HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3065-221 Bryant Ave.-Dec. Ltr-5-2-2017CITY 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: gleondardi@cityofithaca.org
CITY OF ITHACA BOARD of ZONING APPEALS
Area Variance Findings & Decision
Appeal No.: 3065
Applicant: Noah Demarest for Ellen McCollister & Robert Frank, Owners
Property Location: 221 Bryant Avenue
Zoning District: R -lb
Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: Section 325-8, Column 11 and Section 325-25C.
Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Front Yard and Location of Accessory Structure.
Publication Dates: April 26, 2017 and April 28, 2017.
Meeting Held On: May 2, 2017.
Summary: Appeal of Noah Demarest on behalf of the owner Ellen McCollister & Robert Frank for an
area variance from Section 325-8, Column 11, Front yard and Section 325-25C, Location of accessory
structure requirements of the zoning ordinance. The applicant proposes to demolish an existing garage
and construct a new garage at the property located at 221 Bryant Avenue. The applicant would like to
position the garage 3' from the side lot line to provide additional maneuvering space, protect an existing
tree, and preserve the backyard greenspace. Section 325-25C requires accessory structures, in an R-1
zone, to be positioned not less than 6' from any side yard. 221 Bryant Avenue is located in an R-1 zone
and the proposed placement of the garage results in a 3' side yard of the 6' required by the ordinance. The
property has an existing front yard deficiency that will not be exacerbated by the proposal. The property is
located in an R -lb residential use district in which the proposed use is permitted. However, Section 325-
3 8 requires that a variance be granted before a building permit is issued.
Public Hearing Held On: May 2, 2017.
Letter of support from Martha Frommelt received on 4/17/2017 and letter of support from James Miller
dated 4/20/2017.
No public comment in opposition
Members present:
Steven Beer, Chair
Teresa Deschanes
Marshall McCormick
Moriah Tebor
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 does not identify any long term planning impacts with this appeal and supports granting
it. There are many garages in the immediate area that are closer to the lot line and the new garage is more
attractively designed.
Motion: A motion to grant the variance request was made by Marshall McCormick.
Deliberations & Findings:
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 applicant proposed to demolish a dilapidated garage and build a new garage which will be much
more in character with the neighborhood and nearby properties.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to
the variance: Yes ❑ No
It could be argued that the new location of the garage could be move so that it does not need a variance.
But it would also require re-routing the existing driveway as well as encroaching into the usable space in
the backyard. The variances sought outweighs the need for re-routing the driveway.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes ❑ No
It is very similar to nearby properties including the property directly behind 221 Bryant where the
neighbors' accessory structure is located. The new location will not exacerbate the side yard deficiency
that exists on the current garage.
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood: Yes ❑ No
The variance does not have an adverse effect on the physical or environmental conditions being that it is a
type 2 action.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes ❑ No
The alleged difficulty could be argued that the garage does not have to be torn down and replaced. We do
have it on record that the garage was not constructed properly and may require much more work to rehab
the garage than removing and replacing. A new structure can be created that would be much more
beneficial for the user and for the property.
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
Detenninant to the Neighborhood or Community. The BZA further finds that variances from Zoning
Ordinance, Section 325-8, Column 11 and Section 325-25C 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�
Secrefary, BqWd of Zoning Appeals
May 4, 2017
Date