Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3094-318-320 W. Seneca St.-Decision Letter-6-5-2018CITY OF ITHACA 108 E. Green Street — 3rd Floor Ithaca, NY 14850-5690 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING, ZONING, & Division of Zoning Gino Leonardi, Secretary to the Board of Zoning Appeals Telephone: 607-274-6550 Fax: 607-274-6558 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT E -Mail: gleonardi@cityofithaca.org CITY OF ITHACA BOARD of ZONING APPEALS Area Variance Findings & Decision Appeal No.: 3094 Applicant: Edward Cope and Peter Penniman, Owners Property Location: 318-320 W. Seneca Street Zoning District: R -3b Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: Section 325-8, Column 4, 11, and 12 and 325-32 C (3). Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Off -Street Parking, Front Yard, Side Yard, and Enlargement of a Non -Conforming Structure. Publication Dates: May 30, 2018 and June 31, 2018. Meeting Held On: June 5, 2018. Summary: Appeal of Edward Cope and Peter Penniman for an Area Variance from Section 325-8, Column 4, Off -Street Parking, Column 11, Front Yard, Column 12, Side Yard and Section 325-32 C(3), Enlargement of a Non -Conforming Structure, requirements of zoning ordinance. The property located at 318-320 W. Seneca Street contains two 1 -bedroom apartments and one 3 -bedroom apartment in the building. The three apartments have a total of 5 bedroom and the occupancy is limited to four unrelated individuals. The applicant would like to increase the occupancy to 5 unrelated and occupy the five bedrooms in the building. The increase in occupancy is defined by the zoning ordinance as an enlargement. The zoning ordinance prohibits the enlargement of a non -conforming structure unless the property complies with the parking and area requirements of the zone in which it is located. The property complies with the area requirements, but does not have the required number of parking spaces on site. The ordinance requires three parking spaces for the three units in the building. There are existing deficiencies in the front yard and side yard that will not be exacerbated by the proposal. The property is located in an R -3b residential use district in which the proposed use is permitted. However, Section 325-38 requires that an area variance be granted before a building permit is issued. Public Hearing Held On: June 5, 2018. No public comments in favor or in opposition. Members present: Steven Beer, Chair Teresa Deschanes Steven Wolf Lindsay Jones Tompkins County Review per Section 239 -1 & -m of New York State General Municipal Law: N/A Environmental Review: 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 teim planning impacts with this appeal. There is no exterior physical change to the property. The Board understands that the occupancy may be limited to three unrelated individuals, however given the shortage of housing this seems a simple way to add an additional bedroom. 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 n No El The Board has no evidence that such a detriment to the neighborhood will be produced. There is little change to the current situation and there are approximately the same number of occupants currently in the dwelling. There will be one additional tenant and there is currently no parking issues at the property. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the variance: Yes n No There is no other alternative if the owner seeks to have the five bedrooms in the building occupied by five unrelated individuals, without requesting a variance for the existing deficiencies. 3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes n No The variance is not substantial and it seems to be a minor variance given that there is some parking available on the neighboring property. 4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood: Yes C No There will be little to no change in the physical or environmental conditions. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes n No The evidence seem to indicate that it was not self-created because most three bedroom apartments in this zone, even with the area deficiencies, have been legally allowed to be occupied by three unrelated individuals. There has been a long standing limit on this property to only have two unrelated persons in the three bedroom apartment. The only way for the owner to have the three unrelated is to address the existing deficiencies. Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by Lindsay Jones Vote: Steven Beer, Chair Yes Teresa Deschanes Yes Steven Wolf Yes Lindsay Jones 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 Detetutinant to the Neighborhood or Community. The BZA further finds that variances from Zoning Ordinance, Section 325-8, Column 4, 11, 12, and Section 325-32 C (3) 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. Secretary, : rd of Zoning Appeals June 14, 2018 Date