HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA Decision Letter - Appeal 3049 901 N CayugaCITY OF ITHACA
108 E. Green Street — 3rd Floor Ithaca, NY 14850-5690
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING, ZONING, & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Division of Zoning
P14YLLIS RADKE, DIRECTOR OF ZONING ADMINISTRATION
Telephone: Planning & Development — 607-274-6550 E -Mail: cpyott@cityofithaca.org
CITY OF ITHACA BOARD of ZONING APPEALS
Special Permit for a Home Occupation
Findings & Decision
Applicant: Elizabeth Ann Hales and Buchanan Johnson
Appeal No.: 3049
Zoning District: R -2b
Hearing Held On: November 28, 2016
Property Location: 908 N. Cayuga Street
Publication Dates: November 17, 2016 & November 18, 2016
Appeal of Elizabeth Ann Hales and Buchanan Johnson for a Home Occupation Temporary Special Permit
of Section 325-9 C. (i) requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to use a portion of
her residence at 908 N. Cayuga Street for a private practice as a psychiatric nurse practitioner. The
applicant's current office will soon be listed for sale and she would like to use a portion of her home as an
office. The proposal is to use the living room and bedroom, located on the second floor, as an office and
waiting room for patients. The square footage of the two rooms meets the requirements of both NYS
Residential Code, Section AJ102.5.1, having 14.4% of the 15% floor area, and the Zoning Ordinance, which
allows 25% and a maximum of 500 square feet. The office and waiting room total 324 square feet. The
practice will have working hours Tuesdays, Wednesday, and Thursdays, 8:30 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. The
property has 4 parking spaces on site; 2 spaces are required for the 4 -bedroom home and 1 space for the
home occupation.
The property located at 908 N. Cayuga Street has an existing front yard deficiency that will not be
exacerbated by the proposed home occupation. The property is located in an R -2b residential use district
where the proposed home occupation is permitted. However, Section 325-39 requires that a Special
Permit be issued for the home occupation before a Certificate of Occupancy may be issued.
Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Special Permit for Home Occupation.
Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: Section 325-9 C. (i).
Public Hearing: November 28, 2016.
Opposed:
One neighbor at 906 N. Cayuga Street spoke against granting the Special permit believing that the
Applicant's home should remain a two- family dwelling. This neighbor stated she was concerned about
her own privacy as well as for the privacy of the Applicant's clients. She stated her bedroom is about 15
feet away from where the Applicant proposes to conduct her home business and feels the location of
the Applicant's office will infringe on her privacy. She brought up the need for Neighborhood Watches
and the potential difficulty of distinguishing the Applicant's clients from actual trespassers. She also
stated she did not believe the applicant's proposed home occupation is in keeping with the City's
Comprehensive Plan (Ithaca Plan) of a medium density neighborhood. Though the Plan supports a
balance of allowed non-residential uses in a residential neighborhood, she believed converting a two-
family dwelling into a home / medical office does not support the City's goals and needs for housing.
(The neighbor's letter of opposition is a part of the Appeal record).
In Favor:
No one spoke in favor of the Applicant's appeal.
Rebuttal:
Applicant Buchanan Johnson stated his wife, Ann Hales, has been looking to purchase appropriate
privacy shades for the proposed home occupation. Johnson stated the two rooms selected for the home
occupations (on the north side of 901 N. Cayuga, facing the concerned neighbor's bedroom) allow direct
access by clients and meet the room size limitations for home occupations. He also stated it would be
impracticable and cost prohibitive to convert the kitchen on the south side of the house into office
space.
He rebutted the concern that the home occupation use would be disruptive to the neighborhood. He
said Hales currently shares office space with other therapists in another residential neighborhood
where there is a great deal more traffic —and stated there has been no complaints from neighbors
about this much larger office. He also claimed some of Hale's clients are only seen once a year.
Deliberations and Findings of Fact:
McCormick read into the record two letters from "interested parties" in support of the Applicant's
Home occupation. One was from an occupant of 107 West Lewis Street, another from an occupant of
108 West Lewis Street. Two other letters in support are also in the Appeal record. One was written by
an occupant living at 305 Auburn Street and the other by an occupant living at 110 West Lewis Street.
McCormick stated "You have to keep in mind that this is not a use variance. It is very difficult NOT to
grant the Special permit because it is an allowed use in the zone- or to create higher standards for the
applicant to meet than what is required by the ordinance."
Deschanes stated she wants to consider conditioning the variance such as keeping the windows closed.
