HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3055-113 Farm St.-dec ltr-01-03-2017CITY 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: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org
CITY OF ITHACA BOARD of ZONING APPEALS
Area Variance Findings & Decision
Appeal No.: 3055
Applicant: Christine Lux and Michael Trotti, Owners
Property Location: 113 Farm Street
Zoning District: R -2b
Publication Dates: December 23, 2016 and December 27, 2016.
Meeting Held On: January 3, 2017.
Summary: Appeal of Christine Lux and Michael Trotti, owners of 113 Farm Street for area variances
from Section 325-8 Columns 4, 7, 11, 12, and 13, off- street parking, lot width, front yard, side yard and
other side yard, respectively, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicants' propose to rebuild
the deteriorating front entrance porch on the northwest corner of their single family home at 113 Farm
Street. Though the property at 113 Farm Street is a legal non -conforming structure, the proposed
reconstruction requires the property to comply with zoning regulations before a building permit can be
issued. The location of the porch does not comply with the required setbacks for front and side yards. In
addition, the property does not meet off-street parking, minimum lot width and the minimum setback
requirement for the other side yard.
Rebuilding the porch in its current location reestablishes a front yard setback deficiency and
exacerbates an existing side yard deficiency. The open space between front porch and the front lot line,
which determines the depth of front yard, is approximately 3 feet. The Zoning Ordinance requires a 10
foot front yard setback. The west wall of the house is approximately 1.4 feet from its side yard lot line.
Though the 10 foot long porch lines up with this west wall of the home, the porch roof overhang
decreases the deficient side yard setback to .75 feet; required is a ten foot side yard setback.
Three other zoning deficiencies at 113 Farm Street will not be exacerbated by the rebuilding of the front
porch. The three bedroom single family home has no off street parking spaces. The Zoning Ordinance
requires this property to have one parking space. The property is deficient in lot width. The lot width is
33 feet; the minimum lot width allowed is 35 feet. The other side yard between the east facade of the
house and east lot line has a depth of 1.5 feet; required is 5 feet.
The property at 113 Farm Street is in a R2 -b zoning district where the single family dwelling is a
permitted use; however, Section 325-38 requires variances be granted before a building permit is
issued.
Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Off-street parking spaces, lot width, front yard, side yard
and other side yard.
Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: Section 325-8, Column 4, 7, 11, 12, and 13.
Public Hearing Held On: January 3, 2017.
Members present:
Steven Beer, Chair
Teresa Deschanes
Marshall McCormick
Tompkins County Review per Section 239 -1 & -m of New York State General Municipal Law:
N/A
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. 11, setback and lot lines, and 12, area variance for single family home.
Planning & Development Board Recommendation:
The Planning Board did not identify any long term planning issues and supported the granting of the
variance requested.
Motion: A motion to grant the variance request was made by Teresa Deschanes
Deliberations & Findings:
There are four letters from the neighbors in support of the variance.
Factors Considered:
1. Whether an undesirable change would be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties: Yes ❑ No
Findings: By rebuilding a dilapidated porch they are making an improvement in the character of the
neighborhood. The applicant is not changing the footprint of the porch. Four neighbors have written
letters of support.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the variance:
Yes ❑ No ❑
Findings: Because of the condition of the porch, there is no way to repair the porch without obtaining a
variance for the setback deficiencies.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes ❑ No
Findings: These existing deficiencies and the footprint will not be changed so the variance is not
substantial.
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood: Yes ❑ No
Findings: The project will improve the environmental conditions by making the home more structurally
sound.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes ❑ No
Findings: The difficulty is not self-created because of the age of the home and the porch is in need of
repair. The best way to fix the difficulty is to demolish and rebuild to make the porch better.
Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by Marshall McCormick.
Vote:
Steven Beer, Chair: Yes
Teresa Deschanes: Yes
Marshall McCormick: 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 4, 7, 11, 12, and 13 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.
January 4, 2017
Secret Boar o Zoning Appeals Date
Directo af_ mg Administration