HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3095-417 E. Lincoln St.-Decision Letter-6-5-2018CITY 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.: 3095
Applicant: Josh Mack for Lillian Fan, Owner
Property Location: 417 E. Lincoln Street
Zoning District: R -2b
Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: Section 325-8, Column 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, and 14/15.
Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Lot Area, Lot Width, Percentage of Lot Coverage, Front
Yard, Other Front Yard, and Rear Yard.
Publication Dates: May 30, 2018 and June 1, 2018.
Meeting Held On: June 5, 2018.
Summary: Appeal of Josh Mack on behalf of the owner Lillian Fan for an Area Variance from Section
325-8, Column 6, Lot Area, Column 7, Lot Width, Column 10, Percentage of Coverage by Buildings,
Column 11, Front Yard, Column 12, Other Front Yard, and Column 14/15, Rear Yard requirements of
zoning ordinance. The applicant proposes to construct a landing on the newly enclosed front porch at the
property located at 417 E. Lincoln Street. The applicant recently received a building permit to enclose the
front porch and found that the existing front stairs had deteriorated. In order to replace the concrete stairs,
the new stairs must meet the NYS Building Code. The NYS code requires a minimum 3' landing be
installed at doorways leading to each stairway. Therefore, the applicant proposes to install a 3' x 5'-5"
stair landing on the front porch. The existing porch is set back from the front property line approximately
5.7'. The new landing will encroach an addition 3' into the required 10' front yard setback, leaving a 2.6'
front yard setback. The stair landing will also increase the percentage of coverage by building. Currently,
the lot coverage is 43.6% and the 3' x 5'-5" landing will increase the lot coverage to 44.5% of the 35%
allowed by the ordinance. There are existing deficiencies lot area, lot width, other front yard, and rear
yard that will not be exacerbated by the proposal.
The property is located in an R -2b residential use district in which the proposed use is peimitted.
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 term planning impacts with this appeal but feels that more
information is needed to deteimine if this is the only or best solution as it is awkward for stairs to meet the
sidewalk edge.
Motion: A motion to grant the variance request was made by Teresa Deschanes.
Deliberations & Findings:
In rebuttal of the Planning Boards comments, the applicant was asked if there were any options to
reposition the stairs so as not to meet the sidewalk. The applicant did explored the options of moving the
stairs and found that this is the only or best solution to the front porch egress issue.
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 is a small undesirable change in that it is awkward to have the steps meet the sidewalk. However, the
porch has already been enclosed and the existing stairs were found to be deteriorated, so there needs to be
a solution to the current problem. It was found that the orientation of the stairs was a small change that
would not create a detriment to nearby properties.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to
the variance: Yes No
The evidence suggest that this is the only solution to the required egress problem.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes n No
This is a small variance in that many of the houses are close together and close to the side walk.
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood: Yes n No
The variance will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental condition of the
neighborhood due to the small nature of the variance. Other homes in the neighborhood have the same
condition being very close to the sidewalk in this area..
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes ® No n
The difficulty was self-created in that the applicant did not need to close -in the porch. Although, the
applicant could have closed in the porch without making any changes to the stairs or landing if the existing
stair were not deteriorated. In consideration, the five factors do weight in favor of granting the variance.
Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by Lindsay Jones.
Vote:
Steven Beer, Chair Yes
Teresa Deschanes Yes
Steven Wolf Abstain
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
Determinant to the Neighborhood or Community. The BZA further finds that variances from Zoning
Ordinance, Section 325-8, Column 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, and 14/15 are the minimum variances that should be
granted in order to preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety, and welfare
of the community.
oard of Zoning Appeals
June 14, 2018
Date