HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3078-339 S. Geneva St.-Decision Letter--7-13-2017CITY 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.: 3078
Applicant: Noah Demarest for John Barber, Owner
Property Location: 339 S. Geneva Street
Zoning District: R-3 as
Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: Section 325-8, Column 4, 6, 11, 12, 13, and Column 14/15.
Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Off -Street Parking, Lot Area, Front Yard, Other Front
Yard, Side Yard, and Rear Yard.
Publication Dates: June 21, 2017 and June 23, 2017.
Meeting Held On: July 13, 2017.
Summary: Appeal of Noah Demarest on behalf of the owner John Barber for an area variance from
Section 325-8, Column 4, Off-street parking, Column 6, Lot Area, Column 11, Front Yard, Column 12,
Other Front Yard, Column 13, Side Yard, and Column 14/15, Rear Yard requirements of the ordinance.
The applicant proposes to convert an existing garage into a single family home at the property located at
339 S. Geneva Street. The zoning ordinance requires that properties with more than one primary structure
comply with the minimum lot area for each permitted primary use. The existing 3 unit dwelling requires
7,000 SF in lot area and the proposed single family home requires 5,000 SF of lot area. The existing
parcel has 7,971.48 SF of the 12,000 SF of lot area required for both buildings. The conversion of the
garage to an apartment will also require one additional parking space to meet the requirement of the
zoning ordinance. The property currently has 4 parking space on site. As part of the proposal, the 2 spaces
in the garage will be eliminated, leaving 2 of the 5 parking spaces required by the ordinance. The garage
structure will also be deficient in the required side and rear yard dimensions. The garage is positioned .1'
from the side lot line, a 5' side yard is required. The rear lot line is 3' from the structure, the ordinance
requires a 20' rear yard. The property has existing deficiencies in both front yards that will not be
exacerbated by the proposal.
The property is located in an R-3aa 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: July
No public comment in favor.
Daniel Hirtler, residing at 327 S
Members present:
Steven Beer, Chair
Teresa Deschanes
Marshall McCormick
13, 2017.
Geneva Street submitted a letter in opposition.
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 (12)
Planning & Development Board Recommendation:
The Planning Board recommends approval of this appeal, as it would provide significant planning benefits.
The appellant is repurposing an existing building, the design improves its contextually, and infill housing
such as this is encouraged by the Comprehensive Plan.
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
The structure will be improved to include a one bedroom apartment. The project will improved the
condition of the existing building and has been approved by the ILPC. The physical characteristics of the
neighborhood would be improved and as such would not be a detriment to nearby properties. The
applicant stated that the neighbors in the east and west are in support of the rehabilitation of this building.
There was one letter in opposition that the Board did not consider pertinent to this appeal. The first issue
being: the Board would be setting a president granting this variance, which the Board does not set.
Secondly, parking, safety, noise and privacy issues. Concerning the safety, noise and privacy issues: the
Board felt that the design of the rehabbed carriage house, having fire rated walls and lack of windows,
would increase sound barriers and mitigate the issues between the neighboring buildings. The parking
issue that was mentioned in the letter, mischaracterized the neighborhood. The south side of N. Titus
Avenue has 24 hour parking which is underutilized after working hours as day commuters tend to park
there. For those reasons we do not believe there will not be a detriment to the nearby properties. In fact,
the appearance of this property may increase the value of other properties.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to
the variance: Yes ❑ No
The benefit being sought could not be achieved by another method. The building that is being rehabbed
already exists and is not being increased or exacerbated. There was discussion that the applicant could add
an addition to the existing multiple dwelling, but that would further reduce how this house fits into the
architectural character of the neighborhood.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes ❑ No
The building has existed long before our zoning ordinance was adopted and because it is not being
exacerbated or changed, we do not believe that the variance is substantial. In regards to the variance for
parking, given the availability of on street parking at night and on weekends, the lack of a few on-site
parking spaces, will not be a detriment. The Board heard testimony that of the four spaces on the
property, only two spaces have been utilized by the tenants.
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood: Yes ❑ No
Given the findings, neither the building nor the property is being altered in terms of the footprint or
impervious surfaces that would affect any environmental conditions of the property, lot, or neighborhood.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes ® No ❑
The difficulty is self-created in that the applicant does not have to create a one bedroom dwelling in the
carriage house. But there are other benefits to the City and to future tenants that are in line with the
Comprehensive Plan for housing within the City. We do not find that this factor outweighs the findings in
the other factors.
Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by Teresa Deschanes.
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, fmds 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, 6, 11, 12, 13, and 14/15 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.
r
v �t
Secrg,B90' d of Zoning Appeals
July 14, 2017
Date