The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutBZA 3102-209 Hudson St.-Decision Letter-11-6-2018.pdf� Ila oc a o i Green Street Floor Ithaca, c r . i !: ' 1 Zoning ,xino Leon ardii, Secretary to the Board of Zoning Area Variance Findings &Decision Appeal No.: 3102 Applicant: Jagat Sharma for 209 Hudson Street, LLC, Owner Property Location: 209 Hudson Street Zoning District: Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: Section 325-8, Column 13. Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Side Yard. Publication Dates: October 3 1, 2018 and November 2, 2018. Meeting Held On: November 6, 2018. Summary: Appeal of Jagat Sharma on behalf of the owner 209 Hudson Street, LLC for an Area variance from Section 325-8 Column 13, Side Yard requirements of the zoning ordinance. The applicant proposes to subdivide the existing parcel into two lots at the property located at 209 Hudson Street. The existing two family dwelling will be located on Lot #1 and Lot #2 will be a buildable lot where the applicant proposes to construct a new two ide the parcel, the applicant is requesting a variance for an existing side yard family dwelling. In order to subdiv deficiency for the 209 Hudson Street dwelling. The existing side yard is 5'-6" of the 10' required by the ordinance. The property is located in an R -2a residential use district in which the proposed use is permitted. However, General City Law Article 3, Section 33, states that a subdivided plat must comply with a Municipality's Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, compliance can be achieved provided the BZA grants this variance for the side yard deficiency. Public Hearing Held On: September 4, 2018. Interested. arties that spoke in opposition: John Graves, 319 Pleasant Street Kenneth Young, 228 Columbia Street Carl Pillemer, 13 5 Hudson Street Beverly Beer, 211 Hudson Street George McGonigal, 518 Hudson Street Gabriel Borden, 144 Giles Street Pamela Mackesey, 323 Pleasant Street Letters submitted in opposition: Marin Clarkberg, 15 0 Giles Street Karl Pillemer &Clare McMillan, 13 5 Hudson St Janet Fortess, 225 Columbia Street Beverly Beer, 211 Hudson Street 1�Pa�e Interested parties that spoke in support: Linda Schutt, 134 Hudson Street Members present: Steven Beer, Chair: Recused himself on record after reading opening statement. Teresa Deschanes Steven Wolf Marshall McCormick Motion: A motion was made by Teresa Dechanes to continue the public hearing and allow the property owners that did not receive the Notice of Appeal, to, submit comments in writing or speak at the next meeting. The motion was seconded by Steven Wolf. Vote: Teresa Deschanes Yes Steven Wolf Yes Marshall McCormick Yes Meeting Held On: September 26, 2018. Public Hearing Held On: September 26, 2018. Continuation of the Public Hearing from September 4u: The Board voted on September 4, 2018 to continue the public hearing to allow the property owners that did not receive the Notice of Appeal, to submit comments in writing or speak. Interested parties that spoke in opposition: David Beer, 311 Hudson Street Marin Clarkberg, 150 Giles Street Nancy Pollak, 125 Giles Street George McGonigal 518 Hudson Street Public hearing closed by unanimous vote. Vote: Teresa Deschanes Yes Steven Wolf Yes Marshall McCormick Yes Deliberations &Findings: Motion was made by Marshall McCormick to consult with the City Attorney prior to making a motion to move forward with a formal decision on the appeal. The motion was seconded by Steven Wolf Meeting Held On: November 6, 2018. Members present: Steven Beer, Chair: Recused himself on record after reading opening statement. Teresa Deschanes Steven Wolf Marshall McCormick 2�Pa�e Tompkins County Review per Section 239 4 & -m of New York State General Municipal Law: N/A Environmental Review: This variance is a component of an action that also includes site plan and subdivision review. Considered together, this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act for which the Planning and Development Board, acting as Lead Agency, made a Negative Determination of Environmental Significance on July 24, 2018. Planning &Development Board Recommendation: Comments from PB Meeting 7/24/2018: The Planning Board is unsure whether this variance and the subdivision it will allow is in the spirit of the South Hill Overlay District. The Board is conflicted about this appeal because there is not yet a South Hill neighborhood plan, and therefore no specific guidance on this issue. Comments from PB Meeting 8/28/2018: The Planning Board is unsure whether this variance and the subdivision it will allow is in the spirit of the South Hill Overlay District. The Board is conflicted about this appeal because there is not yet a South Hill neighborhood plan, and therefore no specific guidance on this issue. However, the Board also appreciates the applicant's recent revisions to the floor plans that make the project more appealing to families. Motion: A motion to deny the variance request was made by Steven Wolf Deliberations &Findings: Steven Wolf outlined his rational for the motion. In review of the guidelines for evaluating applications for appeals: the Board of Appeals must balance the benefit to be realized by the applicant against the potential determent to the health, safety and general welfare of the neighborhood or community if the variance were to be granted. It is important to note that the balancing test is explicit. Factors Considered: 1. Whether an undesirable change would be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties: Yes ®No ❑ Inserting a rental duplex into this property will create a significant and explicit undesirable change in the neighborhood. There was abundant testimony and evidence, written and oral, to support these findings. