HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BZA-2023-01-03City of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals
Minutes –January 3, 2023
Board Members Present: David Barken, Chair
Michael Cannon
Donna Fleming
Andre Gardiner
Joseph Kirby
Staff Present: Megan Wilson, Deputy Director of Planning
Samuel Quinn-Jacobs, Assistant Planner
Victor Kessler, Assistant City Attorney
Lisa Nicholas, Director of Planning and Development
Applicants: Centerline Communications LLC, (BZA #3245)
Jason K. Demarest Architecture (BZA # 3242)
Sandra Greene, Property Owner (BZA #3244)
Green Street Redevelopment Partners, LLC, Property Owner
(BZA #3226)
Chair D. Barken called the meeting to order at 5:35 pm and read the opening statement.
I. TELECOMMUNICATIONS APPEALS
APPEAL #3245 Right of Way Locations near 507 N. Albany Street;
309 Franklin Street; 312 Thurston Avenue; 120 Utica Street;
202 King Street; 635 W State Street; 333 W State Street
Appeal of Centerline Communications LLC for an area variance from Section 325-29.8B(1)(h),
Siting Standards for Personal Wireless Service Facilities, and Section 325-29.8C(1), Design
Standards for Personal Wireless Service Facilities, of the City of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. The
applicant proposes to install seven new small wireless facilities on utility poles within the City’s
right-of-way at locations nearest to the properties noted above. The City’s Telecommunications
Ordinance, Article VA of the Zoning Ordinance, requires that all Personal Wireless Service
Facilities be located (1) at least 1,500 feet from all other PWSF (§325-29.8B(1)(h)) and (2) at
least 250 feet from all residences, schools, and daycare facilities. The applicant is seeking a
variance from these setback requirements for the proposed locations.
The applicant presented this appeal at the December 6, 2022 BZA meeting and requested the
continuation of the appeal at the January 3, 2023 meeting to allow time to submit additional
information requested by the City’s Telecommunications Ordinance. The public hearing was
opened at the December BZA meeting and remains open for testimony for new interested parties
Board of Zoning Appeals
January 3, 2023-Meeting Minutes
2
at the January 3rd meeting. The new submission is attached, and the original submission remains
available for review at https://www.cityofithaca.org/DocumentCenter/Index/1518
Centerline Communications, on behalf of AT&T presented as the appellant. The presentation gave
an overview of the installation of seven small-cell telecommunication boxes at various locations
throughout the City.
Board members discussed questions with the appellant regarding the dropped calls and drive data,
coordination of installing the boxes on NYSEG poles, and what efforts were made by the appellant
to minimalize the aesthetic impact on the neighborhood. The Board also asked questions regarding
feasible alternatives and implementation.
The appellant responded by stating the aesthetic impact from a few large poles would be worse
than that of several boxes added onto existing utility poles.
Public Hearing
Chair D. Barken opened the public hearing.
The following interested parties spoke or submitted comments in support of the requested
variances:
• 120 Utica Street
o John “Nate” Foster, 209 Utica Street
The following interested parties spoke or submitted comments in opposition to the requested
variances:
• Phoebe Brown, Alderperson, 2nd Ward
• 507 N. Albany Street
o Jerone Gagliano, 105 First Street
o Molly Kornblum, 105 First Street
o Deb Justice, 106 Second Street
• 309 Franklin Street
o Janice Kovar, 601 Willow Avenue
o Mary Russo, 603 Willow Avenue
o Marty Blodgett, 414 Adams Street
• 202 King Street
o Deborah Cohen, 108 King Street
o Charles (Andy) Rollman and Andrew Hertzberg, 830 N. Aurora Street
o Vanessa Wood, Fall Creek Elementary School
o Natalie Lester, 832 N. Aurora Street
o Nicole Housson, 510 Linn Street
• 333 W. State Street
o Elizabeth Salon, 108 S. Albany Street
• 312 Thurston Avenue
o Erin Cuddihy, 123 Roberts Place
• 120 Utica Street
o Marilyn Webb, 703 N. Cayuga Street
Board of Zoning Appeals
January 3, 2023-Meeting Minutes
3
o Jerone Gagliano, 105 First Street
o Molly Kornblum, 105 First Street
o Margot Lystra, 518 N. Tioga Street
o Heather Stone, 511 N. Tioga Street
o Jill Freidmutter and Katherine Herrera, 116 Utica Street
o John Steiniger, 110 E. Marshall Street
Staff read the Planning and Development Board’s recommendation on the appeal: The Board has
reviewed this variance and has no comments.
