HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3083-105 Hudson St.-Decision Letter-10-3-2017CITE OF IT ACA
108 E. Green Street — 3rd floor Ithaca, NV 14854-5694
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.: 3083
Applicant: PPM Homes for Ed Cope, Owner
Property Location: 105 Hudson Street
Zoning District: R -2a
Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: Section 325-8, Column 4, 11, and 13
Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Off -Street Parking, Front Yard, and Side Yard.
Publication Dates: September 27, 2017 and September 29, 2017.
Meeting Held On: October 3, 2017.
Summary: Appeal of PPM Homes on behalf of the owner Ed Cope, for an area variance from Section
325-8, Column 4, Off -Street Parking, Column 11, Front Yard, and Column 13, Side Yard requirements of
the zoning ordinance. The property at 105 Hudson Street is classified as a legal non-conforining use in an
R -2a zone with grandfathered rights as a multiple dwelling. On October 1, 2012, the applicant submitted a
building permit for the proposed conversion of a three family dwelling into two apartments. The three
family dwelling contained; 1-3 bedroom unit, 1-2 bedroom unit, and 1-1 bedroom unit for a total
occupancy of 8 unrelated individuals residing in the building. The applicant proposed to convert the
building into two -4 bedroom apartments in order to provide private bedrooms for each of the 8 renters.
Subsequently, the building permit was issued on April 30, 2013 for the conversion of the building into
two apartments.
At a recent housing inspection, it was discovered that the building conversion increased the total number
of required parking spaces, from 3 spaces for the three units, to 4 spaces for the two-four bedroom units.
The property had an existing deficiency in parking, having 2 on-site parking spaces of the 4 spaces
required by the zoning ordinance. Unfortunately, this property is located in an R -2a zone district where
leasing the required parking spaces from neighboring properties is not permitted. The zoning ordinance
requires off-site parking to be located in a zone district in which the use is permitted by right. Multiple
dwellings are not permitted in the R -2a zone district. Not until the housing inspection was the applicant
informed that the conversion would increase the need for more parking. The applicant is requesting a
variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals to maintain the legal status of the two unit multiple dwelling.
The property has existing front and side yard deficiencies that will not be exacerbated by the proposal.
The property is located in an R -2a residential use district in which the property is a grandfathered non-
conforming use. However, Section 325-39 requires that a variance be granted before a Certificate of
Occupancy is issued.
1
Public Hearing Held On: October 3, 2017.
No public comments in favor or in opposition.
Members present:
Steven Beer, Chair
Teresa Deschanes
Moriah Tebor
Steven Wolf
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 does not identify any long term planning impacts with this appeal and supports it
approval. This appeal is essentially a correction of an inadvertent mistake.
Motion: A motion to grant the variance request was made by Steven Wolf.
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 requested variance will not increase density of use, residents or demand for parking. Therefore, the
variance for the two parking spaces will not create an undesirable change.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the
variance: Yes ❑ No ❑
From a logistical, economic, and physical point of view, there is not an opportunity to accommodate on-
site parking and the applicant is prohibited from leasing parking from nearby properties.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes ❑ No ❑
The parking variance could be viewed as a substantial request. But, considering the fact that there will be
no increase in density or demand for parking, there is no change in the current condition. The variance is
to correct a past error.
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood: Yes ❑ No ❑
There has been no public comment that suggests that there would be an adverse impact on the physical or
environmental conditions. There is no physical change, this is just to fix an administrative feature of record.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes ❑ No ❑
There was some misinformation provided some years ago and therefore, it was of no fault by the applicant.
2
Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by Moriah Tebor.
Vote:
Steven Beer, Chair Yes
Teresa Deschanes Yes
Moriah Tebor 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
Detenninant to the Neighborhood or Community. The BZA further finds that variances from Zoning
Ordinance, Section 325-8, Column 4, 11, and 13 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.
Sec , Vrd of Zoning Appeals
October 12, 2017
Date
3