HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3277 - 122 First Street - Decision
CITY OF ITHACA BOARD of ZONING APPEALS
Area Variance Findings & Decision
Appeal No.: 3277
Applicant: Todd Saddler on behalf of property owner Julee Johnson
Property Location: 122 First Street
Zoning District: R-2b
Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: §325-8, Columns 4
Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Off-Street Parking
Publication Dates: September 5, 2024 and September 10, 2024.
Meeting Held On: September 10, 2024.
Summary: Appeal of Todd Sadler on behalf of property owner Julee Johnson, for an area variance from
§325-8, Column 4, Off-Street Parking, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to
reconfigure an existing 3-unit multiple dwelling to create 4 smaller dwelling units at 122 First Street. The
property was a multiple dwelling prior to zoning amendments that made multiple dwellings an allowed use
in this area, and the entire building has established rights to this nonconforming use. In 2019, Common
Council adopted a policy that allows nonconforming multiple dwellings to be reconfigured, provided that
the overall legal occupancy or building area is not increased. The applicant is proposing to reduce the legal
occupancy of the property from 9 to 8 unrelated occupants. In addition, the applicant will be demolishing
a single-story addition at the rear of the property, which will decrease the overall building area and bring
the building into compliance with the lot coverage requirements of the R-2b zone. These proposed changes
are consistent with the adopted 2019 policy. However, the reconfiguration increases the required off-street
parking for the property from 3 spaces to 4 spaces. The property has established rights to provide no on-
street parking for the existing multiple dwelling. The applicant now seeks an area variance for all four off-
street spaces. This appeal is an area variance from the off-street parking requirements only; this property
will still be considered a legal nonconforming use and will remain subject to the requirements of a legal
nonconforming use.
The property has existing deficiencies in the second front yard, rear yard, and maximum lot coverage by
buildings requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed alterations will eliminate the rear yard and
lot coverage by buildings deficiencies. The Board of Zoning Appeals granted an area variance for the
second front yard deficiency in 1952, which remains in effect.
Public Hearing Held On: September 10, 2024.
There were no comments from interested parties on this appeal.
CITY OF ITHACA
108 E. Green St. — Third Floor Ithaca, NY 14850-5690
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
Lisa Nicholas, AICP, Director
Planning & Development – 607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA – 607-274-6565
E-Mail: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org
Members present:
Michael Cannon
Donna Fleming
Joseph Kirby
Andre Gardiner
David Barken, Chair
Tompkins County Review per Section 239 -l & -m of New York State General Municipal Law:
Not applicable.
Environmental Review: This is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”), and State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), and is subject
to Environmental Review. The City of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals, on September 10, 2024 declares
itself Lead Agency for the environmental review for the approval of zoning appeal 3277, an area variance
for the property located at 122 First Street in the City of Ithaca. The City of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals,
acting as Lead Agency, on September 10, 2024, reviewed the Short Environmental Assessment Form
(SEAF) and determined the requested variance will result in no significant impact on the environment.
Planning & Development Board Recommendation: The Planning Board supports this variance. They
find no negative long-term impacts to planning and support owners investing in the property.
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission Recommendation: Not applicable.
Motion: A motion to grant area variance #3277 for 122 First Street was made by D. Fleming.
Deliberations & Findings:
The proposed renovation will decrease the number of legal occupants. The property has not provided
parking for more than 60 years, and the Board finds that a decrease in occupancy will not increase parking
demand. Board members noted that the property has established rights regarding off-street parking, and
while the requested variance is for the full amount of required off-street parking, the additional requirement
of the renovation is one space. The Board concluded that the benefits sought by the appellant outweighed
the impacts of any feasible alternative and any potential impact to 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 requested area variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the
neighborhood as the project is consistent with existing conditions. While the number of dwelling
units will increase, the overall occupancy of the building will decrease. There is no evidence that
an increase in unit count alone will increase the parking demand over existing conditions. The
applicant has sufficiently demonstrated that there will be little -to-no impacts on neighborhood
parking.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the
variance: Yes No
• The applicant has not demonstrated that there is no feasible alternative to the variances. It was noted
that the property owner could maintain the number of units in the building or build parking spaces
on the site. However, the construction of parking on site may trigger the need for other area
variances and would reduce the amount of green space.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes No
• While proportionally substantial, the Board finds that the variance has not substantial impacts due
to the property’s history of established rights and the overall neighborhood context.
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood: Yes No
• Based on submitted documentation, testimony from the applicants, and comments for neighboring
property owners, the Board does not identify any adverse physical or environmental impacts
resulting from this appeal.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes No
• The alleged difficulty is self-created in that the appellants are choosing to undertake new
construction that does not comply with the zoning requirements of the R-2b district. However, the
benefit to the appellants and the lack of negative community impacts outweighs the fact that the
difficulties are self-created.
Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by J. Kirby.
Vote: 5-0-0
Michael Cannon YES
Donna Fleming YES
Joseph Kirby YES
Andre Gardiner 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 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.
___________________________ September 10, 2024
Megan Wilson, Zoning Administrator Date
Secretary, Board of Zoning Appeals