HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3212 - 112 Fayette Street - Decision
1
CITY OF ITHACA BOARD of ZONING APPEALS
Area Variance Findings & Decision
Appeal No.: 3212
Applicant: Firehouse Architecture Lab PLLC on behalf of property owner Janna Edelman
Property Location: 112 Fayette Street
Zoning District: R-2b
Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: §325-8, Column 12.
Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Side Yard.
Publication Dates: February 24, 2022 and February 26, 2022.
Meeting Held On: March 1, 2022.
Summary: Appeal of Emily Petrina, Firehouse Architecture LAB, on behalf of property owner Janna
Edelman for area variance from Section 325-8, Column 12, Side Yard, requirement of the Zoning
Ordinance. The applicant proposes to construct a two-story addition with a deck on the rear of the dwelling
located at 112 Fayette Street. The applicant will be removing a one-story attached shed that currently has a
side yard setback of 4’ of the 5’ required by the ordinance. The new two-story addition will align with the
existing house on the north side of the property and will lateral extend an existing side yard deficiency on
the north side of the property.
The proposed project is the second phase of a two-phase project that began in 2019. The property was
granted an area variance for existing deficiencies as well as exacerbated deficiencies resulting from both
phases of the proposed project in April 2019 (BZA Appeal #3122). Phase I involved the replacement and
enlargement of the front porch, and this work was completed. Phase II was delayed due to the COVID-19
pandemic, and the variance for Phase II expired. The property owner would now like to move forward with
Phase II but a new variance must be granted. The 2019 variance remains valid for the Phase I work,
including the property’s existing deficiencies and the exacerbated front yard deficiency.
The property has existing deficiencies in lot width, front yard, and other side yard that will not be
exacerbated by the proposal.
The property is located in an R-2b 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: March 1, 2022
Members present:
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
Michael Cannon
Steven Henderson
Joseph Kirby
The following interested parties submitted comments in support of the appeal:
- Camaron Cohen and C.J. Randall, 309 W. Green Street
- Jyl Dowd, 106 Fayette Street
- Jeff Kay, 110 Fayette 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 does not identify any negative long-term planning impacts and supports this appeal.
The Board finds the proposed changes minor in scope and improve the overall appearance of the property
and the character of the neighborhood. The Board feels that the project allows a family to stay in the
neighborhood in which they are established, and as such, is aligned with the city’s goals of retaining owner-
occupied housing and affordability.
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission Recommendation:
Not applicable.
Motion: A motion to grant variance #3212 for 112 Fayette Street was made by M. Cannon.
Deliberations & Findings:
The Board noted that the requested variance is modest and had been previously approved. This variance
is required due to delays related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Board concurs with the 2019 findings
that the request is reasonable and will enhance the property for both the homeowners and the
neighborhood.
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 new addition will be aligned with the existing house. While this is a slight exacerbation of the
existing side yard deficiency, there is no evidence that the variance will produce an undesirable
change in the character of the neighborhood.
• This side yard deficiency was included in a previously approved variance in April 2, 2019. This
portion of the variance expired because work on the second phase of the project was delayed.
• The lot width, front yard, and other side yard deficiencies will not be exacerbated by the proposal.
• The Board has received multiple comments in support of this appeal from nearby property owners.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the
variance: Yes No
• The applicant could reduce the size of the addition to meet the side yard requirement. However,
the new addition will align with the existing house and this alignment is preferred for both the
functionality of the space and the physical appearance of the house.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes No
3
• The new addition will be located 8.5’ of the required 10’ from the side property line. This is a
deficiency of 1.5’. The side yard deficiency of the addition will be less than the side yard deficiency
of the existing house.
• The new addition is designed to be as compliant as possible with the existing zoning while
maintaining alignment with the existing house. The Board does not find this to be a substantial
request.
• The lot width, front yard, and other side yard deficiencies will not be exacerbated by the proposal.
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood: Yes No
• Based on the submitted materials and testimony of the applicant, there is no evidence of adverse
physical or environmental impacts resulting from the side yard deficiency of the proposed addition.
• The project is a Type II action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the City
Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and is predetermined to have no impact on the
environment.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes No
• The alleged difficulty is self-created in that the property owners are choosing to construct an
addition that does not meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. However, the proposed
addition will allow the home to better meet the needs of the property owners without creating
negative impacts on surrounding properties or the neighborhood as a whole.
Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by S. Henderson
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 12, Side Yard, is 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.
___________________________ March 1, 2022
Megan Wilson, Zoning Administrator Date
Secretary, Board of Zoning Appeals