HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3126 - 616 N Aurora St.-Decision Letter-5-7-2019CITY 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: 607-274-6550 Fax: 607-274-6558
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
E -Mail: gleonardi@cityofithaca.org
CITY OF ITHACA BOARD of ZONING APPEALS
Area Variance Findings & Decision
Appeal No.: 3126
Applicant: Yael Levitte, Owner
Property Location: 616 N. Aurora Street
Zoning District: R -2b
Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: Section 325-8, Column 11 and 13.
Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Front Yard and Other Side Yard
Publication Dates: May 1, 2019 and May 3, 2019.
Meeting Held On: May 7, 2019.
Summary: Appeal of Yael Levitte for Area Variance from Section 325-8, Column 11, Front
Yard and Column 13, Other Side Yard requirements of the Zoning Ordinance The applicant
proposes to construct a deck on the rear of the dwelling located at 616 S. Aurora Street. The 114
square foot deck will be positioned in line with the existing rear porch. The existing porch is 3'-
6" from the side lot line and adding the new deck will exacerbating the side yard deficiency an
addition 8 feet along the side yard. The zoning ordinance requires a minimum side yard setback
of 5 feet. The property has an existing front yard 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 an area variance be granted before a building permit is
issued.
Public Hearing Held On: May 7, 2019.
No public comments in favor or in opposition.
Members present:
Steven Beer, Chair
Teresa Deschanes
Steven Wolf
1
Tompkins County Review per Section 239 -1 & -m of New York State General Municipal Law:
N/A
Environmental Review: 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 176-6 A (4) (b) for 1-2 Family Dwellings
Planning & Development Board Recommendation:
The Planning Board does not identify any negative long term planning impacts and supports this appeal.
The Board finds that the proposed changes are minor in scope, improve the functionality of the home and
are in character with the neighborhood. The Board supports owners investing in their properties.
Motion: A motion to grant 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 C No El
As represented by the lack of opposition toward the variance and detailed drawing show the design and
character of the project, this would not be detrimental to the character of the neighborhood. The project
would improve the functionality of the home for this user and future users.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the
variance: Yes n No ►1
There is not an alternate feasible alternative given that it would not be practical to have the deck on grade
and not at the level of the existing porch. To reduce the size of the deck to meet the setback, would not fix
the existing deficiency of the enclosed porch or the 2 foot deficiency of the existing house. Making the
deck smaller would also make it less useful and on the other side is an existing shed that crowds the
available space.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes ❑ No
The side yard setback is not made worse with respect of the width of the deficiency. There is an addition
8 feet of side yard with the same deficiency as the existing porch. Given that the immediate neighbors
have not complained, this is not viewed as substantial.
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood: Yes No
The project would improve the functionality of the home, it matches the existing homes within the
neighborhood, and the design of the project is consistent with the existing porch, shed, and house.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes ® No n
Yes but, this is a modest project that will increase the functionality of the home and not create public harm
to the neighbors.
Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by Teresa Deschanes.
2
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 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.
etary oard of Zoning Appeals
May 13, 2019
Date
3