Loading...
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