Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3211 - 304 Utica Street - Decision 1 CITY OF ITHACA BOARD of ZONING APPEALS Area Variance Findings & Decision Appeal No.: 3211 Applicant: Firehouse Architecture Lab PLLC on behalf of property owners Nicholas Klein and Amy Tai Property Location: 304 Utica Street Zoning District: R-2b Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: §325-8, Columns 7, 10, 11, 12, and 13. Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Lot Width, Lot Coverage by Buildings, Front Yard, Side Yard, and Other Side Yard. Publication Dates: February 24, 2022 and February 26, 2022. Meeting Held On: March 1, 2022. Summary: Appeal of Firehouse Architecture Lab, PLLC on behalf of property owners Nicholas Klein and Amy Tai for an area variance from Section 325-8, Column 7, Lot Width, 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 construct a new two-story addition on the rear of the single-family home located at 304 Utica Street. The first floor of the additional will provide a new family room and the second level will include a new bedroom and bathroom. The addition will increase the building footprint by 403 SF, which will increase the lot coverage by buildings to 38.5%. The R-2b district permits a maximum lot coverage of 35%. In addition, the side yard to the south of the house is 8.75’ of the required 10’. The proposed project will create a second encroachment by relocating Bilco doors that will extend into the required side yard by 6.75”. The property has existing deficiencies in lot width, front yard, and other side yard that will not be exacerbated by the proposal. 304 Utica Street is located in a R-2b 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: March 1, 2022 Members present: Michael Cannon Steven Henderson Joseph Kirby CITY OF ITHACA 108 E. Green Street — 3rd Floor Ithaca, NY 14850-5690 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING, ZONING, & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Division of Zoning Megan Wilson, Secretary to the Board of Zoning Appeals Telephone: 607-274-6550 Fax: 607-274-6558 E-Mail: mwilson@cityofithaca.org 2 NOTE: BZA Member J. Kirby disclosed that he lives within 200’ of the appellants’ property but this would not impact his vote on the requested variances. The following interested parties submitted comments in support of the appeal: - Erik Amrine, 306 Utica Street - Joe Schill, 705 N. Cayuga Street - Marilyn & Doug Webb, 703 N. Cayuga Street The following interested parties submitted comments in opposition to the appeal: - Gill & Kris Haines-Sharp, 108 E. Yates Street - Mary Shelley & Barbara Anger, 104/106 E. Yates Street 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 supports home improvement and ownership investments in older homes and neighborhoods. They find the existing and proposed variances to be minor deficiencies and the addition to be an improvement to the property’s appearance and aligned with neighborhood character. The Board finds no long-term negative impacts to planning. Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission Recommendation: Not applicable. Motion: A motion to grant variance #3211 for 304 Utica Street was made by S. Cannon. Deliberations & Findings: The Board noted that the proposed addition is in keeping with nearby properties and the broader neighborhood. Board members acknowledged that multiple concerns had been submitted by nearby property owners and these were discussed at length. The Board determined that the project team engineer’s analysis of stormwater issues addressed the concerns raised by interested parties. It was also noted that the house at 304 Utica Street is smaller than most in the immediate area, and most neighboring homes are also nonconforming with current area regulations. 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 with the proposed addition is consistent with the character of the existing neighborhood. The project is largely allowed by zoning and will not be perceived from the street. The lot coverage deficiency is less than 3% and is comparable to other homes in the immediate area. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the variance: Yes No It is likely possible to achieve the project benefits through a feasible alternative, but the requested variances are small the project is close to compliance with the zoning requirements. The new addition will meet the needs of the property owners without impacting the broader neighborhood. 3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes No 3 The percent lot coverage is 1-2% over what is allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. The Board does not find consider this to be a substantial request but it will provide tremendous benefit to the home owners. The side yard deficiency is less than 7” which the Board finds to be insignificant. 4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood: Yes No While there have been comments from nearby property owners regarding concerns related to stormwater runoff, the appellants have submitted evidence from a qualified engineer that indicates the new addition will not have a significant impact on stormwater, flooding, or other adverse environmental impacts. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes No The property owners are choosing to undertake construction that does not comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. However, the requested variances will have minimal impacts while benefitting the homeowners. The Board finds that this outweighs the fact that the difficult is self-created. Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by J. Kirby Vote: 3-0-0 Michael Cannon YES Steven Henderson YES Joseph Kirby 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, Column 7, Lot Width, Column 10, Lot Coverage by Buildings, Column 11, Front Yard, Column 12, Side Yard, and Column 13, Other Side Yard 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. ___________________________ March 1, 2022 Megan Wilson, Zoning Administrator Date Secretary, Board of Zoning Appeals