HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3130-205 Fairmount Ave.-Decision Letter-8-6-2019CITY 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.: 3130
Applicant: Aaron Rakow, Owner
Property Location: 205 Fairmount Avenue
Zoning District: R -lb
Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: Section 325-25 C
Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Location of Accessory Structure
Publication Dates: July 31, 2019 and August 1, 2019.
Meeting Held On: August 6, 2019.
Summary: Appeal of Aaron Rakow for area variance from Section 325-25 C, Location of Accessory
Structure requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to replace an existing storage
shed with a 14' x 20' garage at the property located at 205 Fairmount Avenue. The property is located on
a comer lot and the applicant would like to position the garage one foot from the side lot line that is on the
south end of the property. The applicant is limited in buildable area due to the proximity of the existing
home, window locations, and a stone patio that the owner would like to preserve. The garage will meet
the rear yard setback of 3' but will be deficient in the side yard setback having 1' of the 6' required by the
ordinance. The property has an existing deficiency in the other front yard that will not be exacerbated by
the proposal.
The property is located in an R -lb 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: August 6, 2019.
No public comments in favor or in opposition.
Members present:
Steven Beer, Chair
Teresa Deschanes
Steven Wolf
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.
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 T No El
The change that will be produced is not significant. There is visual shading of the garage from the
neighboring properties produced by the topography and a neighbor garage. The garage is tucked back in
the corner of the property, adjacent to another garage, and there were no comments from the neighbors in
opposition of the project. To note, there may have been a garage located in that corner of the property due
to an old foundation that was found. The new garage will be located in the same area. The removal of the
shed, which is out of character with the neighborhood, is a benefit.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the
variance: Yes n No 121
There was discussion concerning a variety of options that were not feasible. Proximity to the house, the
window bump -out, and the existing stone patio all suggest that there is not an alternative for the garage
placement.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes E No
The variance request, in terms of the number of feet that the building will be deficient, is substantial. But,
the fact that the garage is not adjacent to other living quarters and is visually shielded from the other
properties, in itself is mitigation for the variance request.
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood: Yes E No El
There are no natural resources that are in questions and the views are not blocked. In theory, the garage will
restore the property to the original condition.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes ® No ❑
Certainly the bay window's position to the garage is not something that was self-created. But, the desire to
building the garage is self-created. Although, it is not viewed as a determining factor.
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
Deteiniinant to the Neighborhood or Community. The BZA further finds that variances from Zoning
Ordinance, Section 325-25 C, is 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.
August 21, 2019
Date
3