HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3147-402 Utica Street-Decision Letter-1-7-2020CITY 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: 607-274-6513 E -Mail: gleonardi@cityofithaca.org
CITY OF ITHACA BOARD of ZONING APPEALS
Area Variance Findings & Decision
Appeal No.: 3147
Applicant: Emily Petrina, Firehouse Architecture Lab, for Miranda Phillips & Robert Kleinberg, owners
Property Location: 402 Utica Street
Zoning District: R -2b
Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: Section 325-8, Column 11 and Column 12.
Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Front Yard and Other Front Yard.
Publication Dates: December 31, 2019 and January 3, 2020.
Meeting Held On: January 7, 2020.
Summary: Appeal of Emily Petrina of Firehouse Architecture Lab on behalf of the owners Miranda
Phillips and Robert Kleinberg for an area variance from Section 325-8, Column 11, Front Yard and Column
12, Other Front Yard requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to construct a two
story addition on the north side of the home at 402 Utica Street. The new addition will provide a large
family room on the first floor and an additional bedroom and bathroom on the second floor. The proposed
addition will align with the front facade of the house, but it will extend another 18'-10" along the front yard
on Utica Street. The property is located on a corner lot and both front yards have existing deficiencies. On
the Utica Street side, the new addition will exacerbate the deficiency laterally along Utica Street. The
setbacks range from 4'-6" to 5'-4" of the required 10 foot front yard setback. The front yard on E. Tompkins
Street will not be exacerbated by the proposal.
The property is located in an R -2b 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: January 7, 2020.
No public comments in favor or in opposition.
Letters of support were submitted by:
Tom Blecher, owner of 313 Utica Street
Nancy and Matt Braun, owners of 103 E. Tompkins Street
Anne Hamilton, owner of 109 E. Tompkins Street
1
Members present:
Steven Beer, Chair
Steven Wolf
Stephanie Egan -Engels
Suzanne Charles
Tompkins County Review per Section 239 -I & -m of New York State General Municipal Law:
N/A
Planning & Development Board Recommendation:
The Planning Board does not identify any negative long term planning impacts and supports this appeal.
The proposed project is an improvement to the property and a welcome investment in a downtown
neighborhood.
Environmental Review: 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.
Motion: A motion to grant the variance request was made by Suzanne Charles.
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
The proposed addition will extend laterally along the existing front yard deficiency which is characterized
in the surrounding neighborhood. Three neighbors provided letters of support for the variance, expressing
that the addition would not create a negative impact on the neighborhood. The location and the features of
the addition would blend with the 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
The owner and architect explored other options that would not require a variance. They found that the
options would not be feasible because it would diminish the functional of the addition and create other
design issues. The proposed location of the addition would maintain a distance from the neighbor to the
north and allow the owners to keep the extensive garden in the rear yard.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes r No
The variance is not substantial because it does not increase the setback of the existing deficiency. The
variance is needed because it extends the existing deficiency laterally along the front yard.
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood: Yes ❑ No
Approving the variance would allow the owners to improve the property in an economical way.
Approving the front yard location would keep the physical and environment conditions of the rear
yard garden and maintain the open space to the neighboring properties.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes ® No n
The owners did explore other alternatives and found that the variance is the only means to achieve their
desired goal.
2
Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by Stephanie Egan -Engels.
Vote:
Steven Beer, Chair Yes
Steven Wolf Yes
Stephanie Egan -Engels Yes
Suzanne Charles 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 11 and 12 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.
January 13, 2019
Zoning Administrator Date
Secretary, oard of Zoning Appeals
3