The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZBA 10-5-2015 Minutes.pdfF:\ZBA\ZBA 2015\10.5.2015\ZBA 10-5-2015 draft minutes.doc - 1 - Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Draft Minutes October 5, 2015 Present: Members Acting Chair K. Sigel, A. Watkins and Alternate M. Eisner Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross, VCH Deputy Clerk A. Podufalski Attorney R. Marcus Members of the Public 1. Meeting called to order  Meeting called to order by Acting Chair K. Sigel at 7:09 pm.  Acting Chair K. Sigel appointed Alternate M. Eisner as a voting member for the meeting. 2. Continuation of 105 Berkshire Rd. Public Hearing  The public hearing was re-opened after being adjourned at the September 8, 2015 meeting. No members of the public in attendance wished to comment. The public hearing remained open in the event any other members of the public arrived. The Board discussed other business. 3. Approval of Minutes APPROVING MINUTES OF MAY 4, 2015 RESOLVE that the written, reviewed and revised minutes of the May 4, 2015 meeting are hereby approved. APPROVING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 8, 2015 RESOLVE that the written, reviewed and revised minutes of the September 8, 2015 meeting are hereby approved. 4. 105 Berkshire Rd. Public Hearing (continued)  Attorney R. Marcus informed the Board the variance request is a Type II action exempt under Section 617.5(c)(12) “granting of individual setback and lot line variances” of SEQR. F:\ZBA\ZBA 2015\10.5.2015\ZBA 10-5-2015 draft minutes.doc - 2 -  Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross stated he has not received any further comments from the public regarding the variance request.  As no other members of the public arrived the public hearing was closed at 7:21 pm.  M. Eisner asked if this case could set a precedent for other flag lots. Acting Chair K. Sigel stated he has studied other similar properties. He has counted 13 similar lots in the Village. The variance request does not appear to be out of character with other lots.  The Board discussed the flag lot information compiled by Acting Chair K. Sigel. It was noted that the proposed flag lot would have more road frontage than the typical flag lot. It was also noted that the proposed flag lot and the proposed "front" lot would both be somewhat smaller than what is typical in the Village. It was then discussed that other small "front" lots in the Village contain only single family homes and that it might make sense to limit the occupancy on this newly created lot in order to limit its impact on neighbors and the neighborhood. F:\ZBA\ZBA 2015\10.5.2015\ZBA 10-5-2015 draft minutes.doc - 3 - F:\ZBA\ZBA 2015\10.5.2015\ZBA 10-5-2015 draft minutes.doc - 4 - F:\ZBA\ZBA 2015\10.5.2015\ZBA 10-5-2015 draft minutes.doc - 5 -  The Board discussed that the 1953 ordinance does not specifically address such lots other than to address road frontage requirements.  M. Eisner asked if there has been any support for the request from neighbors. Acting Chair K. Sigel stated one neighbor stated they had no strong feelings either way. At the September meeting the Board received a letter from K. F:\ZBA\ZBA 2015\10.5.2015\ZBA 10-5-2015 draft minutes.doc - 6 - Torgeson, the owner of 106 Berkshire Rd. The homeowner stated her opposition towards the variance.  Attorney R. Marcus explained to the Board that NYS law clearly states that any decisions made by the Board in this case will not establish any precedent. The Board needs to make its decision based on the merits of the request and not from any other case. It does not mean the Board is prohibited from considering similar cases, but a precedent would not be set. The Board is not bound to decide a request based on actions from a similar case.  The Board discussed potential conditions if the request is approved.  Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross expressed concern over making this subdivision more restrictive than any other single family lot.  The Board answered the findings questions as follows: VILLAGE OF CAYUGA HEIGHTS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS RESOLUTION ADOPTED ON (SEPTEMBER 8, 2015) FOR APPEAL NO.2015-5 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 a new lot to be subdivided with 38.33’ road frontage, which is less than the 75’ required by the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Ordinance Section 7.b: Building Coverage Requirements. The property in question is known as 105 Berkshire Road (see attached map) tax map # 2.-8-2.1; and B. On October 5, 2015 and September 8, 2015 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 October 5, 2015 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 October 5, 2015 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 F:\ZBA\ZBA 2015\10.5.2015\ZBA 10-5-2015 draft minutes.doc - 7 - 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: it appears the requested variance would not be significantly different from other lots in the neighborhood, including lots on Highgate Rd. and North Sunset, that have reduced or no road frontage. 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______,: but alternative options for subdividing the parcel might require more than one variance. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. Finding: YES X NO______, because: the requested variance which is reducing frontage by approximately 50% is substantial. 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 lots meet minimum area, dimensional, and all other requirements. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. Finding: YES X NO______, because: the applicant is choosing to subdivide the property. F:\ZBA\ZBA 2015\10.5.2015\ZBA 10-5-2015 draft minutes.doc - 8 - 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 lot to be subdivided with 38.33’ road frontage, which is less than the 75’ required by the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Ordinance Section 7.b: Building Coverage Requirements. Conditions of Variance: 1) Parcel B's width at the road must be no less than 38 feet. 2) Subdivision approval must be obtained from the Planning Board for essentially the same subdivision submitted to this Board. 3) Both lots share the existing curb cut and share the existing driveway as much as possible. 4) Parcel A can only be used by at most 2 unrelated occupants or a single family with no unrelated occupants. 5) This Board requests that the Planning Board consider the following as a condition of subdivision approval: a) Any buildings, structures, or impervious surfaces built on Parcel A must obtain site plan approval from the Planning Board. The vote on the foregoing motion was as follows: AYES: A. Watkins NAYS: None M. Eisner K. Sigel The motion was declared to be carried. 5. Other Business  Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross informed the Board of other pending cases that may be presented at the November 2, 2015 meeting. A. A case involving a fence on Triphammer Rd. B. A case involving a stoop overhang expansion at 511 Kline Rd. C. A case involving an applicant seeking relief of having a limit of 4 unrelated occupants at 216 Deerborn Place. The applicant wishes to establish an affinity F:\ZBA\ZBA 2015\10.5.2015\ZBA 10-5-2015 draft minutes.doc - 9 - house at the location, but it would remain as a single family residence. Attorney R. Marcus informed the Board he and his firm would have to be recused from the case as the potential buyer of the property is a client of his firm. 6. Adjourned  Meeting adjourned at 8:15 pm.