HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3122 112 Fayette Street-Decision Letter 4-2-2019CITY 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.: 3122
Applicant: Emily Petrina, Firehouse Architecture Lab, on behalf of property owner Janna Edelman
Property Location: 112 Fayette Street
Zoning District: R -2b
Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: Section 325-8, Columns 7, 11, 12, 13
Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Off -Street Parking Requirement, Lot Width, and Front
and Side Yards
Publication Dates: March 27, 2019 and March 29, 2019
Meeting Held On: April 2, 2019
Summary:
Appeal of Emily Petrina, Firehouse Architecture LAB, on behalf of property owner Janna Edelman
for area variance from Section 325-8, Column 7, Lot Width, Column 11, Front Yard, and Columns
12 and 13, Side Yard requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to replace the
existing front porch and construct a two-story addition with a deck on the rear of the dwelling
located at 112 Fayette Street. The front porch is in need of repair, and the applicant proposes to
rebuild the porch and extend it the full width of the home. The existing porch is 3.33 feet from the
front property line and extending it will reduce the setback from 3.33' to 2.75' of the 10' required
by the ordinance. The applicant would also like to construct a two-story addition on the rear of the
home that will comply with the setback requirements of the zoning ordinance. The applicant will
be removing a one-story attached shed that currently has a side yard setback of 4 feet of the 5 feet
required by the ordinance. The new two-story addition and deck will be constructed to comply
with the 5 foot side yard setback requirement. The property has existing deficiencies in lot width
and both side yards 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 permitted.
However, Section 325-38 requires that an area variance be granted before a building permit is
issued.
Public Hearing Held On: April 2, 2019
No public comments in opposition.
Letters of support were submitted by: Jyl Dowd of 106 Fayette Street
Jeffery Kay of 110 Fayette Street
Heather Dengler of 114 Fayette Street
Camaron Cohen and C.J. Randall of 309 W. Green Street
Members present:
Steven Beer, Chair
Teresa Deschanes
Steven Wolf
Tompkins County Review per Section 239 -1 & -m of New York State General Municipal Law:
Not applicable
Environmental Review: Type: 2
This is a Type 2 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance ("CEQRO"),
and State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA"), and is not subject to Environmental Review.
Planning & Development Board Recommendation:
The Planning Board does not idents any negative long term planning impacts and supports this appeal.
The Board finds that the proposed changes are minor in scope and improve the overall appearance of the
property and the character of the neighborhood. The Board feels that the project allows a family to stay in
the neighborhood in which they are established, and as such, has a positive impact on the city's goals of
retaining owner- occupied housing and affordability.
Motion: A motion to grant the variance request was made by Steven Wolf.
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 ❑ No
Considering the letters from the neighbors and the information provided, this is an upgrade for the
neighborhood. The variance is required for the extension of the front porch to make it the full width of the
house and this encroaches slightly into the front yard which exacerbates an existing deficiency. The increase
in the deficiency is not significant and does not create an unacceptable condition.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the
variance: Yes ® No ❑
The applicant could retain the existing porch and not rebuild the porch to the full width of the house. But,
this would not be an appropriate or reasonable solution given the condition of the porch and the
appearance that would be enhanced by a full width porch.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes n No 121
All of the deficiencies are existing except the deficiency exacerbated by extending the front porch. The
existing porch is 3.33 feet from the front lot line and the proposed porch will result in a 2.75 foot setback,
which is a small increase in the existing deficiency.
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood: Yes ❑ No El
This will increase the value and functionality of the home and the neighborhood as a whole. The proposed
project will also improve the look of the home.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes ® No ❑
The applicant could proceed with the other proposed construction and rebuild the porch in its original
footprint, but the amenity of having a useable front porch would be a benefit.
Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by Teresa Deschanes.
Vote:
Steven Beer, Chair
Teresa Deschanes
Steven Wolf
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 7, 11, 12, and 13 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.
Secre
Zoning Appeals
April 4, 2019
Date