HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3242 - 108-110 College Ave -Decision-1
1
CITY OF ITHACA BOARD of ZONING APPEALS
Area Variance Findings & Decision
Appeal No.: 3242
Applicant: Jason K. Demarest on behalf of the property owner.
Property Location: 108-110 College Ave
Zoning District: CR-4
Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: §325-45.2F.
Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Lot Coverage by Buildings and Rear Yard.
Publication Dates: December 26, 2022 and December 30, 2022.
Meeting Held On: January 3, 2022.
Summary: Appeal of Jason K. Demarest Architecture on behalf of property owner 110 C-Town LLC for
an area variance from Section 325-45.2F, Collegetown Residential 4 (CR-4) District Standards for Lot
Coverage by Buildings and Rear Yard. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing structures at 108
College Avenue and 110 College Avenue and consolidate the properties into a single lot. The applicant
proposes to construct a four-story, 34-unit apartment building that meets all requirements for a rowhouse
under the City’s Zoning Ordinance. The new building will meet the minimum greenspace requirement of
the CR-4 district but will occupy 57.5% of the lot, which exceeds the maximum 50% lot coverage by
buildings. Additionally, the new building will provide a 9.7’ rear yard instead of the 16’ required rear yard.
The applicant seeks area variances for both of these requirements.
108 & 110 College Avenue are located in a CR-4 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: January 3, 2022.
Members present:
Michael Cannon
Andre Gardiner
Donna Fleming
David Barken, Chair
There were no comments in support of or in opposition to the requested variances.
Tompkins County Review per Section 239 -l & -m of New York State General Municipal Law:
Not applicable.
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
2
Environmental Review: This variance is a component of an action that also includes site plan review.
Considered together, this is a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act for which the Planning and Development
Board, acting as Lead Agency, made a Negative Determination of Environmental Significance on
December 20, 2022.
Planning & Development Board Recommendation: The Lead Agency supports this variance and does
not see any negative impact to the general character of the neighborhood planning-wise with the proposed
density. Collegetown is the place for student housing and this building answers this need in a compelling
design.
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission Recommendation: Not applicable.
Deliberations & Findings:
That Board noted that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the request meets the criteria for an area
variance, specifically that there are no feasible alternatives and that the need for the variance is not self -
created. Board members noted that it appears that a project could feasibly fit within the requirements of
the CR-4 zone and stated that the hardship claimed by the appellant was self-created, as the applicant knew
of the zoning requirements prior to purchasing the property and undertaking new construction. The
applicant has not demonstrated that there are unique characteristics of this site that justify the need for a
zoning variance.
LOT COVERAGE
Motion: Motion to deny the appeal #3242 for the proposed lot coverage deficiency for 108 &110 College
Avenue was made by D. Barken and seconded by M. Cannon.
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 appellants are proposing a new building that will occupy 57.5% of the lot, which exceeds the maximum
50% lot coverage by buildings, and may impact neighboring lots. The overall massing of the structure yard
will have a negative impact on adjacent properties.
Based on the submitted materials, observations of the neighborhood, and testimony at the January 3rd BZA
meeting, the Board finds that the requested variance will 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 Board believes that it is feasible to design a building that fits within the requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance. The appellant did not demonstrate that there is no feasible alternative to the building size and
did not adequately represent why the building must exceed the lot coverage requirement by 7.5%. Based
on the submitted materials, observations of the neighborhood, and testimony at the January 3rd BZA
meeting, the Board finds that there is likely a feasible alternative to the requested variance.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes No
The requested lot coverage variance is for additional 7% of lot coverage to allow 57% lot coverage in the
CR-4 district where lot coverage is limited to 50%. Based on the submitted materials, observations of the
neighborhood, and testimony at the January 3rd BZA meeting, the Board finds that the requested variance
is substantial.
3
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood: Yes No
Through the environmental review process, the Planning & Development Board determined that the
proposed project will have little to no impacts on the environment and issued a negative declaration of
environmental significance in December 2022. Ultimately, other factors contributed to this decision.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes No
The alleged difficulty is self-created in that the applicants are proposing new construction that does not
meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has not demonstrated that there are any
unique characteristics of this site or this proposal that justify the need for area variances.
Vote: 4-0-0
Michael Cannon YES
Donna Fleming YES
Andre Gardiner YES
David Barken, Chair YES
REAR YARD
Motion: Motion to deny the appeal #3242 for the proposed rear yard deficiency for 108 & 110 College
Avenue was made by D. Barken and seconded by M. Cannon.
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 new building will provide a 9.7’ rear yard instead of the 16’ required rear yard. The reduced distance
rear yard will negatively impact the adjacent property. Based on the submitted materials, observations of
the neighborhood, and testimony at the January 3rd BZA meeting, the Board finds that the requested
variance will 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 Board believes that it is feasible to design a building that fits within the requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance. The appellant did not demonstrate that there is no feasible alternative to reducing the rear yard
and did not adequately justify why the building must extend into the rear yard setback. Based on the
submitted materials, observations of the neighborhood, and testimony at the January 3rd BZA meeting, the
Board finds that there is likely a feasible alternative to the requested variances.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes No
The requested rear yard variance is for a 9.7’ setback in the CR-4 district where rear yard is required to be
16’ in length. The requested variance would allow the building to be built so the rear yard is deficient by
39% in length. Based on the submitted materials, observations of the neighborhood, and testimony at the
January 3rd BZA meeting, the Board finds that the requested variance is substantial.
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood: Yes No
Through the environmental review process, the Planning & Development Board determined that the
proposed project will have little to no impacts on the environment and issued a negative declaration of
environmental significance in December 2022. Ultimately, other factors contributed to this decision.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes No
4
The alleged difficulty is self-created in that the applicants are proposing new construction that does not
meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has not demonstrated that there are any
unique characteristics of this site or this proposal that justify the need for area variances.
Vote: 4-0-0
Michael Cannon YES
Donna Fleming 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 applicant does not
outweigh the detriment to the neighborhood or community. The BZA further finds that the variances from
the Zoning Ordinance, §325-45.2F, Lot Coverage by Building and Rear Yard, should not be granted in
order to preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety, and welfare of the
community.
___________________________ February 7, 2023
Megan Wilson, Deputy Director of Planning & Development Date
Secretary, Board of Zoning Appeals