Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Application 1001 HIGHLAND Lennox 5 27 16.pdfVillage of Cayuga Heights Zoning Board of Appeals Application Form ZBA Application Fee: $100 Check All That Apply: X Area Variance Use Variance Interpretation Request Property address: 1001 Highland Rd, Ithaca, NY 14850 Tax parcel: Zoning Officer’s determination: Requested variance or interpretation: Variance Reason(s) that the requested variance or interpretation should be granted: ▫ See attached page for the criteria that the ZBA must use. ▫ Use additional sheets if necessary. (Please see attached comments) Please attach any additional information that will help the ZBA to evaluate your appeal, such as a narrative, survey map, photos, building plans, etc. By filing this application, you grant permission for Village of Cayuga Heights ZBA Members and Village Staff to enter your property for inspections related to your appeal. Owner/Applicant: David and Lisa Lennox Signature: David P. Lennox Date: 5-27-2016 Phone number(s): Email address: dplennox@gmail.com For Office Use Only Date Received Cash or Check Zoning District Applicable Section(s) of Village Code: Request for Variance for Property Minor Sub-division 1001 Highland Rd., Ithaca We are requesting a variance to allow us to divide our 1 acre lot on Highland Road, into two portions of approximately .6 of an acre (including our current residence) and another of approximately .4 of an acre. This will allow us to “downsize” as our family situation changes (one child has left for college; a second is in high school), without leaving our home, and will provide another lot for a small single-family home. The proposed Parcel A, our current home, meets all Cayuga Heights ordinances for frontage, average width, average depth, and lot coverage. The proposed Parcel B, the new lot, meets Cayuga Heights ordinances for frontage (81.06 >75 feet), but falls short on average depth and average width requirements, as established in the accompanying documents. While any change in an established neighborhood such as ours can be difficult, we believe that the proposed division fits appropriately within the residential zoning of Cayuga Heights. Below, we address the specific variance criteria in turn: Area Variance: An area variance is needed if you want to deviate from some dimensional requirement of the Zoning Ordinance, such as height, yard setback, or lot coverage. The area variance criteria the ZBA must use are found in Village Law 7-712-B(3)(b): In making its determination, the zoning board of appeals shall take into consideration the benefit to the applicant if the variance is granted, as weighed against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community by such grant. In making such determination the board shall also consider: (1) whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance; Village of Cayuga Heights residential zoning is characterized by large lots and many tall, well-established trees. Lots in our immediate area range in size from 1.53 acres to .311 acres, as shown in rough form on the map on the next page. Note that our proposed Parcel A lot is larger than all of the six lots, identified with blue arrows, in our immediate neighborhood. And our proposed Parcel B lot is larger (by a significant margin) than the lot marked with the red arrow—a property one house over, but on the same side of the street as ours. At approximately .4 of an acre, the proposed Parcel B would be among the smaller lots in the immediate area, but certainly not out of character in a Village which includes many, many lots of a third of an acre or smaller. A B (2) whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance; The proposed shape of the lot division represents, we believe, the best compromise between the need to meet code restrictions and the need to create two individual lots with appropriate frontage and appealing landscape features. A simple dividing line down the middle of the lot would require moving the existing garage. By wrapping an “L” shape around the existing building, we were able to create a division line that was much closer to (but still slightly short of) the required average width, with sufficient depth. But this was an ungainly shape, and we were advised by the Planning Board to create a more simple design in keeping with other angled lots nearby. Our map as shown here follows that advice. (3) whether the requested area variance is substantial; We agree with, and defer to, the calculations of Brent Cross, the Zoning Officer, as to the relative size of the requested variance. We would point out that the Zoning Board of Appeals has recently permitted a similar minor lot subdivision involving a relative area variance that was, in our view, a much more substantial request: 38.33 ft. of frontage vs. 75 ft. required frontage (for Parcel B of 105 Berkshire Rd.) (4) whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and The Planning Board reviewed the lot proposal, completed the Short Environmental Assessment Form, and determined that no significant impact was involved. A public hearing was held on May 23, and another is scheduled for June. We share the concerns of our neighbors that any new construction in th e area may involve removal of trees that are so valued in Cayuga Heights. Some tree removal would doubtless be necessary along the 80 foot Remington frontage. We would want to limit this as much as possible, and believe that fewer than five large trees are at risk, and one of these is already compromised by rot. Fortunately, as shown by the blue oval on the map on the next page, the central building zone of the new lot—the part fulfilling the setback requirements—is currently lawn, not trees. Most of the large trees are along the rear of the lot. In any case, we note that the surrounding properties most adjacent to ours, front the street with wide stretches of lawn, not trees. So creating an approach to a new house with a driveway, beds, and lawn would be entirely consistent with the existing character of the neighborhood. (It is the current view-blocking hedge along Remington that is out of character with the other properties.) To put the same argument in different terms: by our admittedly rough count, our current acre contains over 140 “legacy” trees (those over an arbitrary 20’ height). The lots of our neighbors to the east and south (by the same rough count) contain less than 35 and 20 such trees, respectively. It would seem unfair to expect our property to maintain a well-treed parkland in part to compensate for nearby lots bereft of such features. (5) whether the alleged difficulty was self-created; which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the board of appeals, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance. Our desire to divide the lot created the difficulty. Contributing factors are the shape of the lot and existing location of the house and garage. ***** Thank you for your consideration. ~ David and Lisa Lennox