HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3071-324 S. Cayuga St.-Decision Letter-6-6-2017CITY 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: 607-274-6550 Fax: 607-274-6558 E -Mail: gleonardi@cityofithaca.org
CITY OF ITHACA BOARD of ZONING APPEALS
Area Variance Findings & Decision
Appeal No.: 3071
Applicant: Michael May, Esq. for Caroline Pritchard, Owner
Property Location: 324 S. Cayuga Street
Zoning District: B-4
Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: Section 325-8, Column 4, 6, 7, 12, and Column 13.
Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Off -Street Parking, Lot Area, Lot Width, Side Yard and
Other Side Yard.
Publication Dates: May 31, 2017 and June 2, 2017.
Meeting Held On: June 6, 2017.
Summary: Appeal of Michael May, Esq. on behalf of the owner Caroline Pritchard for area variance
from Section 325-8, Column 4, Off -Street Parking, Column 6, Lot Area, Column 7, Lot Width, Column
12, Side Yard and Column 13, Other Side yard requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant
requested a Lot Line Adjustment for the two contiguous properties located at 324 S. Cayuga Street and
318-322 S. Cayuga Street. The existing parcel at 324 S. Cayuga Street is approximately 4,125 SF in total
lot area and the applicant would like to consolidate the rear portion of the lot, approximately 1,856.3 SF,
into the neighboring lands at 318-322 S. Cayuga Street. The lot lines of the two contiguous properties
cannot be adjusted if it creates a zoning deficiency in either lot. The proposed Lot Line Adjustment will
create a new deficiency for the property located at 324 S. Cayuga Street. The lot area for 324 S. Cayuga
Street will be reduced from 4,125 SF to 2268.7 SF, of the 3,000 SF required by the ordinance. The lot at
324 S. Cayuga Street has a number of existing deficiencies in off-street parking, lot width, side yard and
other side yard, but these deficiencies are not relevant with respect to issuing a Lot Line Adjustment.
The property at 324 S. Cayuga Street is located in a B-4 zoning district where the proposed use is
permitted. However, Section 290-6, lot line adjustment requires a variance be granted before a Lot Line
Adjustment is issued.
Public Hearing Held On: June 6, 2017.
No public comments in favor or in opposition.
Members present:
Steven Beer, Chair
Teresa Deschanes
Marshall McCormick
Moriah Tebor
Tompkins County Review per Section 239 -1 & -m of New York State General Municipal Law:
N/A — Not Required
Environmental Review: Type 2: Not Required
Planning & Development Board Recommendation:
The Planning Board did not identify any long term planning issues and supported the granting of the
variance requested.
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
With the evidence submitted to the Board, it was found that there would be no undesirable
change in the character of the neighborhood. It could be argued that 324 S. Cayuga Street could
have an undesirable change due to the reduction in lot area. But evidence has been submitted that
the property at 324 S. Cayuga Street has had an existing fence that defined the rear yard. The
proposed lot line adjustment would be to the fence line. Leaving the existing fenced rear yard,
with the same rear yard area, as it has had for years.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the
variance: Yes ❑ No
It was discussed that an easement be sought for 324 S. Cayuga Street granting use to the neighboring
property. But the appellant had suggested that there are some legal ramifications in doing such an
agreement. That an easement would make this proposal unfeasible to achieve the benefit and therefore
requests the variance for the lot line adjustment.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes ❑ No
The Board does not find the variance to be substantial given the existing configuration and use of both the
neighboring properties. As well as the lack of public support or opposition for the requested variance.
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood: Yes ❑ No
There would be no adverse impact because nothing is changing in respect to the physical or
environmental conditions. The variances sought are for a property that has had these existing deficiencies
since the code was amended. As well as, there is no new construction or demolition proposed as part of
this variance.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes ® No ❑
It could be argued that the desire of the applicant, to divest themselves from a portion of the property, is
thereby creating a situation where a lot line needs to be adjusted. This may be considered as a self-created
difficulty, by desiring to maintain the current use of that property. Although, this alleged self-created
difficulty is not a determining factor in granting the variance.
2
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 Cormnunity. The BZA further finds that variances from Zoning
Ordinance, Section 325-8, Column 4, 6, 7, 12, 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.
Secr a , o a of Zoning Appeals
June 14, 2017
Date
3