HomeMy WebLinkAboutApplicant Findings Questions Answers-511 Cayuga Heights.pdfVillage 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.
Applicant’s justification:
No, because there will be no change to the neighborhood as a fence has been in
approximately the same location for at least 17 years. The applicant is not aware of
any neighbor complaints or that anyone has been negatively impacted by the fence.
The height of the fence relative to the grade of the street (it is on a downhill slope)
and the vegetative screening also mitigate any visual detriment to the surrounding
community. Lastly, the garage and potting shed were built prior to the Village’s
zoning ordinance and the fence encroaches no further into the set-back than that
structure.
(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.
Applicant’s justification:
No, because a fence has been in this approximate location for many years and is
constructed of quality and durable materials. To move the fence at this point would
be costly and not feasible for the applicant. Further, the fence is attcahed to the
potting shed and moving it may eliminate the direct access between the shed and
gardening area.
(3) Whether the requested variance is substantial.
Applicant’s justification:
No, because the portion of the fence that encroaches in the set-back is only about
35’-40’ long and the total property length is 382’. Accordingly, the fence takes up
approximately 10% of the front property line and is not a substantial portion of the
street line. Deer, other animals, children, etc. have plenty of space to utilize should
they need to avoid a dangerous condition in the street or on the sidewalk. Further,
the fence is not constructed on the property line; it is set back 11.5’ from the street
line mitigating any negative visual impacts. Lastly, the garage and potting shed
were built prior to the Village’s zoning ordinance and the fence encroaches no
further into the set-back than that structure.
(4) Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district.
Applicant’s justification:
No, because there will be no adverse effect or impact to the neighborhood as a fence
has been in approximately the same location for at least 17 years. No construction,
ground disturbance, erosion, or drainage issues will result if this fence remains in its
current location
(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.
Applicant’s justification:
No, because the situation was created prior to the applicant’s acquisition of the
property in 1995 – it is unclear who constructed the original fence and how long it
had remained in the set-back. Also, the fence is specifically designed to permit
direct access between the potting shed and garden and the location of the potting
shed has been established for at least 90 years – again, prior to the applicant’s
acquisition of the property.