HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3145-204 Lake 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.: 3145
Applicant: Thomas Herman for Audrey DeSilva and Robert Vanderlan, Owner
Property Location: 204 Lake Avenue
Zoning District: R -2b
Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: Section 325-8, Column 10, 11, 13, 14/15 and Section 325-25
Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Percentage of Lot Coverage, Front Yard, Side Yard,
Rear Yard and Location of Accessory Structure
Publication Dates: November 27, 2019 and November 29, 2019.
Meeting Held On: December 3, 2019.
Summary: Appeal of Thomas Heiman on behalf of the owner Audrey DeSilva and Robert
Vanderlan for area variance from Section 325-8, Column 10, Percentage of Lot Coverage, Column
11, Front Yard, Column 13, Side Yard, Column 14/15, Rear Yard and Section 325-25, Location
of Accessory Structure requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to construct
a 166 square foot deck in the rear yard of the property located at 204 Lake Avenue. The deck will
be located between the existing garage and the rear porch of the home. The applicant proposes to
fence around the deck and install a hot tub for their use. The existing property is deficient in
percentage of lot coverage by buildings having 38% of the 35% required by the ordinance. Adding
the deck will increase the lot coverage to 40.9% which will exceed the 35% maximum coverage
by 5.9%. The instillation of the deck will also create a rear yard deficiency reducing the rear yard
from 33.9% to 20.5% of the 25% required by the ordinance The property has existing deficiencies
in front yard, side yard and the required setback for the garage 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 comments in opposition.
David Barken, owner of 110 Monroe Street, spoke in favor of the appeal.
1
Members present:
Steven Beer, Chair
Teresa Deschanes
Steven Wolf
Stephanie Egan -Engels
Suzanne Charles
Tompkins County Review per Section 239 -1 & -m of New York State General Municipal Law: N/A
Planning & Development Board Recommendation:
The Planning Board does not identi any negative long term planning impacts and supports
provided there are no unresolved neighborhood concerns. The raised deck is an environmentally
alternate to a paved patio and the proposed project is an improvement to the property and
investment in a downtown neighborhood.
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.
Motion: A motion to grant the variance request was made by Teresa Deschanes.
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 El
There was no evidence that there would be a determent to the neighborhood. There was testimony from a
neighbor in favor of the proposed project. The project would be an improvement in the character of the
neighborhood because a dilapidated fence would be replaced. Additionally, the decking would be
environmental friendly allowing ground saturation rather than a concrete patio that would cause water shed.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the
variance: Yes ❑ No
The applicant could install a patio. Although, the applicant would prefer the environmental friendly deck
instead. The deck would allow drainage of water and have less impact to the environment than a patio
which they can install by right. Therefore, a variance is required to accomplish the benefit of achieving an
environmental friendly alternative.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes n No
The variance would not be considered substantial. It is a small increase in the overall lot coverage.
Although, the reduction in the rear yard deficiency is a significant percentage, this portion of the yard is
already limited by the position of the garage. The garage is permitted to be in the rear yard and there
would be very little change in the actual usable area of the rear yard.
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood: Yes n No Ei
The physical conditions would be improved by the addition of the upgrade to the fence. The drainage would
be improved by allowing the deck to be constructed.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes ® No C
The applicants could install a patio to serve the purpose. However, since the environmental conditions will
be improved by installing a deck, it is beneficial to weigh this factor in light of the benefits the previous
factors will provide.
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 10, 11, 13, 14/15, and Section 325-25 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.
i`i....
Gino Leo "ardi / oning Administrator
Secretary, Board of Zoning Appeals
December 9, 2019
Date
3