HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA #3253 - 605 S Albany Street - Decision
CITY OF ITHACA BOARD of ZONING APPEALS
Area Variance Findings & Decision
Appeal No.: 3253
Applicant: Trade Design Build, on behalf of Rachel and Vanya Rohwer
Property Location: 605 S Albany Street
Zoning District: R-2b
Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: §325-8, Columns 10, 11, 13, 14/15 and §325-10 C(1)(b)[7][b]
Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Lot Area, Lot Coverage by Buildings, Front Yard, Other
Side Yard, Rear Yard and Location Requirements for Accessory Apartments
Publication Dates: July 6, 2023 and July 11, 2023.
Meeting Held On: July 11, 2023.
Summary: Appeal of Trade Design Build, on behalf of property owners Rachel and Vanya Rohwer for an
area variance from §325-8, Column 10, Lot Coverage by Buildings; Column 11, Front Yard; Column 13,
Other Side Yard; Column 14/15, Rear Yard; and §325-10 C(1)(b)[7][b], Location Requirements for
Accessory Apartments, of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to demolish an existing garage
and reconstruct a new building that will provide storage space and an accessory dwelling unit. The new
building will be similar in size and location to the previous accessory structure but will exacerbate orcreate
the following deficiencies:
• The maximum lot coverage by buildings permitted in the R-2b district is 35% . The property has
an existing deficiency of 36.8%, and the proposal will increase lot coverage by buildings to 37.6%.
• The proposed building will be located 1.1’ from the rear property line. Accessory apartments are
required to be located a minimum of 5’ from the rear property line.
The property has existing deficiencies in the required front, side, and rear yards that will not be exacerbated
by this proposal.
Public Hearing Held On: July 11, 2023.
Members present:
Michael Cannon
Joseph Kirby
Andre Gardiner
David Barken, Chair
There were no comments from interested parties in support of or in opposition to the appeal.
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
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 hereby declares itself Lead
Agency for the environmental review for the approval of zoning appeal 3253, a area variance
modification for the property located at 605 South Albany Street in the City of Ithaca. The Board has
reviewed the Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF), dated June 21, 2023, and determines that
the requested variance will result in no significant impact on the environment.
Planning & Development Board Recommendation: The Planning Board fully supports this variance as
the development will have minimal physical impacts to neighboring properties and adds density in a
manner that is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission Recommendation:
Not applicable
Motion: A motion to grant variance #3253 with conditions for 605 S Albany. was made by D. Barken.
Deliberations & Findings:
The Board found that the appellant has adequately demonstrated that the benefit sought in the proposal has
no feasible alternative. The Board agreed that the proposal meets the development goals for the city, and
that while some of the requested variances are proportionally substantial, the benefit to the appellant
outweighs the potential impacts 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 Board finds that the proposal fits within the character of the neighborhood as the property has
historically had an accessory structure and the design and massing of the project is sensitive to the character
of the neighborhood.
The proposal meets the City’s development goals for the area, as outlined in the comprehensive plan. The
slightly increased building footprint would not impact nearby properties. The proposed residential unit will
result in a 1-2 person increase in occupancy of the property and will not have a negative impact on nearby
properties.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the
variance: Yes No
The Board finds that there is no feasible alternative that will provide the benefit sought by the appellant.
The appellant has demonstrated that the constraints of the lot make the proposal the only viable option for
creating an accessory structure on this property.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes No
The Board finds the requests for variances from the lot coverage by buildings and location requirements
for accessory apartments are not substantial and the appellant has minimized the deficiencies to the
greatest extent possible.
While the front, side, and rear yard variances are proportionally substantial, they are existing deficiencies
that will not be exacerbated by this proposal.
Furthermore, the proposed residential unit will result in a 1-2 person increase in occupancy of the
property, which the Board finds to be unsubstantial. The Board finds that these circumstances alleviate
the impacts of the proposed variances.
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, testimony of the applicant, and observations of existing
conditions, the Board does not find any evidence of adverse physical or environmental conditions.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes No
The alleged difficulty is self-created as the applicant is proposing new construction that does not meet the
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
CONDITIONS: The applicant shall obtain a special permit for an accessory apartment from the Planning
and Development Board and record any required deed restrictions prior to the issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy for the new accessory apartment.
Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by J. Kirby
Vote: 4-0-0
Andre Gardiner YES
Michael Cannon 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, 13, 14/15 and §325-10 C(1)(b)[7][b] 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.
___________________________ July 12, 2023
Megan Wilson, Zoning Administrator Date
Secretary, Board of Zoning Appeals