Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20220195 132 Fifth Area Variance Narrative MEGLIO RESIDENCE VARIANCE NARRATIVE 132 FIFTH AVENUE Steven and Jennifer Meglio (the applicants) purchased the property at 132 Fifth Avenue in September 2021 intending to renovate the existing home and add a second story. The owners have three daughters, and the house will be constructed to accommodate their immediate family, together with a first floor bedroom for a parent who will age in place at this home. The property is zoned UR-1 and the lot dimensions are 110 feet of frontage by 100 feet in depth. This is a substandard total lot size of 11,000 sf in a district that requires a minimum lot size of 12,500 sf. Despite this restriction, few lots conform on this southerly side of Fifth Avenue. The existing structure on the property predates zoning, having been constructed in 1963. An addition of a pool was added in 1968 in the section of the home nearest the Oklahoma training track. In advance of purchase, the applicant sought the advice of a professional to determine if they were able to construct a new home on the property. The advice given was that they would be able to construct a two- story home, but that they needed to keep the existing foundation in order to have preexisting, nonconforming status. Following that advice, the property was purchased. Subsequent to the purchase, the applicant engaged Witt Construction to design their home. Following the completion of the design, John Witt met with the city officials pertaining to the fully designed home. It was only at that time that the applicants learned that the second story would require a variance and that the indoor pool had been enclosed without a certificate of occupancy being issued. On the requested variance chart below, you will see that the proposed home is more in conformance with each regulation than the existing home. The existing home has large overhangs which will not be repeated on the new structure. This accounts for the overall reduction in maximum building coverage, as well as the setbacks. In addition, the owners will be removing the shed and patio, creating more pervious surface on the lot. RESTRICTION REQUIRED EXISTING REQUESTED TOTAL RELIEF HOUSE Front setback 30 ft 9.3 ft 11.6 ft 18.4 ft 61% Rear setback 30 ft 7.7 ft 7.7 ft 22.3 ft 74% One side setback 12 ft 2.4 ft 4.1 ft 7.9 ft (66%) west Total Side 30 ft 8.3 ft 12 ft 18 ft 60% Maximum building 20% 50% 49% 29% (145% covera e 1. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by other feasible means. Identify what alternatives to the variance have been explored (alternative designs, attempts to purchase land, etc.) and why they are not feasible. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by other feasible means. The lots on Fifth Avenue all face the same challenges"because the shallow lot restricts the size and style of any house that would be constructed and that would be compatible with the houses on either side." 174 Fifth Ave Variance decision, May 2, 2005. The applicant purchased the property, following due diligence, in order to use the existing foundation and first floor, but seeking to add on a second story. Applicant expended $30,000 in design costs for the home. The proposed home has sufficient space for their needs as designed, but the existing one-story ranch would not have enough bedrooms to accommodate their immediate family or the parent who will be living with them. In order to comply with the zoning requirements, the second floor would have to be oddly shaped to comply with setbacks and the walls on the first and second floors would not line up. This would create an awkward, unsightly structure.Alternatively, the owners would need to demolish the entire structure, for which they paid top dollar, and start from scratch. 2. Whether granting the variance will produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. Granting the variance will not create a detriment to nearby properties or an undesirable change in the neighborhood character for the following reasons: The variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood and will, in fact, create a benefit to nearby properties. In the last decade or more, there has been a continuous process of renovations of properties on Fifth Avenue specifically, and the city in general. The older, dated properties are being purchased and improved with new structures that meet the needs of a different generation. As noted in the 2005 variance for 174 Fifth Avenue, "several of the homes along the south side of Fifth Avenue are substantial in size and cover a large portion of the lots. The lot line adjustment would result in equal frontage for both lots." 174 Fifth Ave Variance decision, May 2, 2005. In the 2018 Flaherty Residence variance case, the applicants provided proof of the nonconformance of the lots on Fifth Avenue. In that application, the owners of 100 Fifth Avenue demonstrated that only 1 of 25 lots on the south side of the street where the subject property is located met the dimensional requirements of the UR-1 district. These lots are all characterized by small lots with 1940s-50s style ranch houses, or new more modern homes with second stories and more significant footprints. The decision on this matter states as follows: "The Board notes that the front and rear setbacks align with neighboring properties and are consistent with the neighborhood character and existing pattern of development." 