HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3101-437 N. Aurora St.-Decision Letter-10-2-2018CITY 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: 607-274-6550 Fax: 607-274-6558 E -Mail: gleonardi@cityofithaca.org
CITY OF ITHACA BOARD of ZONING APPEALS
Area Variance Findings & Decision
Appeal No.: 3101
Applicant: Theodore Korzukhin, Owner
Property Location: 437 N. Aurora Street
Zoning District: R -2b
Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: Section 325-8, Column 11 and Section 325-20 E (2).
Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Front Yard and Front Yard Parking requirements.
Publication Dates: September 26, 2018 and September 28, 2018.
Meeting Held On: October 2, 2018.
Summary: Appeal of Theodore Korzukhin for an Area Variance from Section 325-8, Column 11, Front
Yard, and Section 325-20 E (2), Front Yard Parking requirements of the zoning ordinance. The applicant
purchased the two-family home at 437 N. Aurora Street in 2006. Since that time, the owner has removed
pieces of concrete, asphalt, and pavers in the rear yard and returned the rear yard to green space. The
applicant used the pavers to fill in the area between the existing driveway and the front entrance walk with
the intent to park a vehicle. At a recent housing inspection, the inspector noticed that the area in the front
yard was surfaced with pavers and infoimed the owner of the requirements for front yard parking and that
a building permit would be required. The ordinance allows a back-to-back parking configuration, but one
must move their car for the other party to get out of the driveway. The applicant would like to access their
vehicle at will and therefore requests a variance from the requirements of Section 325-20 E (2), which
restricts parking to within a driveway. The driveway with the additional pavers measures 16'-6" in width
and the ordinance allows driveways to be a maximum of 12' in width for front yard parking. The building
at 437 N. Aurora Street has an existing front yard setback deficiency that will not be exacerbated by the
proposal.
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 permit is issued.
Public Hearing Held On: July 3, 2018.
One letter was received in favor by Susan McCormick residing at 450 N. Aurora Street
One letter was received in opposition by Ann Erlick residing at 105 Oxford Place
Members present at the July 3, 2018 meeting:
Steven Beer, Chair
Teresa Deschanes
Lindsay Jones
Tompkins County Review per Section 239 -1 & -m of New York State General Municipal Law: N/A
Environmental Review: Type: Type 2
These actions have been deteiiuined 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).
Planning & Development Board Recommendation:
The Planning Board does not identify any long term planning impacts and
supports this appeal- however it appears that the paving encroaches on
the sidewalk.
Motion: A motion was made at the July 3, 2018 meeting by Lindsay Jones and seconded by Teresa
Deschanes to table the appeal to provide data on front yard parking within the neighborhood.
Steven Beer, Chair Yes
Teresa Deschanes Yes
Lindsay Jones Yes
Motion: A motion to grant the variance request was made by Steven Wolf on October 2, 2018.
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 E NoEl
There are properties within the neighborhood where front yard parking, in addition to the driveway parking,
is used. There are properties to the south toward the urban core and to the north directly adjacent to this
property that has front yard parking. The addition of front yard parking for this property in relation to the
neighborhood, is so small that it would not cause an undesirable change in the neighborhood. Giving access
to the street for the tenant does add value for the owner and tenants.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the
variance: Yes n No
A possible alternative is to require the applicant to remove the green space in the rear yard and install
parking. But, this option would not be beneficial to the owner or to the neighboring properties.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes n No
The applicant is requesting an additional 4'-6" in driveway width in the front yard. Using the space
between the existing driveway and the house, which has no ecological value, would not be considered a
substantial variance.
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood: Yes n No
Although there is a visual effect having a parked car in the front yard, it would not have an adverse impact
on the neighborhood. Taking into consideration that other properties have front yard parking within the
neighborhood.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes ® No n
The difficulty is self-created, but this factor is outweighed because there is a benefit to the owner to have
onsite parking in a location that has limited street parking.
Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by Teresa Deschanes.
Vote:
Steven Beer, Chair Yes
Teresa Deschanes Yes
Steven Wolf 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 Community. The BZA further finds that variances from Zoning
Ordinance, Section 325-8, Column 11 and Section 325-20 E (2) 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.
,//
Secre"or
of Zoning Appeals Date
October 25, 2018