HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA Decision Letter - Appeal 3037 - 112-114-+ Ferris PlCITY OF ITHACA
108 E. Green Street — 3rd Floor Ithaca, NY 14850-5690
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING, ZONING, & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Division of Zoning
P1 YLLIS RADKE, DIRECTOR OF ZONING ADMINISTRATION
Telephone: Planning & Development — 607-274-6550 E -Mail: cpyott@cityofithaca.org
CITY OF ITHACA BOARD of ZONING APPEALS
Area Variance Findings & Decision
Applicant: Holly Austin for owner, 112-114 Ferris Place, LLC
Appeal No.: 3037
Zoning District: R -2a
Meeting Held On: September 6, 2016
Property Location: 112-114%2 Ferris Place
Publication Dates: August 15, 2016 & August 16, 2016 (The Ithaca Journal)
Summary: Appeal of 112-114 Ferris Place, LLC, for Area Variances from Article V, Section 3 a), b), and d), Front Yard,
Side Yard, and Lot Size and Article V, Section 5, Off -Street Parking, requirements of the 1950 Zoning Ordinance. The
owner of 112-114%2 Ferris Place purchased the property in 2015 without knowledge that this property it is an illegal
non -conforming use. Under the City Zoning Ordinance, a property becomes a non -conforming use when the Zoning
District where a property is located is changed so that under the new regulations the use of that property is no longer
permitted. A non -conforming use can continue operating in the new Zoning District, provided it conformed to the
zoning regulations in effect before the Zoning District was changed. The property at 112-114%2 Ferris Place was
converted without a Building Permit from a two-family dwelling to a multiple dwelling around 1955, when the 1950
Zoning Ordinance was in effect. At that time, 112-114%2 Ferris Place was located in the "A" Zoning District, which
allowed multiple dwellings as of right. However, the conversion of the existing two-family home to a multiple dwelling
also required compliance with the "A" zone's area regulations. Unfortunately, the property at 112-114%2 Ferris Place
did not meet the requirements for lot size, yard setbacks, and parking when the building was converted to a multiple
dwelling in 1955. Consequently, in 1977 when the Zoning District where 112-114%2 Ferris Place is located changed to
an R -2a zone, a zone that prohibits uses classified as multiple dwellings, this property became an illegal non -conforming
use. The applicant wants 112-114%2 Ferris Place to be zoning -compliant and is therefore requesting variances from the
1950 Zoning Ordinance's lot size, front yard, side yard, and off- street parking requirements. The property at 112-114%2
Ferris Place has a lot size 6,185.2 SF; the required lot size under the 1950 Zoning Ordinance for a three -unit multiple
dwelling is 7,500 SF. The front yard has a depth of 9.7 feet. The 1950 Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum 10 -foot
front yard. The side yards are 5 feet and 1.5 feet. The 1950 Ordinance requires the side yards to be no less than 5 feet,
but also requires that the sum of both side yards be no less than 15 feet. Finally, the property at 112-114% Ferris Place
has one off-street parking space. The 1950 Zoning Ordinance requires one parking space for each dwelling unit, or
three parking spaces. The property at 112-114%2 Ferris Place is in an R -2a zone, where multiple dwellings are not a
permitted use. Variances are needed for the conversion to a multiple dwelling under the 1950 Zoning Ordinance in
order for the building to be classified as a legal non -conforming use and its occupancy as a multiple dwelling to continue
in the same manner as it has, since being converted more than 60 years ago.
Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Off -Street Parking, Lot Size, Front Yard, Side Yard
Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: Article V, Section 3 a), b), and d), Front Yard, Side Yard, and Lot Size and Article
V, Section 5, Off -Street Parking, requirements of the 1950 Zoning Ordinance
Members Present. -
Steven Beerl Chair
Teresa Deschanes
Marshall McCormick
Public Hearing Held On.- September 6, 2016. No one spoke in favor or against granting the variances requested.
Environmental Review.- Type 2. These actions have been determined not to have a significant impact on the
environment and are otherwise precluded from Environmental Review under Environmental Conservation Law, CEQR,
Section 176-5 C., (12) area variance.
Planning & Development Board Recommendation.- The Planning Board did not identify any long-term planning issues
2nd supported the granting of the variance requested.
Tompkins County Review per Section 239 -1-n York State General Municipal Law.- Tompkins County ha
reviewed the proposal, as submitted, and has determined it has no negative intercommunity or countywide impact]
Motion: A motion to grant the variance request was made by Teresa Deschanes.
1. Whether an undesirable change would be produced In the character of the neighborhood or a detriment t
nearby properties: YesFj No77'
V\1
Findings: The variances will simply allow the building to continue operating as it has been for many years.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the variance: Yes Eriffle 0,1611
Findings: The only feasible way the applicant can achieve the benefit sought is by granting variances, which will allow
Building Permits to be issued and needed maintenance to the building to be done legally.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes MM F,, &I
Findings: This is not a substantial request, since it is merely the regularization of what is currently being done.
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood:
No Z
Findings: The property has been operating for the past decades with the same number of parking spaces available and
the same number of residents in the building. It may actually be a benefit to the environmental conditions because
the building will be well -kept in appearance and can provide safer living conditions.
5. Whether the alleged diff iculty was self-created: YesE] No Z
Findings: The applicant relied on a Certificate of Compliance believing in good faith that the building was legal for the
use. The City only realized recently that granting such Certificate was in error.
11 1 IF U.0
Vote :
Steven Beer, Chair: Yes
Teresa Deschanes: Yes
Marshall McCormick: Yes
K
Determination of BZA Based on the Above ® 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 1950 Zoning Ordinance,, Article V., Section 3 a), b), and d), Front Yard, Side Yard, and Lot Size and Article
VJ, Section 5, Off -Street Parking, are the minimum variances that should be granted in order to preserve and protect
e . Re - a
® character of t® neighborhood and the health. a safety, and welfare of the community.
September 19, 2016
Secrear�,oa' of Zoning Appeals Date
Direct of ning Administration