HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3100-128 W. Falls St.-Decision Letter-7-3-2018CITY 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.: 3100
Applicant: Lawrence Fabbroni, AIA for Heritage Park Townhomes, Inc, Owner
Property Location: 128 W. Falls Street
Zoning District: R -2b
Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: Section 325-8, Column 11, 14/15, and Section 325-20D (4).
Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Front yard, Rear yard, and Off-street parking
requirements.
Publication Dates: June 27, 2018 and June 29, 2018.
Meeting Held On: July 3, 2018.
Summary: Appeal of Lawrence Fabbroni, AIA, on behalf of the owner Heritage Park Townhomes, Inc.,
for an Area Variance from Section 325-8, Column 11, Front Yard, Column 14/15, Rear Yard and 325-
20D (4) Off-street Parking Location requirements of the zoning ordinance. The applicant received two
previous variances for the property located at 128 W. Falls Street. Appeal #2933 was approved on
October 7, 2014 for parking, front yard, and rear yard deficiencies. Appeal # 2971 was approved on
February 3, 2015 for off-street parking requirements in an R-2 zone. The project was never started due to
a life altering accident to the owner, and since that time, the two variances have expired. The applicant
would like to proceed with the project and is reapplying for the same variances that were previously
approved.
The project at 128 W. Falls Street consists of subdividing the existing lot into three parcels designated as
Lot #1, Lot #2, and Lot #3. The applicant proposes to construct a new single-family dwelling on Lot #1
and position the building 36'- 4" from the front property line in order to not block the sunlight from the
neighboring home to the east. This will cause the buildings' rear yard to be 22 feet of the 25 feet required
by the ordinance. On Lot #2, there is an existing home that has a front yard deficiency. The front yard is
5'-2" from the front property line and the ordinance requires a 10 foot front yard setback. Lot #3 will have
three buildings, two 1 -family attached dwellings and one 2 -family dwelling. The two 1 -family attached
dwellings will be positioned 5 feet from the front property line. The ordinance requires a 10 foot front
yard setback. Although the proposed project meets the number of off-street parking spaces, Section 325-
20 D (4) requires off-street parking the be on the same lot as the building that requires the off-street
parking. The applicant proposes to provide the parking spaces for the buildings located on Lot #1 and Lot
#2 in the rear parking area of Lot #3.
The property is located in an R -2b 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: July 3, 2018.
No public comments in favor or in opposition
Members present:
Steven Beer, Chair
Teresa Deschanes
Lindsay Jones
Tompkins County Review per Section 239 -1 & -m of New York State General Municipal Law:
Tompkins County has reviewed the proposal, as submitted and has deteiiuined that it has no negative
intercommunity, or county wide impacts.
Environmental Review: Type: Type 1
The City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board detetniines the proposed project will result in no
significant impact on the environment and that a Negative Declaration for purposes of Article 8 of the
Environmental Conservation Law be filed in accordance with the provisions of Part 617 of the State
Environmental Quality Review Act.
Planning & Development Board Recommendation:
Planning Board's recommendation in September 2014 for the front and rear yard variances:
The Planning Board strongly recommends granting this appeal. The applicant worked effectively with the
neighbors to develop a plan that they could support.
Planning Board's recommendation in January 2015 for the parking variance:
The Board enthusiastically supports granting this appeal. The needed variances resulted from changes to
the site plan that were requested by the Board to improve the project and meet long term planning goals.
These changes allowed the applicant to improve the overall layout of the plan, reduce impervious surface,
create more useable greenspace, and make the project more attractive and compatible with the
neighborhood.
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 C No
The applicant has sought to minimize these detriments through a number of community meetings. There
has been no additional opposition to the proposed project since the time when the variances were first
approved in 2014. The Board feels that those community meetings held a few years ago were affective.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the
variance: Yes r No
The benefit sought by the applicant could possibly be achieved in some other way. However, that would
increase determine to nearby properties and to the neighborhood at large. Therefore, it is not in the
interest to require the applicant to proceed with the development without these variances.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes LI No
The four variances sought are not substantial considering that the front yards throughout the
neighborhood already approximate the five foot front yards that the applicant is requesting for the two
buildings. The three foot rear yard deficiency in building #1 is minor and the three parking spaces have
been meet by reconfigured to lot to accommodate the parking on the other lots.
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood: Yes n No El
The Board feels that the condition of the neighborhood would be improved by the proposed development
and would have no adverse impact on the conditions in the neighborhood.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes C No El
One of the deficiencies is already existing and the rear yard setback is desired to make the buildings fit
better with neighboring properties, parking is being provided on other lots, and the five foot front yard
setback is in character with the other lots in the neighborhood.
Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by Lindsay Jones.
Vote:
Steven Beer, Chair Yes
Teresa Deschanes Yes
Lindsay Jones Yes
Determination of BZA Based on the Above Factors:
The BZA, taking into consideration the five factors, fords that the Benefit to the Applicant outweighs the
Deteuninant to the Neighborhood or Community. The BZA further finds that variances from Zoning
Ordinance, Section 325-8, Column 11, 14/15, and 325-20D(4) 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.
Secre
of Zoning Appeals
July 10, 2018
Date