HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3076-221 W. Lincoln St.-Decision Letter-7-13-2017CITY 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.: 3076
Applicant: Nancy Wells for James W. Carroll Estate, Owner
Property Location: 221 W. Lincoln Street
Zoning District: R -2b
Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: Section 325-8, Column 4, 10, 11, 12, and Column 13.
Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Off -Street Parking, Lot Coverage, Front Yard, Side
Yard, and Other Side Yard.
Publication Dates: June 21, 2017 and June 23, 2017.
Meeting Held On: July 13, 2017.
Summary: Appeal of Nancy Wells on behalf of the owner James W. Carroll Estate for an area variance
from Section 325-8, Column 4, Off-street Parking, Column 10, Lot Coverage, Column 11, Front Yard,
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 221 W. Lincoln
Street and 108 Short Street. The parcel at 221 W. Lincoln Street has 3216.78 SF of lot area and the
applicant would like to consolidate the rear portion of the lot, approximately 144.9 SF into the
neighboring lands at 108 Short Street. The ordinance requires lot line adjustments 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 221 W. Lincoln Street. The percentage of lot coverage by building for 221 W.
Lincoln Street will be increased from 37.7% to 39.5% of the 35% lot coverage required by the ordinance.
The parcel at 221 W. Lincoln Street has a number of existing deficiencies in off-street parking, front yard,
side yard and other side yard, that will not be exacerbated by the proposed Lot Line Adjustment.
The property is located in an R -2b residential use district in which the proposed use is permitted.
However, Section 290-6, requires a variance be granted before a Lot Line Adjustment is issued.
Public Hearing Held On: July 13, 2017.
No Public comment in opposition.
A letter was received from John Mead, residing at 219 W. Lincoln Street in support of the variance.
1
Members present:
Steven Beer, Chair
Teresa Deschanes
Marshall McCormick
Environmental Review: Type: Unlisted Action.
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
176-6 A (4) (b).
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 negative planning impacts with this appeal.
Motion: A motion to grant the variance request was made by Teresa Deschanes
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 character of the neighborhood is not going to be changed by this proposal. One fence will be moved a
few feet and the lot area of 108 Short Street will become slightly larger and more of a rectangle. The
resulting change to 221 W. Lincoln Street is the extreme back of the rear yard will be made a little smaller.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the
variance: Yes ❑ No
The benefit is to square -off an irregular shaped lot and to slightly increase the gardening space and make
the fence a more reasonable distance from the house. This could not be achieved without this variance for
a lot line adjustment.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes ❑ No
There are a number of existing deficiencies that will not be affected by this variance, except for the
percentage of lot coverage by building. The existing lot coverage is 37.7% and will be increased to 39.5%.
This is a 1.8% increase, which is not substantial.
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood: Yes ❑ No
There is no adverse impact, to the contrary, there may be more gardening and landscaping in the
neighborhood and the street scape for this lot will have a more regular affect.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes ® No ❑
The difficulty is self-created because the applicant would like to square off the lot. But this is outweighed
by the other factors and in addition; the oddly shaped lot is a pre-existing condition, which is no fault of the
applicant.
2
Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by Marshall McCormick
Vote:
Steven Beer, Chair:
Teresa Deschanes:
Marshall McConnick:
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 4, 10, 11, 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.
Secze 6,6( f Zoning Appeals
July 14, 2017
Date
3