HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3196 - 209 Eddy Street - Decision Ltr
CITY OF ITHACA BOARD of ZONING APPEALS
Area Variance Findings & Decision
Appeal No.: 3196
Applicant: Christopher Anagnost on behalf of property owners Chen and Kao Ko Jenn Cheng
Property Location: 209 Eddy Street
Zoning District: R-3a
Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: §325-8, Columns 4, 6, and 13.
Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Off-Street Parking, Minimum Lot Area, and Other Side
Yard.
Publication Dates: September 30, 2021 and October 1, 2021.
Meeting Held On: October 5, 2021.
Summary: Appeal of Christopher Anagnost, on behalf of property owners Chen and Kao Ko Jenn Cheng,
for an area variance from Section 325-8, Column 4, Off-Street Parking, Column 6, Minimum Lot Area, and
Column 13, Other Side Yard, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to convert
the existing two-family dwelling to a single-unit multiple residence. The property was originally
constructed as a single-family home but was converted to a two-family dwelling by constructing a kitchen
in an existing bedroom. The applicant proposes construction that will revert the structure back to a single
dwelling unit with seven bedrooms. Per the Zoning Ordinance, any single dwelling with four or more
unrelated occupants is classified as a multiple dwelling. The property is located in the R-3a zone and
multiple dwellings in this zone require a larger lot area than a single- or two-family dwelling. The property
has a lot area of 6,600 square feet and a converted multiple dwelling requires 7,000 square feet, resulting
in a deficiency of 400 square feet of lot area.
In addition, the property has an existing off-street parking deficiency that will be exacerbated by the
proposal. The property is currently required to have two off-street parking spaces but provides no off-street
parking on-site. The change from two three-bedroom apartments to one 7-bedroom dwelling increases the
required parking to four off-street spaces. The property also has an existing side yard deficiency that will
not be exacerbated by this proposal.
209 Eddy Street is located in a R-3a 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: October 5, 2021.
Members present:
Stephen Henderson
Stephanie Egan-Engels
David Barken, Acting Chair
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
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.
The appellant is improving the interior of the property and there will be no exterior alterations. The property
has existing deficiencies. New and exacerbated deficiencies are a result of a reclassification from duplex to
multiple dwelling and not to exterior changes. The Board asks that the appellant be required to provide an
exterior bike rack.
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission Recommendation:
The proposed project at 209 Eddy Street involves no exterior alterations or new construction and, therefore,
has not been reviewed by the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC). In general, the ILPC
supports of the return of historic properties to their original configuration. The Commission also
discourages additional surface parking or the creation of new driveways within the East Hill Historic
District.
Motion: A motion to grant variance #3196 for 209 Eddy Street was made by D. Barken.
Deliberations & Findings:
The Board discussed whether there is a different way to improve the apartment configuration that does not
require a variance. An existing bedroom could be converted to a living room but would reduce occupancy
and may not be financially feasible. The building was designed as a single unit, and it is the preference of
the applicant to return it to its original configuration. This approach is also the most supported in terms of
historic preservation of the building.
Parking deficiency is arguably significant but the Board believes these impacts are largely on the landlord
and tenants, rather than a broader neighborhood impact. Individual tenants or the property owner could
lease parking, as needed. The Board discussed the Planning Board’s bike rack recommendation, noting the
topography of the site, potential security issues, and the history of bike storage on the covered rear porch
as well as the requirement of a bike rack in all new development projects.
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 will be no exterior changes to the property as a result of this appeal. The neighborhood is
zoned R-3a and is home to single-family, two-family, and multi-family dwellings. The proposed
single-unit multiple dwelling is consistent with other uses in the area.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the
variance: Yes No
The applicant could maintain the property as a two-family dwelling. However, the second unit
lacks shared living space and a full kitchen, and the applicant would like to offer a single-unit that
better meets the needs of tenants.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes No
The existing two-family dwelling is required to have two off-street parking spaces; none are
provided. The conversion to the multiple dwelling will require four off-street parking spaces. This
is a substantial request. However, the benefits of the variance to the property owner outweigh any
negative impacts.
A multiple dwelling is required to have a minimum lot area of 6,600 SF; 209 Eddy Street is a 6,600
SF parcel. This variance is not substantial and the lot size cannot be altered. The second side yard
is 4.6’ of the required 5’. This is an existing deficiency that is not exacerbated by this proposal.
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood: Yes No
The proposed conversion to a multiple dwelling will allow 1 additional occupant within the
building and will exacerbate the existing off-street parking deficiency by requiring two additional
spaces. However, the property is located near Collegetown where less car-centric development is
encouraged. The Board highly advises the applicant to install a bike rack for tenant use on the
property, if an appropriate location is available.
The property’s lot size and the existing side yard are already established and will not impact the
existing physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes No
The property has established rights to the existing condition, and the applicant is choosing to create
a multiple dwelling within the existing building.
Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by S. Henderson.
Vote: 3-0-0
Stephen Henderson YES
Stephanie Egan-Engels YES
David Barken, Acting Chair 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 detriment to the neighborhood or community. The BZA further finds that the variances from the Zoning
Ordinance, §325-8, Columns 4, 6, 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.
___________________________ October 5, 2021
Megan Wilson, Senior Planner Date
Secretary, Board of Zoning Appeals