HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3115 109-111-Homestead Rd-Decision Letter 3-5-2019CITY 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: 607-274-6513
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
E -Mail: gleonardi@cityofithaca.org
CITY OF ITHACA BOARD of ZONING APPEALS
Area Variance Findings & Decision
Appeal No.: 3115
Applicant: Katrina Morse, Owner
Property Location: 109-111 Homestead Road
Zoning District: R -la
Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: Section 325-8, Column 11.
Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Front Yard
Publication Dates: February 27, 2019 and March 1, 2019.
Meeting Held On: March 5, 2019.
Summary: Appeal of Katrina Morse for an Area Variance from Section 325-8, Column 11, Front Yard
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to subdivide the existing parcel into two
lots at the property located at 109-111 Homestead Road. The existing single family home will be located
on Parcel A and Parcel B will be a buildable lot that the applicant would like to sell. In order to subdivide
the parcel, the applicant is requesting a variance for an existing front yard deficiency for the 109-111
Homestead Road dwelling. The existing front yard is 24.6 feet of the 25 feet required by the ordinance.
The property is located in an R -la residential use district in which the proposed use is permitted.
However, City Code Section 290-8 requires that; subdivision applications confoun to the General City
Law and Section 33 which states that a subdivided plat must comply with a municipality's zoning
ordinance Therefore, an area variance for the Front Yard deficiency on Parcel A, is necessary for
compliance.
Public Hearing Held On: March 5, 2019.
No public comments in opposition.
James Hedlund of 110 Homestead Road spoke in favor.
Members present:
Steven Beer, Chair
Teresa Deschanes
Steven Wolf
Tompkins County Review per Section 239 -1 & -m of New York State General Municipal Law: N/A
1
Environmental Review: Type: Unlisted
This variance is a component of an action that also includes 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 January 22, 2019.
Planning & Development Board Recommendation:
The Planning Board does not identify any long term planning impacts and supports this appeal as it does
is an existing deficiency of the existing structure. The Board supports the creation of additional buildable
lots within the City.
Motion: A motion to grant the variance request was made by Teresa Deschanes.
Deliberations & Findings:
The Board considered this appeal at the February 5, 2019 meeting and postponed deliberations due to
deed restrictions placed on the property by the owner. The owner made the Board aware of these
restriction at the meeting on February 5th meeting. The Board was concerned that the public notice sent to
the neighbors did not include the description of these restrictions. Therefore, the interested parties were
not completely informed of the specifics for the appeal. The owner has since decided to remove the deed
restrictions and felt that the district regulation for the R -la zone sufficiently protected her interest.
Factors Considered:
1. Whether an undesirable change would be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties: Yes E No
There were initial concerns that the proposed subdivision included a number of restrictive covenants which
would possibly change the street setback and the regular pattern of the neighborhood. Since those issues
have been resolved, the Board can consider this appeal in a straight forward manner. The variance is a
matter of approximately 5 inches and approving the variance would allow the subdivision to be approved
and create a completely new buildable lot. This will allow the infill the irregularity of the street-scape by
having an additional home.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the
variance: Yes ❑ No El
The applicant needs to have the variance approved for the existing deficiency in order to proceed with the
subdivision.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes ❑ No El
The variance is not substantial. The variance is a matter of less than six inches in order to bring the
property into compliance.
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood: Yes ❑ No El
Although, the variance will not change the existing house, it will produce another buildable lot that will
potentially fill in the gap in the street face. In addition, the subdivision will produce another housing unit
within the City without changing the density of the neighborhood.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes ❑ No El
It is possible to say the difficulty is self-created because the applicant does not need to subdivide the lot.
But, on the other hand, this very small pre-existing deficiency pre -dated the applicants' ownership of the
house. In addition the neighbors seem to be in support and the Planning Board issued a positive comment
for the creation of a buildable lot.
2
Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by Steven Wolf.
Vote:
Steven Beer, Chair Yes
Teresa Deschanes Yes
Steven Wolf Yes
Determination of BZA Based on the Above Factors:
The BZA, taking into consideration the five factors, fmds 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 1 lis 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.
and of Zoning Appeals
March 21, 2019
Date
3