HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3069-412 Worth 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.: 3069
Applicant: Jason Demarest Architecture for Eileen Sommers, Owner
Property Location: 412 Worth Street
Zoning District: R -lb
Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: Section 325-8, Column 7.
Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Lot Width at Street
Publication Dates: April 26, 2017 and April 28, 2017.
Meeting Held On: May 2, 2017.
Summary: Appeal of Jason Demarest on behalf of the owner Eileen Sommers for an area variance from
Section 325-8, Column 7, Lot Width at street requirements of the zoning ordinance. The applicant
proposes to construct a two story single family home on the parcel located at 412 Worth Street. The flag
shaped parcel is unique in that the Municipal boundary line traverses the lot and divides the property into
two tax parcels. An inter -municipal agreement with the Town of Ithaca has been drafted and is in the
process of being finalized. The agreement gives the City of Ithaca enforcement authority for zoning,
building permit, and subsequent inspections for this project. The property is located at the east end of
Worth Street and has to be accessed via private lands that extend from the street to the front property line.
In order to access the property, a permanent easement from Belle Sherman Cottages Homeowners
Association, Inc. had to be secured for the portion of land that extends from street to the flag shaped lot's
property line at 412 Worth Street. The front property line is deficient in width having 19.02' of the 50'
street width required by the ordinance. The property is located in an R -lb residential use district in which
the proposed use is permitted. However, Section 325-3 8 requires that a variance be granted before a
building permit is issued.
Public Hearing Held On: May 2, 2017.
No public comment in favor.
Letter in opposition by Joyce Rivas received on 4/22/2017, also spoke at the public meeting.
Letter in opposition by Kristy Richards received on 4/23/2017.
Letter in opposition by Charles Greene received on 4/21/2017.
Letter by Mark Ceres received on 4/28/2017, stating no issue with pennitting the proposed construction.
Members present:
Steven Beer, Chair
Teresa Deschanes
Marshall McCormick
Moriah Tebor
Motion: A motion to grant the variance request was made by Teresa Deschanes.
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).
Tompkins County Review per Section 239 -1 & -m of New York State General Municipal Law:
The Department has reviewed the proposal, as submitted, and has determined that it has no negative inter -
community, or county -wide impacts.
Planning & Development Board Recommendation:
The Planning Board does not identify any long term planning impacts with this appeal and supports
granting it. Neighborhood concerns were expressed to the Board regarding the development of property.
Therefore, the Board has required full Site Plan Review for the project to insure these concerns are
addressed to the extent possible.
Motion: A motion to grant the variance request was made by Teresa Deschanes.
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
After discussions, the Board finds that there will not be an undesirable change in the character of the
neighborhood. The largest change comes with removing the trees on the vacant lot. Considering the
proposed development of a small house with a landscaped lot and screening trees, it seems to be entirely in
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
This is a long standing flag shaped lot and any possibility of access though other properties would require
a long legal procedure and even a larger variance.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes ❑ No
It was the finding of the Board that the variance is not substantial because the building lot itself has
excellent proportions for a small house. While the access portion of the road frontage is narrow it is more
than wide enough to access the lot. Concerns raised about Fire Department access were addressed in a
letter by the Fire Chief stating the driveway is more than adequate for Fire Department access.
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood: Yes ❑ No
There was a concern expressed by an interested party about cars blocking the access to the building. But
this concern was addressed by the Fire Chief as the driveway is adequate in width for access. We do not
find that there will be other impacts on the environmental conditions because the property will be similar
to, if not less dense than what is currently in the neighborhood.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes ❑ No
The difficulty was not self-created because for any development to happen on this lot, it would require
access via a driveway, on this flag post portion. This condition has long predated the current ownership.
Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by Marshall McCormick.
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 7 is 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.
"J"
Secy B d of Zoning Appeals
May 4, 2017
Date