HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3104-737 Willow Ave.-Decision Letter-8-7-2018CITY 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.: 3104
Applicant: Raymond Lalley of Tompkins County Area Transit, Owner
Property Location: 737 Willow Avenue
Zoning District: ND -Newman District
Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: Section 325-8, Column 8, 9 and Column 16.
Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Number of Stories, Height in Feet, and Minimum
Building Height
Publication Dates: August 1, 2018 and August 3, 2018.
Meeting Held On: August 7, 2018.
Summary: Appeal of Raymond Lalley for the owner Tompkins County Area Transit for an Area
Variance from Section 325-8, Column 8, Number of Stories, Column 9, Height in Feet, and Column 16,
Minimum Building Height requirements of zoning ordinance. The applicant proposes to construct a 900
SF storage building at the property located at 737 Willow Avenue. The new building will be located on
the west side of the existing TCAT building abutting the parking area for ease of access. The property is
located in the Newman District (ND) and the ordinance requires new buildings to be a minimum of 25
feet in height and 2 stories. The proposed building will be one story in height and measure approximately
16' to the median of the roof.
The property is located in an ND -Newman District in which the proposed accessory use is permitted.
However, Section 325-38 requires that an area variance be granted before a building permit is issued.
Public Hearing Held On: August 7, 2018.
No public comments in favor or in opposition.
Members present:
Steven Beer, Chair
Teresa Deschanes
Lindsay Jones
Steven Wolf
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.
Environmental Review: This is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance ("CEQRO"), and State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA"), and is subject
to Environmental Review.
Lead Agency: The City of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals did, on August 7, 2018 declare itself
Lead Agency for the environmental review for the approval of zoning appeal 3104, an area
variance for the property located at 737 Willow Avenue in the City of Ithaca.
Environmental Determination: The City of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals, acting as Lead
Agency, on August 7, 2018, reviewed the Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF) and
determined the requested variance will result in no significant impact on the environment.
Planning & Development Board Recommendation:
The Planning Board does not identify any long term planning impacts with this appeal. The appellant
needs this type of storage and the building will not be highly visible.
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 P No El
No evidence that there will be an undesirable change. The applicant is making an attempt to make an
architecturally compatible building. While the building is shorter than required by the zoning ordinance,
the applicant is matching the current building style and therefore there will not be an undesirable change to
the character of the neighborhood. An improved storage building will be better than the current situation
where they are storing items in damaged buses and be an improvement in a more visually appealing way.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the
variance: Yes n No El
The alternative is to build the building to the 25' in height. Although, this is not feasible for the applicant
because there is no use for the second story, it is much more expensive to build a second story, and they
do not want to make a permanent structure if they do not control the land. The storage building serves
their purpose and has a 20 year life span which will make it easier if they have to relocate in the future.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes n No NI
The reduction in height from 25' to 16' is a significant number. But, it is not overall substantial, in that it
will match the existing structure in characteristics and size.
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood: Yes n No
El
The Planning Board notes that the building is not highly visible, match existing structures, improves the
look by improving the ability to store and therefore does not have any long term adverse impact on the
environmental conditions.
2
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes ® No C
The finding is that it is a self-created difficulty in that the applicant could build to the 25' and not have to
appeal to the Board. However the fact that it is self-created is only one factor which is outweighed by the
other factors.
Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by Steven Wolf.
Vote:
Steven Beer, Chair Yes
Teresa Deschanes Yes
Lindsay Jones 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 8, 9, and 16 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.
August 8, 2018
Date
3