Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA Decision Letter - Appeal 3006 - 707 Mitchell St. (Nicole Roy) - 11-05-150 '0 000 p ° C� A, ► ° ° ° ° O D ° ° ° 0 02 � ° ° ° . v° ®o © ° ° ° ° ° °L �c�RpORE�� AI CITY OF ITHACA 108 E. Green Street 3rd Floor Ithaca, NY 14850 -5690 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING, ZONING, & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Zoning Division PHYLLIS RADKE, DIRECTOR OF ZONING ADMINISTRATION Telephone: Planning & Development — 607 - 274 -6550 E -Mail: cpyott@cityofithaca.org CITY OF DTHACA BOARD of ZONING APPEALS Area Variance Findings &Decision Apphcan�'o Nicole S. Roy, owner with Christopher J. Riley Appeal No.: 3006 Zoning District: R -1b Meeting Held On: November 3, 2015 Property Location: 707 Mitchell Street Publication Dates: October 21, 2015 & October 23, 2015 Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Lot Area, Lot Width, Front Yard, Side Yard, & Other Side Ya rd Applucable Section of City Zoning Code: Section 325 -8, Columns 6, 7, 11, 12, & 13 Members Present: Steven Beer, Chair Teresa Deschanes Marshall McCormick Public Hearing Held On: November 3, 2015. No one spoke in favor of, or opposition to, granting the variance. Motion: A motion to grant the variance requests was made by Marshall McCormick. Tompkins County Review per Section 239 -1 and -m of New York State General Mur1cipal Law: Tompkins County Planning Department reviewed proposal and found no negative inter - community, or county -wide impacts. Environmental Review: Type: 2. The variance requests do not to have a significant impact on the environment, or are otherwise precluded from environmental review under the State Environmental Conservation Law, Article 8, and are listed as a Type 2 action under the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, Section 176 -5 C. (11), granting of individual setback and lot line variances. Planning & Development Board Recommendation: The Planning Board recommends granting this appeal. There are no long -term planning issues associated with the project, the proposed expansion is small, and the appellant has discussed the plans with the most - affected neighbor. Factors Considered: 1. Whether an undesirable change would be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties: Yes ❑ No Reasons: Though the new deck will be slightly larger than the existing deck and closer to the side yard lot -line, this is an unsubstantial variance. The nearest neighbor supports the variance request and the minor change will not affect 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 Reasons: Trying to move the deck further west would block the entrance door to the basement. 3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes ❑ No Reasons: The request is basically increasing the length of the existing side yard deficiencies over the length of the new deck. The other deficiencies are existing. The request is minor. 4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood: Yes ❑ No Reasons: The change will be very subtle, as it will not be much different than the existing conditions. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self- created: Yes Z No ❑ Reasons: Though the situation is self- created, this fact is inconsequential with respect to granting the variance requests. Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by Teresa Deschanes. Vote: Steven Beer, Chair: Yes Teresa Deschanes: Yes Marshall McCormick: Yes Determination of BZA Based on Above Factors: The BZA, taking into consideration the five factors, finds that the Benefit to the Applicant outweighs the Determinant to the Neighborhood or Community. The BZA further finds that variances from Zoning Ordinance, Section 325 -8, Columns 6, 7, 11, 12, and 13, Lot Area, Lot Width, Front Yard, Side Yard, and Other Side Yard, are the minimum variances that should be granted in order to preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety, and welfare of the community. ` November 5, 2015 Secret y, Boar f Zoning Appeals Date Direc oning Administration 2