HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA Decision Letter - Appeal 3047 - 123 Heights CtCITY 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: Susan Hess, owner of 123 Heights Court
Appeal No.: 3047
Zoning District: R -2a
Meeting Held On: November 1, 2016
Property Location: 123 Heights Court
Publication Dates: October 27, 2016 & October 28, 2016 (The Ithaca Journal)
Summary: Appeal of Susan Hess, owner of 123 Heights Court, for variances from Section 325-8, Column
10, Percentage of Lot Coverage, Column 12, Side Yard, and Section 325-25, Location of Accessory
Structures, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The owner was granted several variances from the
BZA under Zoning Appeal #2352 in March 2002. At that time, the owner requested variances to build
decks to access the front and rear entries of her single-family home at 123 Heights Court. Variances were
granted for the property's deficient lot area, lot width, side yard, rear yard, and for exceeding allowed lot
coverage. After the variances were granted, the owner constructed both decks. Unfortunately, while the
front deck constructed under Zoning Appeal #2352 is functional, it did not eliminate the need to go both
up and down stairs to access the dwelling's first floor. As a result, the owner now proposes replacing the
southernmost 8'4" of the entry deck with a new 32 -SF interior entry vestibule; the balance of the deck
would be rebuilt in the same location, but at an elevation one riser higher (approximately 7"),
necessitating an additional tread to reach the front yard (thus extending the stairs 1' to the north). This
will allow direct access from the entry to the first -floor level of the house. Though the combined new
deck and vestibule of 80.8 SF is slightly smaller than the existing front deck, recent field measurements
show the property's building area to be more than originally calculated in the 1996 property survey
submitted for the 2002 appeal. Under Zoning Appeal #2352, a variance was granted allowing lot coverage
of 32%. The owner requests an Area Variance for lot coverage of 34.8%; allowed lot coverage is 30%.
Furthermore, Zoning Appeal #2352 granted a variance allowing the front deck to encroach within 6" of
the side yard lot line. Moved and reconfigured, the proposed deck will also be within 6" of the side yard
lot line. The Zoning Ordinance requires a 10' side yard. In addition, the owner seeks variances for the
existing garage on the property. The garage's location is 1'4" from the side yard lot line and 1'10" from
the rear yard lot line. The garage is required to be 3'0" from both the side and rear lot lines. The new
proposal will not affect the variances granted under Zoning Appeal #2352 for lot size, lot width, and rear
yard. The property at 123 Heights Court is in an R -2a Zoning District, where the single-family home is a
permitted use; however Section 325-38 requires variances be granted before a Building Permit is issued.
Requirements for Which Variance is Requested: Percentage of lot coverage, side yard, and location of
accessory structure
Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: 325-8, Columns 10 & 12; and Section 325-25
Members Present:
Steven Beer, Chair
Teresa Deschanes
Marshall McCormick
Moriah Tebor
Public Hearing Held On: November 1, 2016
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., (12) Area variance.
Planning & Development Board Recommendation: The Planning Board did not identify any long-term
planning issues and supported granting the variance requested. The design and materials of the new
proposed deck should be compatible with the existing building.
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: Yes ❑ No
Findings: The footprint of the house will remain the same; and part of the deck will become a covered
building. So overall there is very little impact on neighboring properties.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the variance:
Yes ❑ No ❑
Findings: The applicant wants to address the non -historic deck which was added decades before the
owner bought the property. This deck creates an awkward up and down access. The owner also wants
to address aging -in-place by making this pathway to the front door more accessible. These benefits
cannot be achieved without variances.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes ❑ No ❑
Findings: The garage is an existing non -conforming structure, which will remain in its current location.
There will be an approximate 1% increase in lot coverage and the extension of one step. So the variances
requested are not substantial.
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood: Yes ❑ No ❑
Findings: Little is changing. In fact, you can argue there will be an improvement to the physical
neighborhood, because this proposal is more in character with the historic neighborhood and the
modifications approved by the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC).
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes ® No ❑
Findings: It is self-created in that the owner chose to do the work needing these variances; however, this
factor is not determinative and is outweighed by the other factors.
Second Motion to Grant Variance: Marshall McCormick
Vote:
Steven Beer, Chair:
Yes
Teresa Deschanes:
Yes
Marshall McCormick:
Yes
Moriah Tebor:
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 10 and 12, and Section
325-25 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.
1 December 1, 2016
Secre �y, Board o oning Appeals Date
Direc Q f Z ' g Administration