Loading...
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