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