There being no further comments from interested parties, Chair D. Barken closed the public
hearing.
Deliberation & Decision
The Board acknowledges the frustration expressed by many interested parties but notes many of
the issues of community concern lie outside of the Board’s purview and beyond what the Board
can legally consider in its evaluation of the variance requests.
The goal of the City of Ithaca Telecommunications Ordinance is to minimize the adverse impacts
caused by the placement of wireless facilities. The Board finds that the proposed PWSF do not
add significant visual clutter and blend in relatively well with the existing street conditions.
There is no evidence that the small cell facilities will reduce property values. The applicant has
demonstrated that the current proposal is the best option to meet service needs. While there are
alternatives, there are no alternatives that would not require variances from the same
requirements and those would likely have more impacts on the neighborhoods in which they
would be located. The Board finds that the requested variances will result in no undesirable
change on the character of the neighborhoods. The benefit sought by the appellant outweighs
any detriment community, based on the criteria for the area variance that the Board must
consider.
Board members also acknowledged that the City has a broader problem with the aesthetics of
utilities but this is a larger issue that this lies beyond the purview of the BZA and this appeal.
The City is moving toward burying utilities but there is a lot of work to do. The renderings of
the proposed PWSF show installations that are less impactful than many existing installations.
On a motion by M. Cannon, seconded by A. Gardiner, the BZA voted 5-0-0 to approve Appeal
#3245 for the Right of Way Locations Near 507 N. Albany Street.
On a motion by M. Cannon, seconded by A. Gardiner, the BZA voted 5-0-0 to approve Appeal
#3245 for the Right of Way Locations Near 307 Franklin Street; 312 Thurston Avenue; 120
Utica Street; 202 King Street; 635 W. State Street; and 333 W State Street.
II. NEW APPEALS
APPEAL #3242 108 & 110 College Avenue
Board of Zoning Appeals
January 3, 2023-Meeting Minutes
4
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.
Jason Demarest presented on behalf of the appellant, stating that the lot coverage variance is
requested due financial hardship associated with renting a smaller building that conforms with
zoning. J. Demarest also suggested that the topography of the site was a factor in the variance
request.
Board members discussed with the appellant the sunken patios and their impact on the request for
the rear yard variance.
Public Hearing
Chair D. Barken opened the public hearing.
No comments were submitted.
Staff read the Planning and Development Board’s recommendation on the appeal:
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.
There being no further comments from interested parties, Chair D. Barken closed the public
hearing.
Deliberation & Decision
The 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.
Board of Zoning Appeals
January 3, 2023-Meeting Minutes
5
On a motion by D. Barken, seconded by M. Cannon, the BZA voted 5-0-0 to deny Appeal #3242
for the proposed lot coverage deficiency for 108 &110 College Avenue.
On a motion by D. Barken, seconded by M. Cannon, the BZA voted 5-0-0 to deny Appeal #3242
for the proposed rear yard deficiency for 108 & 110 College Avenue.
______________________________________________________________________________
APPEAL #3244 209 Elmwood Avenue
Appeal of property owner Sandra Greene for an area variance from Section 325-8, Column 12,
Side Yard, Column 13, Other Side Yard, and Column 14/15, Rear Yard, requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance. The applicant proposes to construct a 19’ x 12.5’ carport over the existing driveway
at 209 Elmwood Avenue. The proposed location of the new carport is 5.5’ from the side property
line, and a side yard setback of 10’ is required. The proposed location aligns with the existing
driveway and will be constructed to be immediately adjacent to the existing house.
The property also has existing rear yard and other side yard deficiencies that will not be
exacerbated by this proposal.
209 Elmwood Avenue is located in a R-1b district in which the proposed use is permitted. However,
Section 325-32 requires that an area variance be granted before a building permit is issued.
Sandra Greene presented as the appellant and homeowner, to request a variance to build a carport
over her driveway. S. Greene stated that her closest neighbor is supportive and that there are no
existing buildings near the location of the proposed carport.
