Loading...
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