K. Sigel J. Young A. Shull A. Watkins ZBA 6-4-2012 minutes - 7 - NAYS: None The motion was declared to be carried. C) 615 Highland Rd  Alternate M. Eisner took the place of R. Parker as voting member.  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.  The Board asked the applicants questions regarding their request.  Chair J. Young opened the floor for public comment.  B. Mingle Spoke in favor of variance  S. O’Connor Spoke in favor of variance  O. White Spoke in favor of variance  S. Grubb sent Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross an email stating she is in favor of the variance  Attorney P. Grossman 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 4, 2012 FOR APPEAL NO. 2012-21 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 an existing 8’ high mesh fence to remain at approximately 2’ from a front property line, which is less than the 25’ side yard setback required by Zoning Ordinance Section 6. Yard Requirements. The property in question is known as 615 Highland Rd (see attached map) tax map # 9.-3-6; and B. On June 4, 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 4, 2012 in accordance with Article 8 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law - the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR), and 6 NYCRR ZBA 6-4-2012 minutes - 8 - 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 4, 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 is pre-existing and has been in place for many years, thus deer patterns are already established. 2) The applicant has made every effort to limit the visual impact of the 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 fence can not be moved due to existing vegetation. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. Finding: YES X NO______, because: The setback is 2’ instead of the required 25’. Whether the proposed area variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. ZBA 6-4-2012 minutes - 9 - Finding: YES_____ NO X because: The fence is pre-existing and deer patterns have been established. 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 an existing 8’ high mesh fence to remain at approximately 2’ from a front property line, which is less than the 25’ side yard setback required by Zoning Ordinance Section 6. Yard Requirements. Conditions of Variance: 1. The current unfenced corridor between Hanshaw Rd and Highland Rd on the south side of the property must remain. 2. The fence must remain substantially as currently constructed. The vote on the foregoing motion was as follows: AYES: R. Parker K. Sigel J. Young A. Shull A. Watkins NAYS: None The motion was declared to be carried. 4. Other Business  The Board discussed alternate meeting dates for July and August. Deputy Clerk A. Podufalski will send an email to determine the Board members availability. 5. Adjourned ZBA 6-4-2012 minutes - 10 - Meeting adjourned at 9:13pm