The board had no questions for the appellant.
Public Hearing
Chair D. Barken opened the public hearing.
No comments were submitted.
Staff read the Planning and Development Board’s recommendation on the appeal: The Planning
Board supports this variance as they support owner-occupied improvements, appreciate the
design of the carport, and also note a large yard in adjacent property. The Planning Board finds
no long-term negative impacts to planning.
There being no further comments from interested parties, Chair D. Barken closed the public
hearing.
Deliberation & Decision
The Board found no feasible alternatives to this proposal, given the existing siting of the home
and existing driveway. The adjacent property owner is supportive of the request, and the
deficient side yard will located next to a large yard on the nearby property. The Board had no
objections to this request.
Board of Zoning Appeals
January 3, 2023-Meeting Minutes
6
On a motion by A. Gardiner, seconded by D. Fleming, the BZA voted 5-0-0 to approve Appeal
#3244 for 209 Elmwood Avenue.
______________________________________________________________________________
III. CONTINUED APPEALS
APPEAL #3226 210 E. Green Street & 215 E. State Street
Appeal of property owner Green Street Redevelopment Partners LLC for a sign variance from
§272-6 B(2)(b), Number and Size of Signs Permitted in a Commercial Zone. The applicant is
proposing a sign package for the new mixed-use building The Ithaca, located at 210 E. Green
Street and 215 E. State Street. The applicant is proposing to install 2 building signs on the south
elevation of the building located at 210 E. Green Street and 2 building signs on the north side of
the project at 215 E. State Street. Each parcel will have one logo sign that is 9 SF and one “The
Ithacan” sign that will be 22 SF. While commercial signs are permitted to be up to 50 SF in size,
the Sign Ordinance limits any sign advertising a residential building is limited to 12 SF in sign
area. Two of the proposed building signs (identified as Type 3 and Type 4) will exceed the 12 SF
maximum by 10 SF or 45% of the allowed square footage.
Brian Bouchard with CHA Consulting presented on behalf of the appellant. B. Bouchard shared
a sign package proposal related to the Ithacan Project located at 210 E. Green Street.
The Board asked questions relating to the number of signs and discussed with B. Bouchard the
implications of the Planning Board recommendation.
Public Hearing
Chair D. Barken opened the public hearing.
The following interested parties submitted comments in opposition to the appeal:
- Todd Kurzweil, tenant – 215 E. State Street
Staff read the Planning and Development Board’s recommendation on the appeal: The Planning
Board has worked with the applicants to create a suitable sign package in which the applicants
have made several compromises. The Board supports this sign package and variance with the
following conditions met. The channel letter signs, ‘The Ithacan’ are appropriate, and the Board
approves these at the size proposed, 18” in height and approximately 22 square feet each. The
Board approves the internally lit illumination of the channel letter sign located on Green Street
and the halo approach to illumination of the channel letters on the Commons. This lighting
reflects the urban conditions on both sides of the streets appropriately. As for the Logo sign, the
Board approves the package with either no logo signs (this is preferred) or at a much smaller
scale at 3’ each at the largest in height on both sides of the building. This equates to
approximately 9 square feet for each logo sign and the Board requests no illumination for the
logos. With these conditions met, the Board finds the sign package has no long-term impacts to
planning.
There being no further comments from interested parties, Chair D. Barken closed the public
hearing.
Board of Zoning Appeals
January 3, 2023-Meeting Minutes
7
Deliberation & Decision
The Board noted that the signage proposed fit well within the context of the use and would have
minimal impact on the character of the neighborhood. The Board appreciated the changes made
from previous sign package designs.
On a motion by M. Cannon, seconded by J. Kirby, the BZA voted 5-0-0 to approve Appeal
#3226 for 210 E. Green Street and 215 E. State Street.
IV. PRELIMINARY PRESENTATIONS - NONE
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – NONE
VI. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
a. February BZA Meeting
i. Agenda Review
VII. ADJOURNMENT – Chair D. Barken adjourned the meeting at 9:01 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
___________________________ January 3, 2023
Megan Wilson, Zoning Administrator Date
Secretary, Board of Zoning Appeals