Loading...
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