Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA Decision Letter - Appeal 3046 - 404 Wood StCITY OF ITHACA 108 E. Green Street — 3rd Floor Ithaca, NY 14850-5690 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING, ZONING, & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Division of Zoning PHYLLIS RADI E, 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: Karen Werner on behalf of owner, Charles L. Stanton Appeal No.: 3046 Zoning District: R -3b Meeting Held On: October 4, 2016 Property Location: 404 Wood St. Publication Dates: September 29, 2016 & September 30 2016 (The Ithaca Journal) Summary: Appeal of Karen Werner, on behalf of owner Charles Stanton, for an Area Variance from Section 325-8, Column 14/15, Rear Yard Dimension, of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to subdivide the parcel located at 404 Wood Street into two lots. One lot will contain the existing single- family home and the other lot will be a new buildable lot. In order to subdivide the parcel, the applicant is requesting a variance for an existing rear yard deficiency. The existing dwelling has a rear yard that is 8'6" of the 20' required by the ordinance. The property at 404 Wood Street is located in an R -3b Zoning District where the proposed use is permitted; however, General Municipal Law Article 3, Section 33, states that a subdivided plat must comply with a Municipality's Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, compliance can be achieved provided the BZA grants this variance for the rear yard deficiency. Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Rear Yard Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: Section 325-8, Column 14/15 Members Present: Steven Beer, Chair Teresa Deschanes Marshall McCormick Public Hearing Held On: October 4, 2016. No one spoke in favor of granting or denying the appeal. Tompkins County Review per Section 239 -1 & -m of New York State General Municipal Law: Tompkins County Planning Department has reviewed the proposal as submitted and determined it has no negative inter -community or county wide impacts. Environmental Review: Type 2. These actions have been determined not to have a significant impact on the environment and are otherwise precluded from environmental review under Environmental Conservation Law, CEQR, Section 176-5 C., (11) setback and lot lines. Planning & Development Board Recommendation: The Planning Board only identifies positive long-term planning impacts of the appeal and observes that the site is a desirable location for infill within the City. Motion: A motion to grant the variance request was made by Teresa Deschanes. Factors Considered: 1. Whether an undesirable change would be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties: YesF-] No Findings: Dividing the lot will increase needed housing in the City. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the variance: YesF-] No M Findings: The Board discussed the possibility of removing the rear yard deck with the applicant, but concluded the deck is a valuable addition to the property and justifies the need for a variance. 3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes F-] No Z Findings: It is not substantial because the deck has been part of the house for a long time and provides privacy in the back yard. 4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood: YesF-] No Z Findings: This will only have a positive impact on the neighborhood because the variance will lead to the construction of a small house on the subdivided lot. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes❑ No Z Findings: The difficulty is not self-created, but the variance is needed due to a long-standing siting condition. Second Motion to Grant Variance: Marshall McCormick 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 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, Column 14/15, Rear Yard Dimension, 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. October 31, 2016 SecretaryBoar ot�� Ong Appeals Date Boar 2