Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.22.2012 ZBA MinutesZBA 8-22-2012 minutes - 1 - Minutes for the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting August 10, 2012 MINUTES Present: Members Chair J. Young, K. Sigel, R. Parker, A. Watkins, A. Shull and Alternate M. Eisner Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross, Attorney R. Marcus, VCH Deputy Clerk A. Podufalski, Trustee B. Szekely 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 JULY 10, 2012 Moved by: A. Watkins Seconded by: R. Parker RESOLVE, that the written, reviewed and revised minutes of June 10, 2012 meeting are hereby approved with suggested corrections. Aye votes – J. Young, K. Sigel, R. Parker, A. Watkins, A.. Shull. Nay votes- none 3. Variance Requests A) 174 Pleasant Grove 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. • The Board asked the applicants questions regarding their request. • Chair J. Young opened the floor for public comment. D. Corson 5 Pleasant Grove Lane- Asked if the ridge line of the roof extends all the way to the north side of the façade? Reply from Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross- The structure has a hip roof configuration where the peak of upper roof starts to slope ZBA 8-22-2012 minutes - 2 - down to peak of smaller roof then blends into that plane and creates a hip. From the north elevation, it would be a similar view. S. Cunningham 4 Pleasant Grove Lane- If the applicant wants to avoid moving more dirt, could a stairwell be built instead? Reply from Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross- The applicant would actually have to move more dirt in order to build the area up. B. Ganem 3 Pleasant Grove Lane- The neighbors from 172 Pleasant Grove Rd, who are out of state, did not receive any notice of the hearing. Reply from Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross- He has been in contact with the owners of 172 Pleasant Grove Lane and has a statement from them. S. Cunningham- Did not see current owners of what he believes to be now 8 Pleasant Grove Lane listed on letter that was sent out to the neighbor’s. Reply from Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross- The information used to obtain property owner names and addresses is received from the Tompkins County Department of Assessment which is only updated once per year. The current tax roll is used to determine the property owners to be notified. Attorney R. Marcus- That is the standard practice to obtain property owner information. C. Corson- Notified property owner and was told he was unable to come to tonight’s meeting. Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross read an email he received from the owner of 172 Pleasant Grove Lane, D. Staub, which states she is opposed to the variance. • 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 AUGUST 22, 2012 FOR APPEAL NO. 2012-27 Motion made by: A. Watkins Motion seconded by: K. Sigel WHEREAS: A. This matter involves consideration of the following proposed action: granting of an area variance to allow a new 2 family dwelling to be constructed with a height of 32.5’, which is greater than the 25’ allowed by the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning ZBA 8-22-2012 minutes - 3 - Section 5: Height of Buildings. The property in question is known as 174 Pleasant Grove Rd (see attached map) tax map # 11.-2-8.1; and B. On August 22, 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 August 22, 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 August 22, 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) Many houses in the Village have similar situations due to topography challenges. This is mitigated, however, by one neighbor’s objections to the proposed height on one side. 2) The front of the house is in compliance. 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 8-22-2012 minutes - 4 - YES X NO______, because: The applicant could fill in areas around the house to make it compliant. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. Finding: YES X NO______, because: The request is substantial, but is mitigated because 1) many houses in the Village have similar situations due to topography challenges. 2) The front of the house is in compliance. 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: Keeping the grade at the current state could be viewed as an advantage. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. Finding: YES_____ NO X because: The applicant is attempting to maintain the neighboring setbacks and the current slope of the 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: Granting of an area variance to allow a new 2 family dwelling to be constructed with a height of 32.5’, which is greater than the 25’ allowed by the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Section 5: Height of Buildings. Conditions of Variance: 1) The grade on the south side of the property must be at a minimum as high as in the proposed drawings. ZBA 8-22-2012 minutes - 5 - 2) The grade in the front of the house must achieve a level which would make the house compliant except within 3’ from the south corner. 3) The applicant must provide landscaping which would limit the visual impact on the south end of the house within 20’ of the basement door and windows. The vote on the foregoing motion was as follows: AYES: J. Young NAYS: None K. Sigel R. Parker A. Watkins A. Shull The motion was declared to be carried. B) 112 Midway Rd. • Chair J. Young exited the meeting and appointed K. Sigel as Acting Chair and Alternate M. Eisner as a voting member for the hearing. • 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. • Acting Chair K. Sigel opened the floor for public comment. S. Grubb- Asked if the Board received all letters that were sent from the public. Reply from Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross- Any letters received that were not part of the applicant’s initial package will be read during the meeting. S. Grubb- Read her statement supporting the variance. Reply from Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross- Any letters he receives that are only addressed to him are always read to the Board during hearings. Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross- The use of burlap for plant protection is not an issue that has been part of his enforcement. S. Shiffrin- Every complaint he has heard from neighbors relates to the applicants use of burlap. He also spoke in favor of the variance and questioned the fairness, should the Board impose the conditions mentioned in the application, that the applicant would have to spend $38,000 on the modifications. M. Eisner- The applicant offered to make the modifications prior to the hearing. ZBA 8-22-2012 minutes - 6 - R. Bors- The revised fence ordinance has been a detriment to the character of the Village. O. White- Spoke in favor of the variance. S. Grubb- Granting the variance appeals allows property owners to maintain the character of the Village. S. Shiffrin- The Board’s findings should take into consideration what Village officials previously told the applicant when she first installed the fence. Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross- Read statements supporting the variance from H. Missirian of 406 Klinewoods Rd and A. & J. Godwin of 501 The Parkway. • Acting Chair K. Sigel read an email from J. Young in which he states 2 residents have complained anonymously regarding the applicant’s use of burlap. • The applicant indicated that she will not put burlap on the new fence. • The Board discussed with the applicant the extent to which she wanted the Board to consider the request based on the current fencing vs. with the applicants proposed modifications. • 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 AUGUST 22, 2012 FOR APPEAL NO. 2012-28 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 8’ high mesh fence(s) to remain at 0’-21’ from front property line(s), 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 112 Midway Rd (see attached map) tax map # 10.-1-2; and B. On August 22, 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 August 22, 2012 in accordance with Article 8 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law - the State Environmental Quality Review Act ZBA 8-22-2012 minutes - 7 - (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 August 22, 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_____ NOX because: 1) The applicants proposed modifications would provide a desirable change to the neighborhood based on the majority of responses from neighbors. 2) The fence would protect landscaping that neighbors view as an asset. 3) The proposed re-location would reduce impact of current fencing. 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_____ NOX because: The applicant is seeking to protect current landscaping and investments. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. Finding: YESX NO______, because: In certain places the setback is reduced to 0’. This is mitigated because a significant portion on Midway is closer to the 25’ setback requirement. ZBA 8-22-2012 minutes - 8 - 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_____ NOX because: Animal patterns have already been established and the proposed modifications would have no effect. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. Finding: YESX NO______, because: The applicant wishes to fence in more of their property than the law allows. 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(s) to remain at 0’-21’ from front property line(s), which is less than the 25’ front yard setback required by the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Section 6: Yards. Conditions of Variance: 1) The location of the fence must remain substantially as proposed on pg. 11, sketch #2 2) The fence material and color must be substantially as indicated by the applicant with at least 80% openness. 3) The height of the fence is not to exceed 8’. 4) All current non-compliant fencing must be removed within 14 months of today. 5) The current non-compliant portion on the west side of the driveway is not subject to the approval of this variance. The vote on the foregoing motion was as follows: AYES: M. Eisner NAYS: None ZBA 8-22-2012 minutes - 9 - K. Sigel R. Parker A. Watkins A. Shull The motion was declared to be carried. • Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross- Any matter that deals with the encroachment issue will be dealt with separately. Any zoning ordinance issue will be dealt with within the 14 months C) 205 Oak Hill Rd. • Alternate M. Eisner recused himself from the hearing as he is the applicant. • 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. • Acting Chair K. Sigel opened the floor for public comment. No members of the public wished to comment. Applicant stated neighbor Vanek of 414 Triphammer Rd gave him his verbal approval. • The Board asked the applicants questions regarding their 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 AUGUST 22, 2012 FOR APPEAL NO. 2012-29 Motion made by: R. Parker 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 6.5’ high mesh fence to remain at approximately 6.3’ from 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 205 Oak Hill Rd (see attached map) tax map # 14.-3-2; and B. On August 22, 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 ZBA 8-22-2012 minutes - 10 - 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 August 22, 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 August 22, 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 2) The fence is barely visible from the sidewalk and roadway 3) The fence only covers approximately 100’ of roadway. 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: However, applicant would run the risk of creating a “pen” situation which could entrap animals. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. Finding: ZBA 8-22-2012 minutes - 11 - YES X NO______, because: The setback is substantial, but is mitigated because the fence only covers a small portion of the perimeter and is barely visible. 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 is no apparent impact and there is no new construction taking place. 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 6.5’ high mesh fence to remain at approximately 6.3’ from 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: The fence must remain substantially as it existed at the time of the application. The vote on the foregoing motion was as follows: AYES: A. Shull NAYS: None K. Sigel R. Parker A. Watkins ZBA 8-22-2012 minutes - 12 - The motion was declared to be carried. 4. Other Business • The next regularly scheduled meeting falls on Labor Day. The Board discussed changing the date. Moved by: K. Sigel Seconded by: R. Parker RESOLVE, that the next meeting of the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Board of Appeals will be held on Tuesday, September 18, 2012 at 7PM at the Fire Hall. Aye votes – All in favor Opposed- None 5. Adjourned Meeting adjourned at 10:30pm