HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3265 - 233 S Albany Street - Decision
CITY OF ITHACA BOARD of ZONING APPEALS
Area Variance Findings & Decision
Appeal No.: 3265
Applicant: Eric Rosario
Property Owner: Rosa Indica, LLC
Property Location: 233 S. Albany Street
Zoning District: R-3aa
Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: §325-8, Columns 10, 11, and 14/15; §325-25.
Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Lot Coverage by Buildings, Front Yard, and Rear Yard;
Location of Accessory Structure.
Publication Dates: December 7, 2023 and December 12, 2023.
Meeting Held On: December 12, 2023
Summary: Appeal of Eric Rosario of Rosa Indica, LLC for an area variance from Section 325-8, Column
10, Lot Coverage, Column 11, Front Yard, and Column 14/15, Rear Yard, as well as Section 325 -25,
Location of Accessory Structure, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicants own both 233 S.
Albany Street and 228 S. Geneva Street and are proposing a lot line adjustment between the two properties;
no physical changes to either property are proposed.
The proposed lot line adjustment would expand the rear yard of 228 S. Geneva Street through to S. Albany
Street and would reduce the side yard of 233 S. Albany Street by 33.3’. The proposed lot configuration
reflects the historic property boundaries of the two parcels. However, the reduction in the lot area of 233
S. Albany Street will result in a deficiency in lot coverage by buildings, increasing lot coverage to 36.9%
of the reduced lot. In addition, the existing carriage house would be located on the shared property line,
resulting in a 0’ side yard setback where 3’ is required for an accessory structure.
233 S. Albany Street is a corner lot with two front yards. The property has existing deficiencies in the
primary front yard and rear yard that will not be exacerbated by the proposal.
The property is also a legal nonconforming use as it houses professional offices in a zone where offices are
not permitted. The property has established rights to professional office use. The proposed lot line
adjustment will not result in the expansion or extension of the nonconforming use of the property. This
zoning appeal is for area variances only; any future extension or enlargement of the office use will require
a use variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Public Hearing Held On: December 12, 2023
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
Members present:
Michael Cannon
Andre Gardiner
Joseph Kirby
David Barken, Chair
There were no comments in support of or in opposition to the appeal.
Tompkins County Review per Section 239 -l & -m of New York State General Municipal Law:
Not applicable.
Environmental Review: This is a Type II Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance (“CEQRO”), and State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), and is not subject to
Environmental Review.
Planning & Development Board Recommendation: The Planning Board finds no long-term negative
impacts to planning. The Board also notes this lot line adjustment reflects the historical parcels and the
change fits in with neighborhood context as the parcels on the block have front and rear yards that ex tend
from South Albany Street to South Geneva Street.
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission Recommendation: Not Applicable
Motion: A motion to grant variance #3265 for 233 S. Albany Street was made by J. Kirby.
Deliberations & Findings:
The Board had no objections to this appeal as there are no physical changes proposed to either property
through the lot line adjustment. The lot line adjustment will return the properties to their historic
configurations. Any future change to either property that is not compliant with zoning will be subject to
further review.
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 applicants are proposing a lot line adjustment that will result in no physical change to the
property. Any future changes that exacerbate the area deficiencies will require a separate area
variance.
• The front yard and rear yard deficiencies are existing and will not be exacerbated by the proposal.
• Based on the submitted materials and observations of the area, the Board finds that the requested
variance will not result in an undesirable change on the character of the neighborhood or be a
detriment to nearby properties.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the
variance: Yes No
• The applicant could maintain the current lot configurations and eliminate the need for the Lot
Coverage and Location of Accessory Structure variances. However, no physical changes are
proposed and the proposed lot line adjustment will return the properties to their historic
configuration.
• The front yard and rear yard deficiencies are existing and will not be exacerbated by the proposal.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes No
• The proposed lot line adjustment will move the north property boundary to align with the existing
accessory structure. It will also reduce the overall lot area of the property.
• The existing accessory structure will be located on both the side and rear property lines, where a 3’
setback is required. This will create a 100% deficiency in the required side yard setback. While
this is proportionally a substantial request, there will be no physical change to the property or
impacts on the surrounding neighborhood.
• The reduction in the property’s lot area will increase the lot coverage by buildings to 36.9%, where
a maximum of 35% is permitted. The Board does not consider this variance to be a substantial
request.
• The property has existing deficiencies in the required front yard and rear yard that 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
• The Board of Zoning Appeals does not identify additional adverse impacts on the physical or
environmental conditions of the neighborhood resulting from the requested variances.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes No
• The alleged difficulty is self-created in that the applicant is proposing a lot line adjustment that
creates deficiencies at 233 S. Albany Street. However, the Board finds that the granting of the
requested area variances will achieve the goals of the property owner with no impacts on the
neighborhood. This outweighs the fact that the deficiencies are self-created.
Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by M. Cannon.
Vote: 4-0-0
Michael Cannon YES
Andre Gardiner 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 10, 11, and 14/15 and §325-25 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.
___________________________ December 12, 2023
Megan Wilson, Zoning Administrator Date
Secretary, Board of Zoning Appeals