HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3080-131 Blair St.-Decision Letter-9-5-2017108 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.: 3080
Applicant: Christopher Anagnost and Christopher George Corp., Owner
Property Location: 131 Blair Street
Zoning District: CR -3
Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: Section 325-8, Column 4, 13, 14/15, and Section 325-32C (2).
Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Off -Street Parking, Other Side Yard, Rear Yard and
Enlargement of a Non -conforming Structure.
Publication Dates: August 28, 2017 and August 30, 2017.
Meeting Held On: September 5, 2017.
Summary: Appeal of Christopher Anagnost for area variance from Section 325-8, Column 4, Off -Street
Parking, Column 13, Other Side Yard, Column 14/15, Rear Yard and Section 325-32C (2) Enlargement
of a Non -conforming Structure, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to
construct a second floor bathroom addition to the existing dwelling located at 131 Blair Street. The
dwelling currently contains eight bedrooms and two bathrooms for the eight unrelated permitted in the
dwelling. The applicant has found that two bathrooms do not meet the needs of the eight tenants. The
proposed third bathroom will be constructed above a one story portion of the building. The zoning
ordinance does not permit enlargements of non -conforming structures which do not meet the
requirements for lot area and parking. The property at 131 Blair Street lacks the required parking and
therefore, the second floor bathroom cannot be constructed without obtaining an area variance. The
property has existing deficiencies in off-street parking, other side yard, and rear yard that will not be
exacerbated by the proposed addition.
The property at 131 Blair Street is located in a CR -3 zoning district where the proposed use is permitted.
However, Section 325-38 requires that a variance be granted before a building permit may be issued.
Public Hearing Held On: September 5, 2017.
No public comments in favor or in opposition.
1
Members present:
Steven Beer, Chair
Teresa Deschanes
Steven Wolf
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 as it is not visible
from the street.
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
There will be no change in the character of the neighborhood. This small addition is not visible from the
street and there is no impact of neighboring views. The addition is to the second floor and it is tucked into
a corner of the building. There will be no change in number of occupant within the building and therefore,
it will have no detriment to the nearby properties. There was no evidence of objections or concerns from
the neighbors.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the
variance: Yes ❑ No
The evidence that was presented to the board suggest that there is no alternative to the bathroom addition
and its location. The applicant explained that the sewer line was in such a location that the bathroom
could not be constructed on second floor, in another corner of the building, because of the difficulty to
connect to the existing sewer line. The only feasible location for the bathroom is in this small second floor
addition. The applicant would like to make the property more competitive with the newer rentals nearby.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes ❑ No
The evidence suggest that this variance is not substantial. There will be no change in the base footprint of
the building and the other deficiencies are existing. There will be no change in occupancy or increased
parking deficiency, and the addition will not be visible from the street.
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood: Yes ❑ No
The Board fells that this small addition will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental
conditions in the neighborhood. For the same reasons were discussed in the other factors.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes ® No ❑
In this case the alleged difficulty is self-created because the applicant does not need to add an additional
bathroom, however, this is only one factor that is outweighed by the other four factors.
Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by Steven Wolf.
Vote:
Steven Beer: Yes
Teresa Deschanes: Yes
Steven Wolf: 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 4, 13, 14/15, and Section 325-32C (2) 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.
See re ry, oard of Zoning Appeals
September 8, 2017
Date
I