HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3110-208-12 W. Buffalo St.-Decision Letter11-6-2018CITY OF ITHACA
108 E. Green Street — 3rd Floor Ithaca, NY 14850-5690
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING, ZONING, &
Division of Zoning
Gino Leonardi, Secretary to the Board of Zoning Appeals
Telephone: 607-274-6513
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
E -Mail: gleonardi@cityofithaca.org
CITY OF ITHACA BOARD of ZONING APPEALS
Area Variance Findings & Decision
Appeal No.: 3110
Applicant: Anthony Salerno of Artcraft Home Improvement for Martha Catalfamo, Owner
Property Location: 208-12 W. Buffalo Street
Zoning District: R -2b
Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: Section 325-8, Column 11, 12 and 14/15.
Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Front Yard, Other Front Yard, and Rear Yard.
Publication Dates: October 31, 2018 and November 2, 2018.
Meeting Held On: November 6, 2018.
Summary: Appeal of Anthony Salerno of Artcraft Home Improvement, on behalf of the owner Martha
Catalfamo for area variance from Section 325-8, Column 11, Front Yard, Column 12, Other Front Yard,
and Column 14/15, Rear Yard requirements of the Zoning Ordinance The property at 208-12 W. Buffalo
Street is a mixed use building containing one apartment and a dental office. The property received an area
variance in 1978 for the dental office. At that time, the zone district was R -3a, which allowed medical and
dental offices as a permitted primary use.
The applicant proposes to remove an old set of cement stairs and install a new deck and wheelchair lift on
the rear of the building located at 208-12 W. Buffalo Street. The new deck and lift will be constructed
within the required rear yard. The property has an existing rear yard deficiency having 11 feet of the 20
feet required by the ordinance. Although, the new deck is inset approximately 16" from the outermost rear
portion of the building, it is exacerbating the rear yard deficiency in length along the rear property line.
The property has existing deficiencies in front yard and other front yard that will not be exacerbated by
the proposal.
The property is located in an R -2b residential use district in which the proposed use is permitted by
variance. However, Section 325-38 requires that an area variance be granted before a building peunit is
issued.
Public Hearing Held On: November 6, 2018.
No public comments in favor or in opposition.
1
Members present:
Steven Beer, Chair
Teresa Deschanes
Steven Wolf
Environmental Review: Type 2
This is a Type 2 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance ("CEQRO"),
and State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA"), and is not subject to Environmental Review.
CEQR Section 176-5 C 12.
Tompkins County Review per Section 239 -1 & -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 and supports this appeal. The layout
seems to reduce lot coverage from existing conditions and the addition will be minimally visible from the
public right of way. The Board generally supports improvements that increase accessibility.
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 C No El
There would not be an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. There will be very little
visual change in terms of the footprint of the building. The exacerbation of the existing rear yard deficiency
will be extended in length. But, it will not decrease the distance from the rear lot line. It will just continue
for a longer distance.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the
variance: Yes ❑ No
This proposal is the most feasible alternative for applicant to achieve the desired accessibility to the
medical office. There is currently no means of accessibility and the applicant did consider a ramp, which
would have been a greater encroachment. The small increase in the deficiency allows them to install a
wheelchair lift.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes ❑ No
The variance is not substantial. The property has a per -existing deficiency and the relatively small
exacerbation of one rear yard deficiency is not substantial.
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood: Yes C No
There will be very little impact produced by the proposal. In fact, the environment of the neighborhood will
be improved in that another providers' office will accessible to mobility impaired individuals.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes ❑ No
The property has had a long standing office and the evolving times requires them to provide some kind of
access. This cannot be achieved without creating some kind of deficiency.
2
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 11, 12, and 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.
November 19, 2018
Secre > '`' B • . 'd of Zoning Appeals Date
3