HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3064-301 Linn St-Dec. Ltr-5-2-2017CITY 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.: 3064
Applicant: Joseph Nolan, Owner
Property Location: 301 Linn Street
Zoning District: R -2b
Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: Section 325-8, Column 11 and Column 13.
Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Front Yard and Side Yard.
Publication Dates: April 26, 2017 and April 28, 2017.
Meeting Held On: May 2, 2017.
Summary: Appeal of Joseph Nolan for area variance from Section 325-8, Column 11, Front
Yard and Column 13, Side Yard requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes
to demolish a rear porch and construct a second floor addition on the home located at 301 Linn
Street. Currently, only a portion of the home is two stories and the owner would like to extend
the second floor to the remaining footprint of the building. Adding the second floor addition will
create enough space for an additional bedroom and provide room for an enlarged bathroom.
The property has existing deficiencies in the required front yard and side yard setbacks. The
existing side yard deficiency will be exacerbated by the vertical addition of the newly
constructed second floor. The side yard deficiency is 3.5' of the 5' required by the ordinance.
The front yard is also deficient in the required setback. The applicant proposes to remove the
existing front porch roof and reconstruct the roof in the same location. The deficiency will
remain, having 5.5' of the 10' required by the ordinance.
The property is located in an R -2b residential use district in which the proposed use is permitted.
However, Section 325-38 requires that a variance be granted before a building permit is issued.
Public Hearing Held On: May 2, 2017.
The owners of 303 Linn St., Carol and Phineas Reeves, spoke in favor of granting the variance and
written support was received from Daniel Keough residing at 527 N. Aurora Street.
No public comments in opposition.
Members present:
Steven Beer, Chair
Teresa Deschanes
Marshall McCormick
Moriah Tebor
Environmental Review: Type: 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).
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 identify any long term planning impacts with this appeal and supports granting
it. The project will not be visible from the street.
Motion: A motion to grant the variance request was made by Marshall McCormick.
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
There is no evidence on record that there will be an undesirable change in the character of the
neighborhood or detriment to the property. We have heard from the neighbors that the improvement is
likely to increase the value of nearby homes as well as the character of the neighborhood.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to
the variance: Yes ❑ No
The benefit to the applicant could not be achieved in any other way. We have it on record that they are
reducing the footprint of the building, but adding height for the second story. The footprint is what is in
question in this case and in short of demolishing the building, there is little that can be done without the
variance.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes ❑ No
The variances are not substantial. The front yard and side yard are very similar to the other homes
throughout the neighborhood and we do not believe the request to be substantial.
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood: Yes ❑ No
We have found that there will be no adverse impact to the neighborhood. The resulting changes to the
home will be, in relation to the neighborhood, very small.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes ❑ No
These difficulties are not self-created. These variances are for existing deficiencies and by allowing them
to improve their home, makes it more appealing to the neighborhood.
Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by Teresa Deschanes.
Vote:
Steven Beer, Chair: YES
Teresa Deschanes: YES
Marshall McCormick: YES
Moriah Tebor: 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 11 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.
Sec tary, B d of Zoning Appeals
May 4, 2017
Date