HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3058-742-744 S. Meadow St.-Dec. Ltr-5-2-2017CITY OF ITHACA
108 E. Green Street — 3rd Floor Ithaca, NY 14850-5690
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING, ZONING, & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Division of Zoning
Gino Leonardi, Secretary to the Board of Zoning Appeals
Telephone: 607-274-6513 E -Mail: gleonardi@cityofithaca.org
CITY OF ITHACA BOARD of ZONING APPEALS
Area Variance Findings & Decision
Appeal No.: 3058
Applicant: Benderson Development for Buffalo-Greenbriar Associates, LLC, Owner
Property Location: 742-744 S. Meadow Street
Zoning District: SW -2
Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: Section 325-8, Column 7 and Column 11
(SW -2 Setback requirements of 325-29.213 (2))
Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Lot Width at Street and Front yard.
Publication Dates: April 26, 2017 and April 28, 2017.
Meeting Held On: May 2, 2017.
Summary: Appeal of Benderson Development for the owner Buffalo-Greenbriar Associates, LLC, for
area variance from 325-8, Column 7, Lot width at street, and 325-8 column 11, Front yard requirements
of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to erect a 7315 SF retail space on the northern portion of
the PetSmart building and construct a 14,744 SF building attached to the south end of the Hobby Lobby
store located at 742-744 S. Meadow Street. Both proposals are deficient in lot width at street and front
yard setback requirements in the SW -2 zone. The SW -2 zone district requires a minimum of 35% of the
lot's street frontage to be occupied by a building and the building is required to be a minimum of 15 feet
and a maximum of 34 feet from the street curb.
The actual street frontage for both these buildings is comprised of two access roads that are 29 feet and 65
feet wide for a total street width of 94 feet. The face of the new retail space next to PetSmart is 555.31'
from the street curb and the new building next to Hobby Lobby is approximately 375 feet from the
Meadow Street curb. No portion of either building will have a setback between 15 to 34 feet from street
curb. In 2013, variance # 2923 was approved for the new building next to Hobby Lobby. Since that time,
the applicant was unable to secure a tenant and initiate the construction work before the variance became
void. Therefore, the applicant is required to re -apply for an area variance prior to the start of construction.
The buildings at 742-744 South Meadow are in a SW -2 zoning district where the buildings' use as retail
stores is permitted. However, Section 325-38 requires that variances be granted before a building permit
is issued.
Public Hearing Held On: May 2, 2017.
No public comments in favor or in opposition.
Members present:
Steven Beer, Chair
Teresa Deschanes
Marshall McCormick
Moriah Tebor
Environmental Review: Type: Unlisted Action
These actions have been determined not to have a significant impact on the environment and are
otherwise precluded from environmental review under Environmental Conservation Law. CEQR Section
176-6 A (4) (b).
Tompkins County Review per Section 239 -1 & -m of New York State General Municipal Law:
The Department has reviewed the proposal, as submitted, and has determined that it has no negative inter -
community, or county -wide impacts.
Planning & Development Board Recommendation:
The Planning Board does not identify any long term planning impacts with this appeal and supports granting
it.
Motion: A motion to grant the variance request was made by Teresa Deschanes.
Deliberations & Findings:
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 conditions of the neighborhood will remain the same. The only difference is smaller side yards and this
zone allows no side yard requirement. There will be no change in the street frontage or front yard.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the
variance: Yes ❑ No
It is not possible for the applicant to achieve their desired improvement without the variance. If the
applicant were to build with the required setback it would not be in keeping with the existing building
setback. The width at street is an odd case where it is just the access to the lot where the buildings are
located.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes ❑ No
The previous variance was approved 4 years ago and has expired. There are no changes from the previous
proposal and the applicants is asking for the same setback relief.
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood: Yes ❑ No
The Planning Board dealt with the questions of increase in traffic and found that the traffic levels are still
below with what they fell is compatible for the neighborhood. Otherwise the conditions remain the same.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes ❑ No
One could argue that the difficulty is self-created in that the applicant does not need to build these additions.
However, there is a stronger argument that this parcel was initially developed before the zoning changes
for building setback and front yard width. The applicant is not responsible for the fact that adding on to the
building now requires the variances.
Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by Moriah Tebor.
Vote:
Steven Beer, Chair: YES
Teresa Deschanes: YES
Marshall McCormick: YES
Moriah Tebor: YES
Determination of BZA Based on the Above Factors:
The BZA, taking into consideration the five factors, finds that the Benefit to the Applicant outweighs the
Determinant to the Neighborhood or Community. The BZA further finds that variances from Zoning
Ordinance, Section 325-8, Column 7 and 11, (SW -2 Setback requirements of 325-29.2B (2)) 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.
Sec,re ry, and of Zoning Appeals
May 4, 2017
Date