Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3250 - 220 Grandview Ave. - Decision CITY OF ITHACA BOARD of ZONING APPEALS Area Variance Findings & Decision Appeal No.: 3250 Applicant: Arne Larsen, DDS Companies Property Location: 220 Grandview Avenue Zoning District: R-2a Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: §325-8, Columns 6 and 11 Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Lot Area and Front Yard Publication Dates: March 30, 2023 and April 4, 2023. Meeting Held On: April 4, 2023. Summary: Appeal of Arne Larsen, DDS Companies on behalf of property owner South Hill Church of Nazarene for an area variance from §325-8, Colum 6, Lot Area, and Column 11, Front Yard requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to construct a new single-story public utility building, with a footprint of 160 SF at 220 Grandview Avenue. The minimum lot area requirement of the R-2a district is based on the use provided on site. A minimum lot area of 6,000 SF is required for a public utility, and the property is 4,791.6 SF, resulting in a deficiency of 1,208.4 SF of lot area. The minimum front yard requirement of the R-2a district is 25ft. The property has two front yards, one along Grandview Ave. and the other along Hudson St. The applicant is proposing front yards of 11ft along Grandview Ave. and 12.6ft along Hudson St., resulting in deficiencies of 14ft and 12.4ft respectively. 220 Grandview Avenue is located in the R-2a zoning district in which the proposed use is permitted. However, Section 325-38 requires that area variances be granted before a building permit is issued. Public Hearing Held On: April 4, 2023. Members present: Andre Gardiner Donna Fleming Joseph Kirby David Barken, Chair There were no comments in support of the requested variance. The following interested parties submitted comments in opposition to the request: • Martha Preston, 636 Hudson St. Ithaca 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: The Tompkins County Department of Planning & Sustainability did not identify any county-wide or intermunicipal planning impacts from the requested variance and did not have any recommendations on the application. Environmental Review: This variance is a component of an action that also includes site plan review. Considered together, this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act for which the Pl anning and Development Board, acting as Lead Agency, made a Negative Determination of Environmental Significance on January 24, 2023. Planning & Development Board Recommendation: The Planning Board anticipates no long-term planning impacts from the approval of these variances. Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission Recommendation: Not applicable Motion: A motion to grant variance #3250 for 220 Grandview Ave. with conditions was made by D. Barken. Deliberations & Findings: The Board found no feasible alternatives to this proposal, given the uniqueness of the property and that no other suitable sites would allow a utility easement. Members acknowledged that they understand the neighborhood’s frustration with this proposal and that a better design would be less impactful 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 proposed project is located on a small corner lot in a residential zone. The lot does not meet the minimum lot size requirements for construction in the R-2a zone. • The proposed use is a public utility which is a use allowed by special permit in this zone. • The property is a very unique lot and the proposed use is needed and has fairly specific location requirements. • The siting and landscaping proposed by the applicant help mitigate the aesthetic impacts on the character of the neighborhood. • Alternatives to the applicant’s proposal could have greater impacts on aesthetics. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the variance: Yes No • Given, the size, shape and location of the property, it is not feasible to develop the lot without area variances. • A utility easement was unattainable on other suitable locations. 3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes No • A minimum lot area of 6,000 SF is required for a public utility in the R-2a zone, and the property is 4,791.6 SF, resulting in a deficiency of 1,208.4 SF of lot area. • The applicant is also proposing Front Yards of 11 feet and 12.6 feet, and the R-2a requires 25’ front yards. These are deficiencies of 14ft and 12.4ft respectively. • While these are proportionally substantial requests, the deficient lot area and setbacks are due to the usual shape and small size of the site. Any development of this lot would likely require similar or greater variances. 4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood: Yes No The City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, acting as lead agency, has conducted appropriate environmental review and determined that the project with the requested variances will have little to no impacts on the environment and issued a negative declaration of environmental significance. The Board does not identify additional adverse impacts on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood resulting from the deficient lot area or setbacks. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes No The applicant has attempted to secure other suitable locations for the regulator station and has demonstrated that there is no feasible alternative to proposal, given the need to locate the regulator within a specific area. CONDITIONS: 1. The applicant must obtain a special permit for the public utility use from the Planning and Development Board. 2. The applicant must obtain the Planning and Development Board’s approval for the building design, materials, and landscaping to ensure that the proposed construction has the least impact on the surrounding neighborhood. 3. The applicant shall submit a copy of the easement agreement with the property owner. Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by J. Kirby Vote: 4-0-0 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 6 and 11 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. ___________________________ April 4, 2023 Megan Wilson, Zoning Administrator Date Secretary, Board of Zoning Appeals