HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3091-412 E. Yates St-Decision Letter-4-3-2018CITY 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.: 3091
Applicant: STREAM Collaborative for Aaron Sachs and Christine Evans, Owner
Property Location: 412 East Yates Street
Zoning District: R -2b
Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: Section 325-8, Column 10, 11, 12, and 13.
Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Percentage of Lot Coverage, Front Yard, Other Front
Yard, and Side Yard.
Publication Dates: March 28, 2018 and March 30, 2018.
Meeting Held On: April 3, 2018.
Summary: Appeal of STREAM Collaborative on behalf of the owners Aaron Sachs and Christine Evans
for an Area Variance from Section 325-8, Column 10, Lot Coverage, Column 11, Front Yard, Column 12,
Other Front Yard, and Column 13, Side Yard requirements of the zoning ordinance In 2016, the owner
purchased the property located at 412 E. Yates Street for use as their residence. Recently, the applicant
submitted a proposal to demolish an existing garage and construct a new garage with a second floor
writing studio. In review of the property file it was found that an existing deck, located on the rear of the
home, was constructed without a building peunit by a previous owner. The deck was constructed in
approximately 2007 and since then the property has been sold four times. The current owner would like to
bring the property into compliance before requesting another variance to proceed with the proposed
garage project.
The 241 square feet deck was constructed on the rear of the home and was positioned 1 foot from the side
yard lot line. This caused the compliant 5.7' side yard to become non-compliance having 1 foot of the 5
feet required by the ordinance. The increased square footage of the deck also exacerbated the existing
deficiency in percentage of lot coverage by building. The lot coverage increased from 41.2% to 48% lot
coverage by buildings. In the R -2b zone district the ordinance allows 35% of lot coverage by buildings.
The property is located on a comer lot and both front yards have existing deficiencies that were not
exacerbated.
The property is located in an R -2b residential use district in which the proposed use is permitted.
However, Section 325-38 requires that a variance be granted before a building pennlit is issued.
Public Hearing Held On: April 3, 2018.
No public comments in favor or in opposition.
Members present:
Steven Beer, Chair
Teresa Deschanes
Lindsay Jones
Marshall McCormick
Environmental Review: Type: 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.
Motion: A motion to grant the variance request was made by Marshall McColl'lick.
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
There is not an undesirable change or negative character to the neighborhood, in so far as, the house and its
structures are existing and have not caused a detriment in their current state.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the
variance: Yes ❑ No
This is an existing structure that was improved over 10 years ago, far before the purchase of the property.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes ❑ No El
The variance is not substantial, in so far as, there are other properties within the vicinity that have similar
front, side, and other front yard deficiencies. Many of the houses along the neighboring street are equally
as close to the front lot line and contain accessory structure and decks. These properties are also deficient
in lot coverage and are greater than what is allowed.
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood: Yes ❑ No
The deck has been there for over 10 years and has no such impact.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes ❑ No
It may have been possible for the property owner to have discovered this deficiency and the deck being
built without a building pettuit. But the Board does not find that such a finding would be reason to deny
the variance.
2
Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by Teresa Deschanes.
Vote:
Steven Beer, Chair Yes
Teresa Deschanes Yes
Marshall McCormick Yes
Lindsay Jones Present (New Member)
Steven Wolf Absent
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 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.
April 6, 2018
Date
3