HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.22.2016 Minutes.pdfZBA Appeal No. 2016-4 Res. (June 22, 2016)
Village of Cayuga Heights
Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting
MINUTES
June 6, 2016
Present: Members Chair J. Young, K. Sigel, A. Watkins, R. Parker
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 Chair J. Young at 8:06 pm.
2. Approval of Minutes
APPROVING MINUTES OF JUNE 6, 2016
RESOLVE that the written, reviewed and revised minutes of the June 6, 2016 meeting are
hereby approved.
Aye votes – Chair J. Young, K. Sigel, R. Parker, A. Watkins
Opposed- None
3. Public Comment
No members of the public wished to comment.
4. Variance Applications
A. 117 Cayuga Park Road Variance Application
Chair J. Young re-opened the public hearing previously adjourned during the June 6,
2016 meeting
Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross received an email from resident Joan Halperin
stating her concerns. Mr. Cross forwarded the letter to the Board prior to the
meeting.
ZBA Appeal No. 2016-4 Res. (June 22, 2016)
The applicant stated she spoke with Ms. Halperin regarding the project plans.
A. Watkins requested clarification regarding plantings between the properties.
Chair J. Young closed the public hearing.
Attorney R. Marcus informed the Board the variance request is a Type II action
exempt under Section 617.5(c)(13) "granting of an area variance(s) for a single-family,
two-family or three-family residence;"
The Board discussed and answered the findings questions as follows:
VILLAGE OF CAYUGA HEIGHTS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS RESOLUTION
ADOPTED ON (JUNE 6, 2016) FOR APPEAL NO.2016-4
Motion made by: K. Sigel
ZBA Appeal No. 2016-4 Res. (June 22, 2016)
Motion seconded by: A. Watkins
WHEREAS:
A. This matter involves consideration of the following proposed action: granting of an area
variance to allow construction of a new two-story addition that would have a rear yard of
10’, which is less than the 15’ required by the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Section 6:
Yard Requirements. The property in question is known as 117 Cayuga Park Road (see
attached map) tax map # 7.-4-8.2; and
B. On June 22, 2016 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 22, 2016 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)(13), 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
review under SEQR; and
D. On June 22, 2016 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: a) It is a modest addition with only a net 450 sq. ft. increase. b) The
22’ height is under the maximum height allowed and is only 2.6’ higher than the current
structure. c) The rear height is only 15’. d) There is vegetative screening.
Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the
applicant to pursue other than an area variance.
ZBA Appeal No. 2016-4 Res. (June 22, 2016)
Finding:
YES X NO _____ because: Other options would have an even greater impact on the neighbor.
Whether the requested area variance is substantial.
Finding:
YES X NO______, because: The setback is 10’ rather than the required 15’, however, only 1
corner of the addition extends the full 5’ 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: Standard erosion control measures should protect the nearby stream
and the foliage should not be disturbed.
Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created.
Finding:
YES X NO______, because: The applicant is requesting the variance.
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
the relief sought 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 construction of a new two-story addition that would have a
rear yard of 10’, which is less than the 15’ required by the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning
Section 6: Yard Requirements.
Conditions of Variance:
1) The current level of vegetative screening must be maintained.
2) The structure will be built substantially as indicated to the Board.
The vote on the foregoing motion was as follows:
ZBA Appeal No. 2016-4 Res. (June 22, 2016)
AYES: A. Watkins NAYS:
R. Parker
K. Sigel
J. Young
The motion was declared to be carried.
Chair J. Young informed the applicant there is a 30 day timeframe in which someone
could file for an appeal of the Board’s decision.
B. 212 Hanshaw Road Variance Application
Attorney R. Marcus disclosed to the Board he has represented the applicant on a
previous unrelated matter and is also friends with the applicant. The Board had no
objections.
Chair J. Young read the public notice and opened the public hearing. No members of
the public were present to comment.
Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross gave a background summary on the case.
The applicant explained his reasons for requesting the variance.
Chair J. Young closed the public hearing.
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;"
The Board answered the findings questions as follows:
VILLAGE OF CAYUGA HEIGHTS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS RESOLUTION
ADOPTED ON (JUNE 6, 2016) FOR APPEAL NO.2016-5
Motion made by: A. Watkins
Motion seconded by: R. Parker
WHEREAS:
A. This matter involves consideration of the following proposed action: granting of an area
variance to allow the replacement of an existing fence with a new 6’ fence at approximately
2.5’ from the front property line (Devon side), and to allow an existing pool house to remain
at approximately 15’ from the same property line, which are less than 25’ required by the
Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Section 6: Yard Requirements. The property in question is
known as 212 Hanshaw Road (see attached map) tax map # 12.-1-3; and
ZBA Appeal No. 2016-4 Res. (June 22, 2016)
B. On June 22, 2016 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 22, 2016 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)(12), 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
review under SEQR; and
D. On June 22, 2016 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 variance would allow replacement of the existing fence and allow
the existing pool house to remain.
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: To avoid a variance, the pool house would need to be moved and a
compliant fence would not secure the pool as completely.
Whether the requested area variance is substantial.
ZBA Appeal No. 2016-4 Res. (June 22, 2016)
Finding:
YES X NO______, because: The setback is 2.5’ rather than the required 25’, however, only a
small portion of the fence is affected.
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 applicant is maintaining existing conditions.
Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created.
Finding:
YES_____ NO X because: The applicant is trying to maintain existing conditions.
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
the relief sought 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 the replacement of an existing fence with a new 6’ fence at
approximately 2.5’ from the front property line (Devon side), and to allow an existing pool house
to remain at approximately 15’ from the same property line, which are less than 25’ required by
the Village of Cayuga Heights Zoning Section 6: Yard Requirements.
Conditions of Variance:
1) The fence and pool house remain substantially the same.
2) The existing vegetation remains substantially the same.
The vote on the foregoing motion was as follows:
AYES: A. Watkins NAYS:
R. Parker
K. Sigel
J. Young
The motion was declared to be carried.
ZBA Appeal No. 2016-4 Res. (June 22, 2016)
Chair J. Young informed the applicant there is a 30 day timeframe in which someone
could file for an appeal of the Board’s decision.
5. New business
Code Enforcement Officer B. Cross informed the Board he currently does not have
any variance applications to present in July.
The Board discussed with Attorney R. Marcus how an appeal of a Board decision on a
case might be processed.
6. Adjourn
Meeting adjourned at 9:02 pm.