The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutBZA 3086-106 E. Court St.-Decision Letter-2-6-20181 CITY OF ITHACA BOARD of ZONING APPEALS Area Variance Findings & Decision Appeal No.: 3086 Applicant: Arthur Lustgarten, Owner Property Location: 106 E. Court Street Zoning District: R-3a Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: Section 325-8, Column 4. Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Off-Street Parking Requirements. Publication Dates: January 31, 2018 and February 2, 2018. Meeting Held On: February 6, 2018. Summary: Appeal of Arthur Lustgarten and Barbara Platek for an area variance from Section 325-8 Column 4, Off-Street Parking requirements of the zoning ordinance. The property at 106 E. Court Street is classified as a legal non-conforming use in an R-3a zone district. The property contains professional offices and one-two bedroom apartment. On July 1, 1974 two variance were approved for the property. A use variance for the office space and an area variance for parking. The area variance was approved for 12 parking to be located more than the required 750 foot maximum distance from the property. In 1989, the then owners David and Mary Long, appealed to the Board of Zoning Appeals for relief from the parking conditions imposed by the 1974 variance. Variance 1883, was granted on January 5, 1989 which reduced the parking requirement from 12 parking spaces to 7 and allowed the parking spaces to be located in a less restrictive zone than where the property is located. In 1991, the property was sold to the applicant who received a 10 year parking arrangement for seven parking spaces that were located at 110 W. Seneca Street. At a recent housing inspection, the Housing Inspector requested a lease for the parking as required by the zoning variance granted in 1989. The applicant, in an attempt to obtain the lease for the parking, found that the parking spaces were no longer available. Subsequently, the applicant sent letters to property owners within 750 feet of the property asking if they had any available spaces for rent. There was no response to the request from the nearby property owners. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance for the 7 parking spaces, in order to bring the property into compliance with the zoning ordinance. The property is located in an R-3a residential use district in which the proposed use is permitted by variance. However, Section 325-39 requires that a variance be granted before a Certificate of Compliance is issued. CITY 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 2 Public Hearing Held On: February 6, 2018. No comments from the public that attended at the meeting. Three letters of support were submitted: -Suicide Prevention & Crisis Service dated 1/17/2018 -Ducson Nguyen, 2nd ward Alderperson dated 2/5/2018 -C.S.P. Management dated 2/6/2018 Two letters in opposition were submitted: -Thomas Shelley of 118 E. Court St. dated 1/23/2018 -Ron and Carol Schmitt of 302 E. Upland Road dated 1/24/2018 Members present: Steven Beer, Chair Teresa Deschanes Steven Wolf 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 -l & -m of New York State General Municipal Law: N/A Planning & Development Board Recommendation: The Planning Board does not identify any long term planning impacts with this appeal and supports its approval. This is one of the oldest buildings in Ithaca and was moved to its current site from another location. The Board questions why the façade easement referenced in the 1974 variance was never done, and if it would be possible and beneficial to enact it now as a protection for the building. Note: After this recommendation was made, planning staff consulted with Bryan McCracken, the City’s Historic Preservation Planner, McCracken stated that because the building is within the local Dewitt Historic District, any changes to the exterior would be subject to ILPC review and approval. 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 Evidence suggests that there will be no determent to the nearby properties or change in the character of the neighborhood. The situation will continued to be, as it has for the past 15-20 years, where they have not had the available parking spaces. There was no evidence of any detriment to the neighborhood or that it will happen further. There is one apartment and three office spaces and even if the property is sold, it would not be likely that there will be a more intense use of the space, which would produce an increase pressure on parking. Therefore, it is likely that in the foreseeable future, there will be no change in the character of the neighborhood. 3 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the variance: Yes No The balance of evidence shows that there is no feasible alternative. There was some discussion about a nearby parking area on Sears Street that could be rented. But after discussions, it was found that the parking area in question was an illegal use and not permitted in that zone. The parking area is non- conforming and it would require a use variance if it was to become a legal parking lot. Therefore, it was not a solution. The applicant has made an effort to canvas all nearby property owners and with no success in finding rental parking. The applicant did have leasable parking many years ago. But the arrangement was far outside the 750 feet, which the ordinance considers as a reasonable alternative to onsite parking 3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes No The variance is not substantial, because currently there are two spaces rented for the legislator that works in the building. Leaving the need for five spaces for the entire building. Secondly, the occupants have been parking somewhere for a long time. Therefore, the change that would be produced would be considered a small variance. 4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood: Yes No Considering the facts stated in the first factor, the answer is similar. There would be little to no change to the neighborhood. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes No The alleged difficulty is not self-created, because the off-site parking arrangement was set up decades ago by a previous owner. Over those decades the parking situation in those nearby lots changed. The building is also historical designated and was moved onto this very small lot, approximately 150 years ago. Considering the lot size and the building having a useful life in the City, it would be difficult to have on- site parking. This is not a fault of the applicant. Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by Steven Wolf. Vote: Steven Beer, Chair Yes Teresa Deschanes Yes Steven Wolf 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 4 is 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. _____________________________ February 9, 2018 Secretary, Board of Zoning Appeals Date