HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3057-109 Dearborn Pl. -dec ltr-3-7-2017
CITY OF ITHACA BOARD of ZONING APPEALS
Area Variance Findings & Decision
Appeal No.: 3057
Applicant: Lee and Elizabeth Ambrose, Owners
Property Location: 109 Dearborn Place
Zoning District: R-2a
Publication Dates: March 1, 2017 and March 3, 2017.
Meeting Held On: March 7, 2017.
Summary: Appeal of Lee and Elizabeth Ambrose for an area variance from Section 325-8,
Column 13, side yard and Column 14/15, rear yard requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The
applicant proposes to subdivide the existing lot located at 109 Dearborn Place into two parcels.
One parcel will contain the existing building at 109 Dearborn Place. The existing building was
previously used as a Cornell storage building for the Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
Department. Currently, the building contains a storage area and an apartment. The applicant
proposes to convert the existing mixed use building into two units, in conformance with the R-2a
zone district, where it is located. The remaining parcel will be used as a new buildable lot for
future use.
In order to subdivide the parcel, the applicant is requesting a variance for the existing
deficiencies in side yard and rear yard for the 109 Dearborn Place parcel. The existing side yard
is 3.3’ of the 10’ required by the ordinance. The rear yard of the irregular lot, at its closest point,
is 5.3’ from the building to the rear lot line. The R-2a zone district requires a rear yard to be 25%
or 36.7’of the lot depth, for the rear yard.
The property at 109 Dearborn Place is located in an R-2a zone 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 side and rear yard deficiencies.
Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Side yard and rear yard.
Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: Section 325-8, Column 13, and 14/15.
Public Hearing Held On: March 7, 2017.
CITY OF ITHACA
108 E. Green Street — 3rd Floor Ithaca, NY 14850-5690
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING, ZONING, & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Division of Zoning
Gino Leonardi, Secretary to the Board of Zoning Appeals
Telephone: Planning & Development – 607-274-6550 E-Mail: gleondardi@cityofithaca.org
Members present:
Steven Beer, Chair
Teresa Deschanes
Marshall McCormick
Moriah Tebor
Tompkins County Review per Section 239 -l & -m of New York State General Municipal Law:
N/A
Environmental Review: Type: 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).
Planning & Development Board Recommendation:
The Planning Board does not identify any long term planning impacts with this appeals.
Motion: A motion to grant the variance request was made by Teresa Deschanes
Deliberations & Findings:
Discussions included: any future plans for developable lot will be in conformance with the R-2 zone.
Location of yard deficiencies in relationship to the proposed sub-division line.
Public Comment: Patricia Ehrich spoke in favor of the proposed subdivision, letter from G.P. Zurenda
was submitted in favor of the subdivision, and a letter by Michael Decatur, 125 Heights Court was
received in opposition of the proposal.
Factors Considered:
1. Whether an undesirable change would be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties: Yes No
There was no evidence that the proposed sub-division will harm the character of the neighborhood. The
building is pre-existing and the proposal will not change the non-conformity. The proposed lot is larger in
size than what is required to be a buildable lot.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the variance:
Yes No
To be considered for a sub-division, the existing setback nonconformities must be removed and a
variance granted to meet the requirements for the subdivision.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes No
The building is located very close to the property line however, this building has existed in the same
position prior to the zoning setback regulations. There are other buildings within the neighborhood that
are summarily close to property lines and due to these factors the variance is not substantial.
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood: Yes No
There was no evidence that granting the variance will have an adverse impact because the building is
not changing. In consideration of the subdivision, the existing conditions will not have an adverse impact
on the neighborhood.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes No
The pre-existing deficiencies will not change and existed prior to the current ownership. Although, the
need to subdivide the parcel is clearly causing the need for a variance. However, this factor is outweighed
by the number of other positive factors and overall reasons for granting these variances.
Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by Moriah Tebor.
Vote:
Steven Beer, Chair: Yes
Teresa Deschanes: Yes
Marshall McCormick: Yes
Moriah Tebor: Yes
Determination of BZA Based on the 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, Column 13, and 14/15 are 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.
_____________________________ March 7, 2017
Secretary, Board of Zoning Appeals