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the variance: Yes ®No❑ I am unclear of the alternative. If we were to suggest that the objective of the applicant is to generate rental income, the applicant can achieve that with the existing structure or use the capital that they were going to put into constructing the duplex and invest that elsewhere. The need for the variance was not concerning their lifestyle or the pleasure of their property. It was concerning a revenue generating scheme for the property. If the question is; are there other revenue generating methods? The answer is yes. *If the question is if they can construct the new duplex without the variance, the answer is no. (* last statement was amended: see below) 3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes ®No ❑ The side yard variance is not substantial. Although the proposed project, the construction of the duplex, is substantial. The project will most likely attract college students, or any other renter, is clearly substantial given what was heard concerning the noise and character of the neighborhood. 4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood: Yes ®No ❑ The answer is overwhelmingly yes. As the neighbors expressed, in numbers and consistency, the noise and the aesthetics associated with the proposed project would be quite significate. 3�Pa�e 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes LLJ No ❑ The property was purchased with the premise that the property could be developed and therefore the difficulty was self-created. Second Motion to Deny Variance: Made by Marshall McCormick with an amendment concerning Factor # 2. The amendment is that the applicant can achieve a feasible alternative, by removing the extending portion of the building that is causing the side yard deficiency, and proceed with the proposed subdivision. Vote: Teresa Deschanes No Steven Wolf Yes Marshall McCormick Yes The resulting vote caused the Motion to Deny to fail. Second Motion: A second motion was made by Teresa Deschanes to Grant the variance request. Deliberations &Findings: Teresa Deschanes expressed that she cannot trace the neighborhood harm to the granting of this variance. In addition, in the view of the applicant, the amount of money that would be incurred to correct the deficiency is not Feasible. But, at the same time, the likely outcome of denying the variance is that the applicant would have to remove the portion of the building to bring the structure into compliance. This would be an expensive procedure and ruin the historic integrity of the house. This would also add to the premise that it is too expensive to develop in the City of Ithaca. Also, the remedy for this area of the neighborhood, should have been to designate a pocket historic district for these grand homes in this block, which would have had a more restrictive criteria for what could be done on this lot. Factors Considered: 1. Whether an undesirable change would be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties: Yes 0 No An undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood, this might well be true. But, it is difficult to attribute that the undesirable change in the neighborhood, would be the result of this very small area variance on the other side of the property. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the variance: Yes ❑No� It depends on what is considered feasible. Again, in relation to removing a portion of the building which would be an expensive procedure and ruin the historic integrity of the house. 3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes ❑ No The variance itself is small, although it does unlocks a substantial amount of change an is a separate issue. 4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the neighborhood: Yes Q No physical or environmental conditions The environment will be harmed, as stated in the previous motion. One can see a nexuses where this one area d potential harm, but that n variance can lead to that environmental harm. But, that connection to the adverse impacts, is not strong enough and I would argue that the variance itself does not have an adverse impact. 4(Pacr e 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes ❑ No LLJ In order to make any improvements in the deficient side yard on this lot, variance. the applicant would have to request a Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by Marshall McCormick to allow the motion to move forward to be voted on. Teresa Deschanes Steven Wolf Marshall McCormick Yes No No The motion to -Grant the variance failed. The appeal was denied with a vote of one (1) in favor and two (2) opposed. Sincerely, November 19.2 018 Date S��a6e