HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3129-815 Taber St.-Decision Letter-8-6-2019CITY 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.: 3129
Applicant: Frederic Bouche, Owner
Property Location: 815 Taber Street
Zoning District: CSD -Central Business District
Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: Section 325-8, Column 12, 13, 14/15
Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Other Front Yard, Side Yard, and Rear Yard
requirements.
Publication Dates: July 31, 2019 and August 1, 2019.
Meeting Held On: August 6, 2019.
Summary: Appeal of Frederic Bouche for area variance from Section 325-8, Column 12, Other Front
Yard, Column 13, Side Yard, and Column 14/15, Rear Yard requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The
property at 815 Tabor Street, known as Ports of New York Winery, is in need of additional storage space
for the business. In order to provide the storage space, the applicant proposes to convey a 2,125 square
foot portion of land from 817 Taber Street and consolidate the land into the 815 Taber Street parcel. The
proposal is to install one new cold storage building and rebuild the existing maintenance garage that is
currently on the property. The new consolidated portion of land will have street frontage on Cherry Street
and will be required to meet the setback requirements for the Cherry Street District. The Cherry Street
District requires that; building frontage have a setback of 5 feet for a sidewalk and an additional 8 feet for
a tree lawn, for a total of 13 feet from the property line to the building front. The applicant proposes to
setback the building 3'-6" from the property line and provide the 13 foot setback from the edge of the
road to the building front. The zoning ordinance requires the distance from building to the property line
have a 13 foot setback. The property has existing deficiencies in other side yard and the rear yard that will
not be exacerbated by the proposal.
The property is located in a CSD – Cherry Street District in which the proposed 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 6, 2019.
No public comments in favor or in opposition.
1
Members present:
Steven Beer, Chair
Teresa Deschanes
Steven Wolf
Stephanie Egan -Engels — prospective member
Tompkins County Review per Section 239 -1 & -m of New York State General Municipal Law:
Tompkins County Department of Planning and Sustainability has reviewed the proposal, as submitted
and has determined that it has no negative intercommunity, or county wide impacts.
Environmental Review: 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.
Planning & Development Board Recommendation:
The Planning Board does not identify any negative long term planning impacts and supports this appeal.
The Board does not object to the side yard variance because the right of way remains large enough for a
future sidewalk and tree lawn. Although two trees will be removed, the appellant has agreed to replace
them. The Board also welcomes the expansion of existing businesses and investment in this area of the
City.
Motion: A motion to grant the variance request was made by Steven Wolf.
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 n No
The project reduces an existing deficiency and increases the setback to the street. The project is positive
because the sidewalk and street trees can be installed within the area between the curb and the building.
Allowing the sidewalk area to be developed in the future is a positive change for the nearby properties.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the
variance: Yes n No
The applicant expressed that there is no feasible alternative and that the attempts to purchase a nearby
property was unsuccessful. The original building that was proposed was scaled back to accommodate the
needed setback from the curb for a future sidewalk and tree lawn. The building would have had to be
reduced approximately 25% in order to meet the setback requirement. The accommodation for the
sidewalk and the tree lawn is mitigation for the variance.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes E No
The existing deficiency is going to be reduced and therefore it is not substantial.
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood: Yes E No
The setback is going to be improved and will not be exacerbated. This development is a matter of right in
the zone in which it is located. Considering the willingness of the applicant to plant trees will improve the
environmental condition of the neighborhood.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes [ No
One could consider that growing the business is self-created, but on balance, it is outweighed by the other
factors and it would not be reasonable to deny the motion.
2
Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by Teresa Deschanes.
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, fmds 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 12, 13, 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.
Secre
of Zoning Appeals
August 21, 2019
Date
3