HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3125-310 W. State St.-Decision Letter-5-7-2019CITY OF ITHACA
108 E. Green Street — 3rd Floor Ithaca, 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.: 3125
Applicant: Teresa Halpert Deschanes, Owner
Property Location: 310 W. State Street
Zoning District: CBD -60
Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: Section 325-8, Column 14/15.
Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Rear Yard
Publication Dates: May 1, 2019 and May 3, 2019.
Meeting Held On: May 7, 2019.
Summary: Appeal of Teresa Halpert Deschanes for an Area Variance from Section 325-8, Column
14/15, Rear Yard requirements of zoning ordinance. The applicant is in the process of constructing a
single family carriage house at the property located at 310 W. State Street. The original plan for the
building was to install the top of the basement a few inches above grade and have a ground level landing
at the back door. Unfortunately, the water table was higher than expected and the contractor could not
excavate to the depth that was originally proposed. Subsequently, the top of the foundation is
approximately 18" above the grade and the applicant must now install a code compliant landing and stairs
at the rear door. The new landing will be 36" x 40" and will encroach approximately 2 feet into the rear
yard setback. This will reduce the rear yard setback to 8 feet of the 10 feet required by the ordinance.
The property is located in a CBD -60 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: May 7, 2019.
No public comments in favor or in opposition.
Members present:
Steven Beer, Chair
Teresa Deschanes - Recused
Steven Wolf
Marshall McCormick
1
Tompkins County Review per Section 239 -I & -m of New York State General Municipal Law:
N/A
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 identify any negative long term planning impacts and supports this appeal.
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 n No El
There was no evidence that there will be an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. There
was no public comment in opposition of the variance. The project was approved by the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission for its facade and function. The carriage house that was on the west property line
and very close to the rear property line, was demolished in 2014. The positioning of the new carriage house
will be an improvement given the historic character of the neighborhood.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the
variance: Yes n No El
At this point it is not possible to make the building smaller since it was already constructed, delivered,
and installed on the site. The possibility of removing the back door to eliminate the rear landing is not
practical given the building has already been designed and built in its current configuration. Removing the
back door would eliminate egress from the kitchen area and direct access to the rear yard.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes n No El
The landing is only 36 X 40 inches and the setback is 8 feet of the required 10 feet. The 20% variance
would not be considered substantial, particularly relative to the previous location and the existing
deficiencies, of the demolished carriage house.
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood: Yes ❑ No El
If there is any adverse impact, it would be the foundation and not the variance. If there is a hydrological
problem with the new basement, it may suggest an issue. But, since both Planning and Zoning allow this
type of development, the Board sees no negative impact on the physical or environmental conditions. In
respect to aesthetics and the broad design of the building, it will be an upgrade and will add housing to the
City.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes n No El
The applicant is not responsible for the hydrological conditions of the site and filling or removing the
basement, or removing the rear door, would be very unreasonable given the requested variance.
2
Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by Marshall McCormick.
Vote:
Steven Beer, Chair Yes
Steven Wolf Yes
Marshall McCormick Yes
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 14/15 is 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.
, B •f' d of Zoning Appeals
May 13, 2019
Date
3