HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3062-104 Grandview Place-Decision Letter-4-4-2017CITY 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: 607-274-6513 E -Mail: gleonardi@cityofithaca.org
CITY OF ITHACA BOARD of ZONING APPEALS
Area Variance Findings & Decision
Appeal No.: 3062
Applicant: Buzz Dolph of Tiny Timber LLC. for Charles Holland, Owner
Property Location: 104 Grandview Place
Zoning District: R -2a
Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: Section 325-8, Column 6, 7, and 13.
Requirement for Which Variance is requested: Lot area, lot width and other side yard.
Publication Dates: March 29, 2017 and March 31, 2017.
Meeting Held On: April 4, 2017.
Summary: Appeal of Buzz Dolph of Tiny Timber LLC. on behalf of the owner Charles Holland for an
area variance from Section 325-8, Column 6, Lot Area, Column 7, Lot Width, and Column 13, Other Side
Yard requirements of the zoning ordinance. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing building
located at 401 Grandview Place and construct a new single family home on the parcel. The new two story
home will be considerably smaller than the existing dwelling and in proportion with the deficient lot. The
parcel has existing deficiencies in: lot area having 2,760 S.F. of the required 5,000 S.F. and lot width
having 39.74' of the 45' required by the ordinance. The applicant has positioned the new home so that the
front yard, side yard, and rear yard are compliant with the ordinance. Although, because of the site
constraints, the building encroaches F-11" into the other side yard leaving 8'-1" of the 10' required by
the ordinance. The property is located in an R -2a residential use district in which the proposed use is
permitted. However, Section 325-38 requires that a variance be granted before a building permit is issued.
Public Hearing Held On: April 4, 2017.
No One spoke in favor or in opposition of the Applicant's appeal.
Members present:
Steven Beer, Chair
Teresa Deschanes
Marshall McCormick
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).
Tompkins County Review per Section 239 -1 & -m of New York State General Municipal Law:
N/A
Planning & Development Board Recommendation:
The Planning Board supports this appeal and does not identify any long term planning impacts. The project
improves the lot and streetscape.
Motion: A motion to grant the variance request was made by Marshall McCormick.
Deliberations & Findings:
Discussions included: The existing deficiencies of the home that is presently on the parcel vs the proposed
home with a side yard deficiency, actual buildable area of the lot and an adequate size of a home, location
of the proposed home on the lot.
Factors Considered:
1. Whether an undesirable change would be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties: Yes ❑ No
The Board fmds that there is not an undesirable change and that the removal of a dilapidated home being
replaced with a newly constructed home that fits more appropriately on the lot. In addition, the designers
have minimized the deficiencies, which makes this appeal a more desirable change to 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
Given the small size of the parcel and the small size of the dwelling, there is evidence that it would be
very difficult to build a home with a reasonable layout within the constraints of such a small lot. It was
further shown that a reasonable home could not be constructed without some type of variance.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes ❑ No
Two of the variances for lot width and lot area are existing deficiencies and the variance for side yard has
been keep to a minimum. The existing home is dilapidated and has more deficiencies.
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood: Yes ❑ No
The newly constructed dwelling will fit into the physical characteristics of the neighborhood.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes ® No ❑
The applicants do not need to demolish a home and construct a new dwelling but the benefits to the applicant
and to the City outweigh the other factors.
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 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 6, 7, and 13 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.
r/ J
Secre ary, Yard of Zoning Appeals
April 19, 2017
Date