Loading...
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