HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3109-210 Park Pl.-Decision Letter-11-6-2018CITY OF ITHACA
108 E. Green Street — 3rd Floor Ithaca, NY 14850-5690
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING, ZONING, &
Division of Zoning
Gino Leonardi, Secretary to the Board of Zoning Appeals
Telephone: 607-274-6513
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
E -Mail: gleonardi@cityofithaca.org
CITY OF ITHACA BOARD of ZONING APPEALS
Area Variance Findings & Decision
Appeal No.: 3109
Applicant: Susan Gutierrez, Owner
Property Location: 210 Park Place
Zoning District: R -2b
Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: Section 325-8, Column 7, 10, 11, 12, and 13.
Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Lot Width, Percentage of Lot Coverage, Front Yard,
Side Yard, and Other Side Yard.
Publication Dates: October 31, 2018 and November 2, 2018.
Meeting Held On: November 6, 2018.
Summary: Appeal of Susan Gutierrez for area variance from Section 325-8, Column 7, Lot Width,
Column 10, Percentage of Lot Coverage, Column 11, Front Yard, Column 12, Side Yard, and Column 13,
Other Side Yard requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to construct a carport on
the south side of the home located at 210 Park Place. The applicant would like to construct the carport to
keep her camper and vehicle out of the weather and protect them from falling branches from nearby trees.
The proposed carport will be positioned in line with the front of the home and extend to the south
property line. The installation of the carport will increase the lot coverage by buildings from 35.5% to
44.3% of the 35% permitted by the ordinance. The carport will also exacerbate the south side yard
deficiency. The existing side yard is 7'and the installation of the carport will reduce the side yard to 0' of
the 10' required by the ordinance. The property has existing deficiencies in lot width, front yard, and
other side yard 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 pent itted.
However, Section 325-38 requires that an area variance be granted before a building permit is issued.
Public Hearing Held On: November 6, 2018.
One letter in favor by Gary Lindenbaum, owner of 502 W. Court Street.
No public comments in opposition.
Members present:
Steven Beer, Chair
Teresa Deschanes
Steven Wolf
1
Environmental Review: Type 2
This is a Type 2 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance ("CEQRO"),
and State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA"), and is not subject to Environmental Review.
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 term planning impacts subject to the following: 1) there are
no unresolvable neighborhood concerns and 2) that the design, including roof angle, and materials of the
carport are compatible with the existing building.
Motion: A motion to deny the variance request was made by Steven Wolf.
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 request for the side yard setback to be zero feet is a significant variance. The visual clutter from the
street for the neighborhood is very significant. The fact that the owner of the neighboring property writes a
letter stating that it doesn't bother him and being an absentee landlord is discounted heavily. In addition,
the fact that this variance would continue with the property for all future owners is a detriment.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the
variance: Yes ® No ❑
The feasible alternative would be to trim the trees to elevate the issues.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes ® No n
The zero setback for the side yard could not be any more substantial.
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood: Yes ® No ❑
The visual clutter and impervious roofed surface would be exacerbated by this proposal.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes ® No ❑
A request to the neighbor to trim the tree should be made to remedy the situation.
2
Second Motion to Deny 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
Deteuuinant to the Neighborhood or Community The BZA further finds that variances from Zoning
Ordinance, Section 325-8, Column 7, 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.
Secret. iv . oar. of Zoning Appeals Date
November 19, 2018
3