100 Fifth Ave Variance decision, March 6, 2018. Within this segment of Fifth Avenue itself, 13 properties have undergone this type of renovation or are new builds. In many instances, the existing ranch homes have been improved with the addition of second stories in order to provide the necessary space needed for the families occupying the residences. This area is very desirable and the improvements to the homes help elevate the values of nearby properties, the aesthetics in the neighborhood and the tax base within the city. Immediately adjacent to the subject property are other homes which have been improved and which demonstrate a revitalization of the 1940- 50s structures which used to be more prevalent in the area. If you view the arial images of Fifth Avenue, you will notice that all homes along Fifth Avenue in the stretch between Henning and East Avenue are lined up almost identically and in the same proximity to Fifth Avenue. While this district is characterized by 30 foot setbacks in the front, the property lines on this side of Fifth Avenue are approximately 23 feet from the actual street. This results in a visual, if not actual, setback from the roadway consistent with the UR-1 requirements, though most of the properties are non-compliant when the 30 foot setback requirement is measured from the property line. The homes along this side of Fifth Avenue predominantly have two stories for all structures which have been constructed or renovated within the last few decades. The proposed construction is entirely consistent with the other homes located on the street and in the district. The rear yard setback will not impact the rear yard owner, NYRA. 3. Whether the variance is substantial. The requested variance is not substantial for the following reasons: The variances are not substantial. In most municipalities throughout NYS, the foundation is used as the basis for the footprint of the structures, with the number of stories not being relevant to the analysis. In this instance, the existing one story ranch is less in conformance with the city regulations than the proposed one. In each instance of variance relief, we are seeking the same or less than currently exists. So while the percentages seem high when looking at the total relief, in actuality, the new construction will bring the property more into conformance with the regulations. In this side of the street on Fifth Avenue, all of the lots are 100 feet deep. With a 30 foot setback and 30 foot rear yard, the space for the homes to sit on the lot are restricted to 40 feet right in the center of the lot. However, if you look at the aerial image of the street and the placement of the homes on the lots, you will see that many of the homes, while holding a similar lineup in the front with large front yards on Fifth, have very little room in their back yards and most have structures that run close to the property line. 4. Whether the variance will have adverse physical or environmental effects on neighborhood or district. The requested variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district for the following reasons: The variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district. The footprint of a property dictates the impacts from stormwater, which are often the most significant environmental impacts from a single-family residence. The permeability of the lot is not impacted. The existing footprint of the property will in fact be smaller than that which has existed since 1968. Adding a second story will not modify the amount of stormwater which is handled on the site. The site has sufficient greenspace to enable stormwater to drain and not flow to adjacent properties. The project is taking a dated structure and renovating it to complement the other improved properties within the district and adjacent areas. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created (although this does not necessarily preclude the granting of an area variance). Explain whether the alleged difficulty was or was not self-created: The difficulty was not self-created. The applicants used reasonable diligence in order to determine if the site was appropriate for their intended use. The advice they were given was that the existing foundation could be utilized for their proposed two-story home. The applicants were unaware that the city had restrictions on the second floor of the property. In addition, the property has existed as configured for more than 5 decades. There would be no reason to know or expect that the enclosure which housed the indoor pool would not have obtained a certificate of occupancy. This issue is somewhat moot because the new structure will be subject to a new building permit for the entire structure, which must be given a certificate of occupancy before it can be inhabited. Therefore, any safety concerns which may have been at issue with the lack of permit and certificate of occupancy will be resolved with the new build before the home has occupants.