McCormick stated he is against any conditions because of the legalities on imposing conditions and the
difficulties of enforcing such conditions. He also said it would not be necessary because of the nature of
a Special permit, which cannot be transferred to a subsequent owner but is granted specifically to the
person living in the dwelling who has applied to operate a home occupation. The Director of Planning
and Development can revoked a special permit if the use fails to comply with specified regulations. It
must be renewed every three years after and be issued a Certificate of Compliance showing the use
remains in compliance with City regulations.
Deschanes testified that she lives near the applicant's current office which has 6 practicing therapists.
She has never seen anything disruptive in the neighborhood because of this office use, even though this
office building is located in a zone that allows slightly larger homes and more multi- families. She stated
she would be very surprised if there would be any significant impact on the neighborhood (where 901 N.
Cayuga Street is located) as a result of the proposed home occupation.
Tebor commented that the applicant is a professional therapist. Tebor states in her career as an
Attorney, she has found that psychiatric social workers take patient confidentiality very seriously. In any
case, protecting client confidentiality is the applicant's responsibility and is not the duty or concern of
neighbors.
Environmental Review: Type 2. These actions have been determined not to have an impact on the
environment and are otherwise precluded from environmental review under Environmental Conservation
Law. (City Municipal Code, 176-5 C. (14)).
Planning & Development Board Recommendation: The Planning Board identified no long range
planning issues with the appeal and supported granting it.
Motion: made by Marshall McCormick to grant Special permit.
Factors Considered:
(a) The location and size of the use, the size of the site in relation to it and the location of the site
with respect to the existing or future streets giving access to it shall be such that it will be in harmony
with the existing or intended character of the neighborhood and will not discourage the appropriate
development of adjacent land and buildings or impair the enjoyment or value thereof.
(b) Operations in connection with any special use shall not be more objectionable to nearby property
by reason of noise, fumes, increased vehicular traffic or parking demand, vibration or flashing lights
than would be the operations of any use permitted without a special permit.
(c) As evident in the application and submitted testimony, the proposed home occupation will not
have a significant negative impact on traffic, congestion, property values, municipal services,
character of the surrounding neighborhood, or the general plan for the development of the
community.
(d) The response of interested parties notified by the applicant or heard during the Appeal's public
hearing.
It is clear from the Planning Board, those who wrote the City's Comprehensive Plan, that granting this
Special permit would not have an adverse impact on the neighborhood or community, based on the
other surrounding businesses that are very nearby and based on the relatively high bicycle, vehicular
and pedestrian traffic volume on the Applicant's Street. The Board finds there will be no change in the
character of the neighborhood by granting this Special Permit. There is no testimony that the granting of
this Special permit would have any adverse impact on municipal services. Because it is a Temporary
Special permit- we do not expect to see property values change one way or another. Should there be
serious impacts caused by the Special permit, it does not convey to future owners or occupants, and can
be revoked for cause. Nevertheless, we believe the proposed use will not effect this property or
neighboring properties.
The number of clients visiting the home should have no more impact than a home with multiple children
or a single family home where the occupants have visitors or social events at different times of the year.
Meaning -the proposal will not cause more congestion than the other general uses in the neighborhood.
Traffic will remain in right of ways, and clients will park in in the parking spaces provided on the
property. The four available parking spaces at the Applicant's home are more than what the Ordinance
requires. We believe the granting of this Special permit will cause no significant impacts.
Second Motion to Grant Variance: Moriah Tebor.
Vote: Teresa Deschane: Yes
Steve Beer: Yes
Marshall McCormick: Yes
Moriah Tebor: Yes
Special Permit for Home Occupation- Granted.
Conditions: Renewals. The renewal of temporary home occupation special permits for additional three-
year periods shall be granted by the Director of Planning and Development or designee following
inspection of the premises by the Department of Planning, Building and Development, submission of a
renewal application form issued by the Department of Planning, Building and Development and an
affidavit stating that the conditions as originally set forth to the Board of Zoning Appeals have not changed
in any way. It is the responsibility of permit holders to renew their temporary special permits. The Director
of Planning and Development or designee shall determine that the premises still meet the standards of
the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code and that the original qualifying conditions
still exist. The Director of Planning and Development or designee is authorized to charge a fee of $30 for
each renewal inspection conducted.
M
Revocation. The Director of Planning and Development or designee shall revoke any special permit issued
hereunder, should the applicant or the applicant's tenant violate any provision of this chapter or any
condition imposed upon the issuance of the special permit.
1 December 6, 2016
Secrqtay, Board Zoning Appea s, Date
Direoning Administration