HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3165 - 419 N Cayuga Street - Decision Ltr
CITY OF ITHACA BOARD of ZONING APPEALS
Area Variance Findings & Decision
Appeal No.: 3165
Applicant: Barken Family Realty
Property Location: 419 N. Cayuga Street
Zoning District: R-3aa
Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: §325-8, Columns 7, 11, and 13.
Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Lot Width, Front Yard, and Other Side Yard.
Publication Dates: September 30, 2020 and October 1, 2020.
Meeting Held On: October 6, 2020.
Summary: Appeal of property owner Barken Family Realty for an Area Variance from Section 325-8,
Column 7, Lot Width, Column 11, Front Yard, and Column 13, Other Side Yard, requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance. The applicant recently renovated a vacant 4-unit residential building located at 419 N.
Cayuga Street. The building currently contains 1 one-bedroom unit, 1 two-bedroom unit, and 2 one-
bedroom units with studies. The applicant would like to use the study rooms in each of the two ground-
floor units as bedrooms. This change would convert the 2 one-bedroom units with studies to 2 two-bedroom
units and would increase the overall building occupancy. The proposed change meets NYS Residential
Code, and the property has sufficient off-street parking for the proposed occupancy. No further exterior or
interior alterations are proposed. However, the proposed increase in occupancy is considered an
enlargement of a nonconforming structure. The property is 49’ wide at the street and a minimum lot width
of 50’ is required in the R-3aa zone. Section 325-32 of the Zoning Ordinance states that an area variance
must be granted before increasing the unrelated occupancy of a property that does not meet the minimum
lot size requirements. The property also has existing front yard and other side yard deficiencies that will
not be exacerbated by the proposal.
The property is located in the R-3aa use district in which the proposed use is permitted. However, Section
325-32 requires that an area variance be granted before a building permit is issued.
Public Hearing Held On: October 6, 2020.
Members present:
Steven Beer, Chair
Suzanne Charles
Teresa Deschanes
Stephanie Egan-Engels
Steven Wolf
CITY 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: 607-274-6550 Fax: 607-274-6558 E-Mail: gleonardi@cityofithaca.org
The Board received letters of support from the following interested parties:
Jay Potter, 421 N. Cayuga Street
Joseph and Catherine Allen, 417 N. Cayuga Street
Jerry Dietz, 411 N. Cayuga Street
Gail Salk, 411 N. Cayuga Street
Timothy Terpening, 425 N. Cayuga Street
Barry Valentine, 427 N. Cayuga Street
There were no comments in opposition to the requested variance.
Tompkins County Review per Section 239 -l & -m of New York State General Municipal Law:
Not applicable.
Environmental Review: This is a Type 2 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is not subject to Environmental
Review.
Planning & Development Board Recommendation:
The Planning Board does not identify any negative long term planning impacts and supports this appeal. The
Board supports increased housing options, which, in this case, can be accomplished with no exterior change to the
building.
Deliberations & Findings:
The Board noted that the request is relatively inconsequential. The request will allow additional occupancy,
and it will help achieve the City’s goals of additional housing without changing the exterior of the building.
The use is allowed by zoning. The deficiency in lot width is minimal, is existing, and cannot be changed.
The neighboring property owners are appreciative of the applicant’s efforts to improve the property.
Motion: A motion to grant the variance request was made by S. Wolf.
Factors Considered:
1. Whether an undesirable change would be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties: Yes No
As attested to be 6 interested parties, the renovation has been a positive improvement to the neighborhood.
The requested variance is part of a larger project that has improved a previously vacant property and
enhanced the neighborhood.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the
variance: Yes No
A variance is required to improve the occupancy, regardless of any physical changes to the building. The
work is an improvement to the property and is supportive of the City’s goals to provide additional housing.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes No
The applicant is not changing the footprint of the building; they are only changing how space is allocated.
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood: Yes No
Given that this property has been vacant for a long time, this is clearly positive change for the community.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes No
The applicant could retain the current occupancy but overall the project is a positive for both the private
and public interest.
Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by S. Egan-Engels.
Vote: 4-0-0
Suzanne Charles YES
Teresa Deschanes YES
Stephanie Egan-Engels YES
Steven Wolf YES
The BZA, taking into the five factors for an area variance, finds that the benefit to the applicant outweighs
the deterimant to the neighborhood or community. The BZA further finds that the variances from the
Zoning Ordinance, §325-8, Columns 7, 11, and 13, are the minimum variances that should be granted in
order to preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety, and welfare of the
community.
___________________________ October 7, 2020
Megan Wilson, Senior Planner Date
Secretary, Board of Zoning Appeals