HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3066-214 Elmira Rd.-Decision Letter-8-10-2017CITY 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.: 3066
Applicant: Noah Demarest, STREAM Collaborative for Finger Lakes ReUse, Inc., Owner
Property Location: 214 Elmira Road
Zoning District: B-5
Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: Section 325-8, Column 9, and Column 14/15.
Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Building Height and Rear Yard.
Publication Dates: July 21, 2017 and July 22, 2017.
Meeting Held On: August 10, 2017.
Summary: Appeal of Noah Demarest on behalf of the owner Finger Lakes ReUse Inc. for an area
variance from Section 325-8, Column 9, Building Height and Column 14/15, Rear Yard requirements of
the zoning ordinance. The applicant proposes to construct a new 4 story building that will abut the
existing building located at 214 Elmira Road. The new mixed use building will contain additional retail
space, business offices, and 22 transitional housing units. Each story of the new 4 story building will be
approximately 6800 square feet and have an overall building height of 44'-9". The property at 214 Elmira
Road is located in the 100 year flood zone where the floor elevation of a building is required to be F
above the base flood level elevation. The applicant proposes to raise the building to the required
elevation, but will exceed the allowable building height in feet having 44'9" of the 40' maximum, in the
B5 zone district. There is also an existing building on the parcel addressed 210 Elmira Road, which has an
existing rear yard deficiency that will not be exacerbated by this proposal.
The property is located in a B-5 business district in which the proposed use is permitted. However,
Section 325-38 requires that a variance be granted before a building permit is issued.
Public Hearing Held On: August 10, 2017.
No public comments in favor or in opposition.
Members present:
Teresa Deschanes
Marshall McCormick
Moriah Tebor
Steven Wolf
1
Environmental Review: Type: Type 1
The City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines the proposed project will result in no
significant impact on the environment and that a Negative Declaration for purposes of Article 8 of the
Environmental Conservation Law be filed in accordance with the provisions of Part 617 of the State
Environmental Quality Review Act.
Tompkins County Review per Section 239 -1 & -m of New York State General Municipal Law:
Tompkins County has reviewed the proposal, as submitted, and has determined that it has no negative
intercommunity, or county wide impacts.
Planning & Development Board Recommendation:
The Planning Board does not identify any long term planning impacts with this appeal. The extra height
requested corresponds closely with the additional height needed to comply with requirements for the
building in the 100 year floodplain. The Board recommends approval of this appeal.
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
There was no evidence that there was going to be a change in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to the surrounding properties. There were no comments by neighbors in opposition of the
proposal. The building is in character with the business zone in this area.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the
variance: Yes ❑ No
One factor of the height variance is the building is located in the flood zone. The other factor is this
project has a strong need to have the commercial use on the first floor which requires more height. The
rear yard for the existing building at 210 Elmira Road is pre-existing condition.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes ❑ No
The variance seems to be a relatively small variance in that it is approximately 10% of the allowable
height of the building.
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood: Yes ❑ No
There was no evidence that the height of the building would block anyone's view or interfere with the
roadway or traffic in this area.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes ® No ❑
There is an argument that the alleged difficulty is self-created because the applicant wants to have a full
height ceiling and the commercial presence on the first floor. But, this is outweighed by the other factors.
Also of note: the Planning Board urges that this variance be granted and this building has a significant
public benefit which makes the variance request very reasonable.
Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by Moriah Tebor.
Vote:
Teresa Deschanes: Yes
Moriah Tebor: Yes
Steven Wolf- Yes
Marshall McCormick: 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 9, and Column 14/15 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.
Secre ry, and of Zoning Appeals
August 28, 2017
Date