HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA Decision Letter - Appeal 2987 - 105-107 E. York St. (James Semp) - 07-14-15-1 - Copy��,►
°0 0 3
° O° ° �
o ° O
°
0 WON °�
°
°
° °.
°
v o0o r*1
°
° O .
°
°
°1
° ° ° °°
/. '°° ° +1
RAI
CITY OF ITHACA
108 E. Green Street 3rd Floor Ithaca, NY 14850 -5690
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING, ZONING, & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Division of Zoning
PHYLLIS RADKE, DIRECTOR OF ZONING ADMINISTRATION
Telephone: Planning & Development — 607 - 274 -6550 E -Mail: cpyott@cityofithaca.org
CITY OF ITHACA BOARD of ZONING APPEALS
Area Variance Findings &Decision
Applicant: James Semp
Appeal No.: 2987
Zoning District: R -2b
Hearing Held On: July 7, 2015
Property Location: 105 -107 E. York St.
Requirement for Which variance is Requested: Use Variance for a non - conforming use. Applicant
proposes to create finished space in attic (third floor) as bonus rooms for two of the three dwelling units
in the building. This is an "enlargement" per City zoning definitions v converting an existing attic and
storage space to a habitable space for the use of two units.
Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: Section 325 -32 C. (1). A non - conforming use cannot be
extended or enlarged to all or part of a structure not already legally devoted to such use, except by
means of a Use Variance.
Members Present:
Steven Beer, Chair
Marilyn (Moriah) Tebor Shaw
Teresa Deschanes
Steven Wolf
Hearing:
In order to determine whether a Use Variance may be granted by the Board, the applicant must
provide sufficient information to determine whether the statutory requirements are met to grant the
variance. The statutory requirements are:
" §325 -40 Board of Appeals; variances.
(3) Use variances.
(b) No such use variance shall be granted by the Board of Appeals without a showing by the applicant
that applicable zoning regulations and restrictions have caused unnecessary hardship. In order to
prove such unnecessary hardship, the applicant shall demonstrate to the Board of Appeals that, for
each and every permitted use under the zoning regulations for the particular district where the
property is located:
[1] The applicant cannot realize a reasonable return, provided that the lack of return is substantial
as demonstrated by competent financial evidence;
[2] The alleged hardship relating to the property in question is unique and does not apply to a
substantial portion of the district or neighborhood-
y
[3] The requested use variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the
neighborhood.; and
[4] The alleged hardship has not been self-created.
(c) The Board of Appeals, in the granting of use variances, shall grant the minimum variance that it
shall deem necessary and adequate to address the unnecessary hardship proven by the applicant,
and at the same time preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety
and welfare of the community."
During the hearing, Board members explained that even if the Board could overlook the self-created
nature of the hardship, Mr. Semp's case did not demonstrate hardship under the statutory requirements
for granting a Use Variance.
The Board explained to Mr. Semp that his application did not provide sufficient credible financial
evidence. No evidence was submitted that a reasonable return could be made if the property at 105-
107 East York Street were used as any of the permitted uses in the R-2b Zoning District, where Mr.
Semp's building is located. Absent this proof, the Board lacks authority to grant the requested variance.
Board members asked Mr. Semp to explain why his property is unique and does not apply to a
substantial portion of the Zoning District or neighborhood. The applicant argued he owns the only
three-story house in his neighborhood and is being taxed as though he has use of the third floor,
however, the applicant provided no evidence to support this claim, and the Board did not believe this
situation and his property assessment are unique to 105-107 East York Street.
2
Determination of BZA:
Appeal #2987 was dismissed by the Board because the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to
grant a Use Variance by proving the alleged hardship.
July 14, 2015
iyl of .-oning Appeals, Date
dministration