HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3169 - 106 Second St - Decision Ltr
CITY OF ITHACA BOARD of ZONING APPEALS
Area Variance Findings & Decision
Appeal No.: 3169
Applicant: STREAM Collaborative
Property Location: 106 Second Street
Zoning District: R-2b
Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: §325-8, Columns 10, 11, 12, and 13.
Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Lot Coverage by Buildings, Front Yard, Side Yard, and
Other Side Yard.
Publication Dates: October 28, 2020 and October 30, 2020.
Meeting Held On: November 3, 2020.
Summary: Appeal of STREAM Collaborative on behalf of property owner Deborah Justice for an area
variance from Section 325-8, Column 10, Lot Coverage by Buildings, Column 11, Front Yard, Column 12,
Side Yard, and Column 13, Other Side Yard, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes
to demolish an existing garage and construct a new accessory structure on the property located at 106
Second Street. The first floor of the new structure will provide storage and the second story will be an
accessory apartment. The applicant has applied for a special permit from the Planning and Development
Board for the accessory apartment use on this owner-occupied property. The structure will adhere to the
requirements for accessory apartments as provided for in §325-10, Additional Conditions for Special
Permits, of the Zoning Ordinance. However, the new structure will have a building footprint of 676 SF,
and the existing single-family home has a footprint of 752 SF. This results in 38.5% lot coverage by
buildings and exceeds the 35% maximum lot coverage allowed by zoning. The property has existing front,
side, and other side yard deficiencies that will not be exacerbated by this proposal.
The property is located in a R-2b use district in which the proposed use is permitted. However, Section
325-32 requires that an area variance be granted before a building permit is issued.
Public Hearing Held On: November 3, 2020.
Members present:
Suzanne Charles
Teresa Deschanes, Acting Chair
Stephanie Egan-Engels
Marshall McCormick
Steven Wolf
Laura Taylor and Scott Nissenson, 202 Second Street, submitted a letter in support of the requested
variance.
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
Todd Sadler, 302 Cascadilla Street, submitted a letter in support of the requested variance.
There were no comments in opposition to the requested variance.
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. It
replaces a non-functioning and dilapidated structure with a beautiful, code-compliant building while correcting
the existing side yard deficiency. The project is consistent with the City’s long-range plan to encourage infill
housing that is compatible with neighborhood character. The project also preserves owner-occupied housing.
Motion: A motion to grant the variance request was made by M. McCormick.
Deliberations & Findings:
The requested variance is small but results in a nice size room for accessory apartment. The removal of the
barn and its replacement with a well-designed structure will be an improvement for the neighborhood.
The new 5-sided barn reflect this history of the property.
The Board discussed the location of parking spots in the second front yard along Cascadilla Street. While
not ideal, the Board noted that it meets zoning requirements and is consistent with other parking along the
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
The project will remove a dilapidated accessory building and replace it with a code-compliant structure that
is intended to reflect the architecture and character of the primary structure on the property. The new
building meets the setback requirements of the zoning and eliminates the yard deficiencies of the existing
accessory structure. Off-street parking along Cascadilla Street is common in the neighborhood. The
proposed structure is appropriate infill housing that meets the City Comprehensive Plan’s goal of providing
additional housing units that is compatible with the character of existing residential neighborhoods.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the
variance: Yes No
The applicant could construct a smaller structure that would meet the lot coverage by buildings requirement
but this would not meet the needs of the owner and would result in less functional space.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes No
The requested variance for lot coverage by buildings is not substantial. The construction of the new
accessory structure will result in 38.5% lot coverage by buildings, exceeding the 35% allowed in the R-2b
zone. This additional 2.5% equates to 165 square feet of building footprint on the 3,700 square foot lot.
The requested variances for front yard, side yard, and other side yard are not substantial and are for existing
deficiencies that will not be exacerbated by the proposal. Any future changes to the proposal that would
exacerbate these deficiencies will require a separate area variance at that time.
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood: Yes No
The request for an area variance at 106 Second Street is a Type II action that has been determined to not
have a significant impact on the environment. Furthermore, the Board’s review of the submitted plans,
testimony from the applicant, and consideration of existing conditions have not provided evidence of
adverse physical or environmental impacts. In fact, it will have a positive impact on the neighborhood.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes No
The property owner could chose to not construct the new accessory structure. However, there are no
significant adverse impacts on the neighborhood, adjacent properties, or the environment.
Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by S. Wolf.
Vote: 4-0-0
Suzanne Charles YES
Teresa Deschanes, Acting Chair YES
Stephanie Egan-Engels YES
Marshall McCormick 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 deterimant to the neighborhood or community. The BZA further finds that the variances from the
Zoning Ordinance, §325-8, Columns 10, 11,12, 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.
___________________________ November 4, 2020
Megan Wilson, Senior Planner Date
Secretary, Board of Zoning Appeals