HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3224 - 209 Bryant Avenue - Decision
CITY OF ITHACA BOARD of ZONING APPEALS
Area Variance Findings & Decision
Appeal No.: 3224
Applicant: Crown Construction on behalf of property owners Michael and Ashlee McGandy
Property Location: 209 Bryant Avenue
Zoning District: R-1b
Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: §325-8, Column 11
Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Front Yard.
Publication Dates: June 30, 2022 and July 5, 2022.
Meeting Held On: July 5, 2022.
Summary: Appeal of Crown Construction on behalf of property owners Michael and Ashlee McGandy
for an area variance from §325-8, Column 11, Front Yard, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The
applicants propose to demolish the existing front porch steps that are located on the side of the porch and
construct new steps on the front side of the existing porch. The property has an existing front yard
deficiency, with the existing front porch located 10.6’ from the property line at the closest point. The
relocated porch steps will further reduce the front yard to 8.5’ of the required 25’. The purpose of the
proposal is to locate access to the front porch closer to the sidewalk and to better align the front steps with
the home’s front entry.
The property is located in an R-1b district in which the proposed use is permitted. However, Section 325-
38 requires that an area variance be granted before a building permit is issued.
Public Hearing Held On: July 5, 2022.
Members present:
Michael Cannon
Andre Gardiner
Joseph Kirby
David Barken, Chair
There were no comments in support of or in opposition to the requested variance.
Tompkins County Review per Section 239 -l & -m of New York State General Municipal Law:
Not applicable.
CITY OF ITHACA
108 E. Green Street — 3rd Floor Ithaca, NY 14850-5690
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING, ZONING, & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Division of Zoning
Megan Wilson, Secretary to the Board of Zoning Appeals
Telephone: 607-274-6550 Fax: 607-274-6558 E-Mail: mwilson@cityofithaca.org
Environmental Review: This is a Type 2 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is not subject to Environmental Review.
Planning & Development Board Recommendation:
The Planning Board supports this variance as it will provide better access to the homeowner from the
existing driveway. The Planning Board does recommend the homeowner replace the existing walkway and
steps on the eastern side of the house that lead to the existing porch steps with greenspace as this will reduce
impervious surfaces.
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission Recommendation:
Not applicable.
Motion: A motion to grant variance #3224 for 209 Bryant Avenue was made by A. Gardiner.
Deliberations & Findings:
The Board noted that the applicant has demonstrated that there is no feasible location for the new porch
steps that is in greater compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and meet the needs of the property owner.
The proposal makes sense functionally for the owners and would be consistent with the existing
neighborhood.
Factors Considered:
1. Whether an undesirable change would be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties: Yes No
• The applicant is proposing to relocate the porch steps from the side to the front of the porch. The
new steps will exacerbate an existing front yard deficiency and will reduce the front yard to 8.5’ of
the required 25’.
• Based on the submitted materials, observations of the neighborhood, and testimony at the July 5th
BZA meeting, the Board finds that the requested variance will not produce an undesirable change
in the character of the neighborhood.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the
variance: Yes No
• The applicant demonstrated that the steps could not be built in a different location that is more
compliant with the Zoning Ordinance.
• While the relocation of the steps exacerbates the existing deficiency, it better meets the needs of
the homeowners without impacting adjacent properties or the neighborhood.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes No
• The requested variance would allow the applicants to reduce the front yard to 8.5’ of the required
25’. While proportionally this could be considered a substantial variance, much of this is an
existing front yard deficiency, and the proposal further reduces the front yard by approximately 2’.
The Board does not find this exacerbation to be substantial.
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood: Yes No
• The requested variance is a Type II action that is predetermined to have no negative environmental
impact. Further environmental review is not required.
• Based on the submitted application materials and testimony of the applicant, the Board finds that
the front yard variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental impact.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes No
• The alleged difficulty is self-created in that the applicant is proposing to relocate the porch steps to
further encroach into the required front yard. However, the requested variance will not have any
adverse community impacts, and the Board finds that the benefits to the applicants outweighs the
fact that the difficulty is self-created.
Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by M. Cannon.
Vote: 4-0-0
Michael Cannon YES
Andre Gardiner YES
Joseph Kirby YES
David Barken, Chair YES
Determination of the BZA Based on the Above Factors:
The BZA, taking into the five factors for an area variance, finds that the benefit to the applicants outweighs
the detriment to the neighborhood or community. The BZA further finds that the variances from the Zoning
Ordinance, §325-8, Column 11, is the minimum variance that should be granted in order to preserve and
protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety, and welfare of the community.
___________________________ July 5, 2022
Megan Wilson, Zoning Administrator Date
Secretary, Board of Zoning Appeals