HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3068-111 The Knoll-Decision Letter-6-6-2017CITY 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: 607-274-6550 Fax: 607-274-6558 E -Mail: gleonardi@cityofithaca.org
CITY OF ITHACA BOARD of ZONING APPEALS
Area Variance Findings & Decision
Appeal No.: 3068
Applicant: Noah Demarest for Sherri Kimes and Ross Turnbull, Owners
Property Location: 111 The Knoll
Zoning District: R -U
Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: Section 325-8, Column 2 and Column 7
Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: New Construction restrictions for the R -U zone and
Lot Width at Street
Publication Dates: May 31, 2017 and June 2, 2017.
Meeting Held On: June 6, 2017.
Summary: Appeal of Noah Demarest on behalf of the owners Sherri Kimes and Ross Turnbull
for an area variance from Section 325-8, Column 2, minimum distance restrictions for the R -U
zone and Column 7, Lot Width at street of the zoning ordinance. The applicant proposes to
purchase the property at 111 The Knoll and convert the single family dwelling to a group house
that will be owned and managed by the Chesterton House Center for Christian Studies. As part
of the group house conversion, an attached garage will be demolished and a new two story
addition will be added to the existing building. The new addition will accommodate four
additional bedrooms and two bathrooms that will be added to the existing 5 bedroom home. The
intent of this proposal is to provide housing at 111 The Knoll for 16 female members in close
proximity to 115 The Knoll which houses the male members. This will facilitate the operation of
shared programing services for the Chesterton House Center.
In 2015, the R -U zone district was amended to include a 500 foot restriction on new construction
of specific uses permitted within the zone. This came about in 2014, when the Planning and
Economic Development Committee of Common Council considered development proposals that
conflicted with the wish to maintain the historic qualities and existing character of this
neighborhood. "This particular historic district was developed as a planned "residence park,"
with significant amounts of greenspace and informal landscaping in the Romantic tradition
intentionally retained around its expansive homes to create a unique neighborhood identity." As
a result, the permitted uses for new construction of multiple dwellings, rooming or boarding
houses, cooperative households, dormitories, fraternities, sororities, and group houses were
limited to 1 within every 500 feet measured from the edge of the property. 111 The Knoll is
within the restricted 500 foot dimension of approximately 14 multiple dwellings. The property
has an existing deficiency in lot width at street, having 41' of the required 125', which will not
be exacerbated by the proposed project.
The property is located in an R -U residential -university 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: June 6, 2017.
No public comments in favor or in opposition.
Members present:
Steven Beer, Chair
Teresa Deschanes
Marshall McCormick
Moriah Tebor
Tompkins County Review per Section 239 -1 & -m of New York State General Municipal Law:
N/A
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 8.
Planning & Development Board Recommendation:
The Planning Board does not identify any long term planning impacts with this appeal. As stated above,
the 2015 amendment was intended to preserve the "residence park" character of the district. The site is
currently surrounded by multiple dwellings so the request does not represent a change to the character of
the neighborhood. The appellant is adding an addition to the existing house while retaining the character of
the site and district, as illustrated by the fact that the ILPC has granted a Certificate of Appropriateness to
the project. The Board does suggest that a deed restriction or other mechanism be considered to assure that
any changes by future owners are consistent with the current proposal.
Motion: A motion to grant the variance request was made by Moriah Tebor
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 was discussion from the Board that it would create some undesirable change, in so far as, it would
reduce the amount of green space. However, in considering of the application of the zoning ordinance and
in consideration of surrounding properties that are currently in the neighborhood, it was not significant
enough to warrant denying the appellant's request for a variance.
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 is to have a home in close proximity to the neighboring property in order to
house the female residents of the Chesterton House. The neighboring property is owned by the Chesterton
House Center and houses the male members.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes ❑ No
The variance is not substantial due to the proximity of a number of other multiple dwellings within 500'
of this property.
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood: Yes ❑ No
In light of the discussions by the Board, concerning the reduction of the green space to accommodate the
installation of the require number of parking spaces, it was not significant enough to deny the variance.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes ® No ❑
The difficulty was self-created because of the applicants need to house the female members in close
proximity to the male members. Although, it was not significant enough to deny the variance.
Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by Marshall McCormick with the following amendment:
CONDITION:
1. Three (3) of the eight (8) spaces must be leased off-site.
2. The Board recommends to the Planning Board that they explore a shared parking arrangement
with other nearby properties in order to maintain as much green space as possible in this unique
neighborhood.
Amendment Seconded by: Moriah Tebor.
Vote:
Steven Beer, Chair: Yes
Teresa Deschanes: No
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 2 (restrictions for new construction in the R -U zone), Column 7, and
the above Condition, 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.
i
June 14, 2017
Sec • , B,o d of Zoning Appeals Date