HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3243 - 604 E. Buffalo Cornell Media Guild - Decision
CITY OF ITHACA BOARD of ZONING APPEALS
Area Variance Findings & Decision
Appeal No.: 3243
Applicant: Emily Choi on behalf of property owner Cornell Media Guild
Property Location: 604 E. Buffalo St
Zoning District: B-2d
Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: §325-8, Columns 4, 11, and 14/15.
Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Off-Street Parking, Front Yard, and Rear Yard.
Publication Dates: December 1, 2022 and December 6, 2022.
Meeting Held On: December 6, 2022
Summary: Appeal of property owner Cornell Media Guild for area variance from §325-8, Column 4, Off-
Street Parking, Column 11, Front Yard, and Column 14/15, Rear Yard requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance. The property at 604 E. Buffalo Street is currently home to the Cornell Media Guild, an office
use under the City’s Zoning Ordinance. In the past, the property housed professional offices, residential
units, and a student center and received area variances for parking, off-street loading, and yard setbacks in
1995, 1996, and 2012. The most recent variance (BZA 2885) was approved in 2012 for off-street parking
when Cornell Media Guild moved in and occupied the entire building as an office use. This required 7 off-
street parking spaces. One space is provided on site, and the BZA granted a variance for three spaces,
provided that three additional spaces were leased off-site in perpetuity. The applicant now seeks an area
variance for these three previously leased spaces. The applicant notes that the operation of the radio guild
has changed due to the COVID-19 pandemic, as there are no longer any full-time staff and many operations
are conducted remotely.
The property also has existing deficiencies in the required front yard and rear yard that will not be
exacerbated by this proposal. These specific area deficiencies were not included in the prior variances.
The property is located in a B-2d 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: December 6, 2022
Members present:
Donna Fleming
Michael Cannon
Andre Gardiner
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
David Barken, Chair
The following interested parties provided comments in support of the requested variance:
• James L. Goldman, Ph.D., Managing Member, 116 Osmun Place, LLC; 400 Stewart Ave, LLC;
406 Stewart Avenue, LLC; 408 Stewart Avenue, LLC
There were no comment 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 Board supports this variance as they generally support reduction in parking. As there are no physical
changes with the approval of this variance, the Planning Board finds no long-term impacts to planning.
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission Recommendation:
The Commission unanimously supported the area variance request. Relief from providing the required
number of parking spaces eliminates the need to alter the exterior of the property and site and helps to
preserve the aesthetic quality of the East Hill Historic District.
Motion: A motion to grant variance #3243 for 604 E. Buffalo St. was made by J. Kirby.
Deliberations & Findings:
The Board found no feasible alternatives to this proposal, given the price of renting parking spaces and the
lack of need by the media guild. As the media guild’s employees are predominantly part -time and work-
from-home, the parking is no longer a necessity.
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 appellant is proposing to reduce their off-street parking requirement due to the part-time and
remote status of the appellant’s employees. These spaces were not provided on site and were leased
from another property in the area. The applicant has demonstrated that the office use does not have
a demand for the parking, and the Board does not identify any negative impacts of this request.
• Based on the submitted materials, observations of the neighborhood, and testimony at the
December 6th BZA meeting, the Board finds that the requested variance will not produce an
undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the
variance: Yes No
• The parking spaces can not be rented within the required area or provided onsite. Leased parking
beyond the allowed area cannot be rented for less than 10% of the appellant’s budget.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes No
• Proportionally, a total variance of 6 off-street parking spaces is substantial but the location of the
property in conjunction with the remote operations of the media guild have dramatically reduced
the demand for parking and thereby any substantial impacts of this request. The Board finds that
the requested variance is not substantial.
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood: Yes No
• Based on the submitted application materials and testimony of the applicant, the Board finds that
the parking variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental impact.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes No
• The alleged difficulty is self-created in that the applicant is capable of renting parking spots at a
higher rate. However, the requested variance will not have any adverse community impacts, and
the Board finds that the benefits to the applicants outweigh the fact that the difficulty is self-created.
Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by M. Cannon
Vote: 5-0-0
Michael Cannon YES
Andre Gardiner YES
Donna Fleming YES
Joseph Kirby YES
David Barken, 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 applicants outweighs
the detriment to the neighborhood or community. The BZA further finds that the variances from the Zoning
Ordinance, §325-8, Columns 4, 11, and 14/15 are 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.
___________________________ December 6, 2022
Megan Wilson, Zoning Administrator Date
Secretary, Board of Zoning Appeals