HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3144-123 Cascadilla Ave-Decision Letter-12-3-2019CITY 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.: 3144
Applicant: Julie Bakos, Owner
Property Location: 123 Cascadilla Avenue
Zoning District: R -2b
Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: Section 325-8, Column 11, 13, and 14/15.
Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Front Yard, Other Side Yard, and Rear Yard.
Publication Dates: November 27, 2019 and November 29, 2019.
Meeting Held On: December 3, 2019.
Summary: Appeal of property owner Julie Bakos for an Area Variance from Section 325-8, Column 11,
Front Yard, Column 13, Other Side Yard, and Column 14/15 Rear Yard requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance. The applicant proposes to construct a 105 square foot porch on the front of the property located
at 123 Cascadilla Avenue. The porch will be 14' wide by 7' deep and will be built on the site of a previously
demolished 14' wide by 5' 2" deep porch. The applicant also proposes to construct a second -story deck that
will be 14' wide by 7' 6" deep directly above the lower porch. The second -story deck cannot be considered
usable space, because it lacks the proper access (door) per the NYS Residential Code. The applicant would
like to install the upper deck for aesthetic reasons to enhance the appearance of the two family home. The
property has an existing front yard deficiency and the proposed deck and porch will project further into the
front setback. The existing front yard will be reduced from 3.3' to 2.25' of the 10' required by the ordinance.
The property has existing deficiencies in the other side yard and rear yard that will not be exacerbated by
this proposal.
The property is located in an R -2b 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: December 3, 2019. No public spoke in favor or in opposition.
Letter in opposition was submitted by: Brian Grout, owner of 428-430 N. Aurora St.
Letters in support were submitted by:
Charlene Temple, owner of 427 N. Tioga St.
Mary White & Suzanne Schwartz, owner of 114 Sears St.
James Mazza & Nancy Osborn, owner of 111 Cascadilla St.
Paul & Lois Ecklund, owner of 425 N. Tioga St.
Christopher Anagnost, owner of 418 N. Tioga St.
1
Members present:
Steven Beer, Chair
Teresa Deschanes
Steven Wolf
Stephanie Egan -Engels
Suzanne Charles
Tompkins County Review per Section 239 -I & -m of New York State General Municipal Law:
Not Applicable
Planning & Development Board Recommendation:
The Planning Board does not identify any negative long term planning impacts and supports this
the following reasons: 1} the lot is an unusual shape, 2} the porch is in keeping with neighborhood 3}
the Board received letters from neighbors supporting the appeal, and 4} the proposed project
improvement to the property and a welcome investment in a downtown neighborhood.
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.
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 E No
The expanded footprint of the porch is small and the existing deficiency is not significantly exacerbated by
the proposed enlarged footprint. The porch does not impinge upon pedestrian or vehicle traffic. Replacing
the porch from the ground up and including a decorative second story railing will match the existing
architecture in the district and make the porch an attractive feature for this house. The proposed style of the
porch is in keeping with the surrounding district for the neighborhood.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the
variance: Yes fl No
To rebuild the porch to the exact existing configuration does not seem practical for the current or future
owners. The increase the depth will create functionality and value for the residents. The added room will
allow for seating and be attractive for passing pedestrians.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes ❑ No
The variance is not substantial in that the porch is moving from a 3 foot setback to a 2.2 foot setback from
the front property line. This is not a substantial increase from the current deficiency.
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood: Yes n No
The improvement of replacing the porch and upgrading it will enhance the physical and environmental
condition of the neighborhood.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes ® No C
The applicant could construct the porch in the same footprint and not need a variance. But, making the
porch a little larger and more useful, by asking for a variance would be beneficial to the owner and the
neighborhood.
2
Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by Stephanie Egan -Engels.
Vote:
Steven Beer, Chair Yes
Teresa Deschanes Yes
Steven Wolf Yes
Stephanie Egan -Engels Yes
Suzanne Charles 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, 13, and 14/15 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.
/"
j , _4, December 9, 2019
Gino =!.ardi, Wining Administrator Date
Secretary, Boa fof Zoning Appeals
3