HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3092-511 Utica 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.: 3092
Applicant: Michael Edmond Lane, Esq. for Estate of Nancy A. Hallett, Owner
Property Location: 511 Utica Street
Zoning District: R -2b
Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: Section 325-8, Column 11 and Column 13.
Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Front Yard and Other Side Yard.
Publication Dates: March 28, 2018 and March 30, 2018.
Meeting Held On: April 3, 2018.
Summary: Appeal of Michael Edmond Lane, Esq. on behalf of the owner Estate of Nancy A. Hallett for
Area Variance from Section 325-8, Column 11, Front 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 511 Utica Street and 513 Utica Street. The parcel at 511 Utica Street has
an existing northern property line at travels east through the building located at 513 Utica Street. The
applicant would like to sell the property at 511 Utica Street but must first adjust the lot line so the
building at 513 Utica Street no longer encroaches on the 511 Utica Street parcel. The applicant proposes
to move the existing northern lot line 1.96' in a southerly direction, for a distance of 54.37' east, to
alleviate the encroachment of the neighboring building. The proposed Lot Line Adjustment will
exacerbate an existing deficiency for the property located at 511 Utica Street. The existing northern side
yard for 511 Utica Street measures 4.56 feet. Adjusting the lot line 1.96' to the south will exacerbate the
existing side yard deficiency from 4.56' to 2.6' of the 5' required by the ordinance The parcel at 511
Utica Street has an existing front yard deficiency 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: April 3, 2018.
No public comments in favor or in opposition.
1
Members present:
Steven Beer, Chair
Teresa Deschanes
Marshall McCoimick
Lindsay Jones
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 -I & -m of New York State General Municipal Law: N/A
Planning & Development Board Recommendation:
The Planning Board does not identify any long teen planning impacts with this appeal.
Motion: A motion to grant the variance request was made by Teresa Deschanes
Deliberations & Findings:
The Board discussed the transfer of land to a different owner. The applicate stated that the appropriate
agreements from both owners are in place for the transfer of land.
Factors Considered:
1. Whether an undesirable change would be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties: Yes n No El
There are no physical changes at the property resulting from the variance. The property line, that is not
visible, is shifting slightly.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the
variance: Yes n No IZI
There is a boundary dispute, the property line for 511 Utica Street passes through the house of the
neighboring property. The applicant would like to resolve the issue in order to sell the property. The
variance is needed to issue the lot line adjustment.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes ❑ No
The variance is not substantial. Both properties already have deficient side yards and shifting the line a
small amount will result in no practical difference.
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood: Yes n No El
There is no impact to the neighborhood because nothing is physically changing
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes ❑ No El
This appears to be a long standing mistake that was made either by the builder or surveyor a long time ago.
The only practical effect is that the property cannot be easily sold without the lot line adjustment.
2
Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by Marshall McCoiuiick.
Vote:
Steven Beer, Chair Yes
Teresa Deschanes Yes
Marshall McCoiiuick 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 11 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.
//-//:
Sec - a V, Bo. d of Zoning Appeals
April 4, 2018
Date
3