HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3167 - 501 Chestnut Street - Decision Ltr
CITY OF ITHACA BOARD of ZONING APPEALS
Area Variance Findings & Decision
Appeal No.: 3167
Applicant: Kathleen Halton and Rebecca Johnson
Property Location: 501 Chestnut Street
Zoning District: R-2a
Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: §325-8, Columns 11 and 13.
Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Front Yard and Other Side Yard.
Publication Dates: July 29, 2020 and July 31, 2020.
Meeting Held On: September 1, 2020.
Summary: Appeal of property owners Kathleen Halton and Rebecca Johnson for an Area Variance from
Section 325-8, Column 11, Front Yard, and Column 13, Other Side Yard, requirements of the zoning
ordinance. The applicant proposes to remove an existing porch on the southwest corner of the house and
construct a new carport at the property located at 501 Chestnut Street. The new carport will be 293.3 square
feet and 18’ 4” wide by 16’ deep. The property has existing front yard and other side yard deficiencies, and
the proposal will exacerbate both deficiencies. The property currently has a front yard of 4 feet, and the
construction of the carport will reduce the front yard to 1 foot of the 25 feet required by the ordinance. The
smaller side yard is currently 4 feet of the required 10 feet and the new construction will reduce this side
yard to 1 foot. The new carport will provide two side-by-side covered parking spaces for occupants of the
home and will meet the off-street parking requirements for the property.
The applicants presented this variance request at the Board’s meeting on August 4, 2020, and Board
members expressed concerns about the impact of the proposed carport on the streetscape, traffic conditions,
and future sidewalk construction as well as the possibility that the variance, if granted, could allow a future
property owner to enclose the structure to create a garage. The applicants requested to table the application
in order to gather more information related to the Board’s concerns.
The property is located in an R-2a 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: August 4, 2020.
Members present:
Suzanne Charles
Teresa Deschanes, Acting Chair
Stephanie Egan-Engels
Steven Wolf
CITY 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
The Board received a letter in support of the proposal from Jane Halton, property owner of 503 Chestnut
Street that was read into the record.
There were no comments in opposition to the proposal.
Tompkins County Review per Section 239 -l & -m of New York State General Municipal Law:
Not applicable.
Environmental Review: This is a Type 2 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act 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
with some reservations. The Board feels that the existing porch is more compatible/contextual than a front
yard carport. However, they also understand the owners’ desire to improve the property for aging-in-place
and the site constraints that lead to the selection of a carport (rather than a garage) in that particular location.
Although a carport is not contextual with the architecture, the Board feels that the applicant has designed it to
be as compatible as possible. They encourage the applicant to make every effort to closely match the materials
and design details to make appear as an integrated part of the existing building.
Motion: A motion to grant the variance request was made by S. Egan-Engels
Deliberations & Findings:
The Board of Zoning Appeals discussed several issues pertaining to this appeal. While the proposed carport
would exacerbate the existing side yard deficiency, Board members noted that the neighboring property
owner was in support of the request and were not concerned that this variance would have any impacts on
the broader community. There was considerable discussion of the request for a variance from the front
yard requirements, which the Board deemed substantial. The relocation of the proposed carport was
deliberated but found to be physically infeasible and not practical for the property owners. Members
discussed potential impacts on traffic resulting from decreased visibility and a wider curb cut. The City’s
Director of Engineering Services did not identify any potential impacts on traffic safety and noted that two
vehicles currently park side-by-side in this location with the current curb cut. In response to concerns over
visibility, the applicant agreed to modify the proposed design by setting the front two support poles back
18” and cantilevering the roof on the street side to allow more light, air, and visibility. The City’s Sidewalk
Coordinator has determined that the proposed carport will not impact the feasibility of a future sidewalk on
that side of Chestnut Street.
Factors Considered:
1. Whether an undesirable change would be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties: Yes No
There is an existing front yard deficiency and while the carport will exacerbate that deficiency, it is a
handsome design that fits in well with the neighborhood aesthetics. The applicant has agreed to modify the
design of the carport to set the front pillars back 18” and cantilever the roof on the street-facing side,
resulting in more visual open space within the front yard. The City Engineering Division has confirmed
that a sidewalk will still be possible on that side of the street in the future and the proposal will not impact
traffic safety.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the
variance: Yes No
There is no other feasible location for the carport on the property, due to the location of the entrance, the
slope of the site, and existing trees. The applicant has agreed to modify the design of the carport to set the
front pillars back and cantilever the roof on the front side, creating more visual space.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes No
The requested front yard variance is substantial but this is due in large part to the existing front yard
deficiency. The carport is the minimum size needed to accommodate the vehicles, and the applicant has
agreed to cantilever the carport to reduce any visual impacts.
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood: Yes No
There is no evidence to indicate that there will be an adverse impact on the physical environment.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes No
The new deficiencies are self-created, but the property owner is making modifications to improve the home
and her ongoing use and ownership of the property.
Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by T. Deschanes.
Vote: 4-0-0
Steven Beer, Chair Yes
Teresa Deschanes Yes
Stephanie Egan-Engels Yes
Steven Wolf Yes
Determination of the BZA Based on the Above Factors:
The BZA, taking into the five factors for an area variance, finds that the benefit to the applicant outweighs
the determinant to the neighborhood or community. The BZA further finds that the variances from the
Zoning Ordinance, §325-8, Columns 11 and 13, are the minimum variances that should be granted in order
to preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety, and welfare of the
community.
___________________________ September 1, 2020
Megan Wilson, Senior Planner Date
Secretary, Board of Zoning Appeals