HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3152-518 Stewart Ave-Decision Letter-3-3-2020CITY 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.: 3152
Applicant: Robert Poprawski for RPSL Revocable Trust Owner
Property Location: 518 Stewart Avenue
Zoning District: R -3a
Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: Section 325-8, Column 4, 6, and 13
Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Off -Street Parking, Lot Area, and Side Yard
Publication Dates: February 26, 2020 and February 28, 2020
Meeting Held On: March 3, 2020.
Summary: Appeal of Robert Poprawski on behalf of the owner RPSL Revocable Trust for area variance
from Section 325-8, Column 4, Off -Street Parking, Column 6, Lot Area, and Column 13, Side Yard
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to construct an ADA compliant ramp on the
front of the building located at 518 Stewart Avenue. The applicant recently renovated the building and the
new ramp will improve the landing area at the front entry and provide accessibility to the building. The
installation of the 137 SF ramp will cause an enlargement to the existing non -conforming structure, thereby
requiring an area variance. The property has existing deficiencies in parking, lot area, and other side yard
that will not be exacerbated by this proposal.
The property is located in an R -3a use 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: March 3, 2020.
No public comments in favor or in opposition.
Members present:
Steven Beer, Chair
Teresa Deschanes
Suzanne Charles
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 identi any negative long term planning impacts and supports this appeal.
This is a welcome pedestrian and accessibility improvement and it is visually attractive.
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 March 3, 2020 declare itself
Lead Agency for the environmental review for the approval of zoning appeal 3152, an area
variance for the property located at 518 Stewart Avenue in the City of Ithaca.
Environmental Determination: The City of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals, acting as Lead
Agency, on March 3, 2020, reviewed the Short Environmental Assessment Foam (SEAF) and
determined the requested variance will result in no significant impact on the environment.
Motion: A motion to grant the variance request was made by Teresa Deschanes.
Deliberations & Findings:
Board discussed the building plans provided for the appeal. The items discussed by the Board included:
front yard parking area, ADA ramp and access isle, accessibility required by the Building Code, need to
install a ramp to meet the building code for the building alterations, feasibility of adding an accessible lift
to the front foyer area. Alternate locations for the ramp were discussed.
Factors Considered:
1. Whether an undesirable change would be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties: Yes —] No IZI
There was no evidence that there would be an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. In
fact, the Planning Board commented that the ramp would be quite attractive as a part of the neighborhood.
The actual change in the footprint of the neighborhood is small and is a slight extension while the previous
deficiencies are reduced.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the
variance: Yes ❑ No El
There was evidence that a feasible alternative could not be achieved. The applicant states that the only
other two options were to install a lift in the foyer which is less attractive. The foyer lift would take up
interior space, be less attractive, and may require someone to operate the lift causing the patron to wait for
the lift to be operated. The other option was to put the ramp on the rear of the building which would
require a longer ramp and it would take up some of the parking spaces. The ramp addition to the rear of
the building is not as universally welcome as the ramp being located in the front of the building.
Therefore, there was no other good alternative to installing the ramp than on the front of the building.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes ❑ No 121
The variance is small given the decreases created by reducing the number of rooms which in turn reduced
the number of required parking spaces.
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood: Yes [ No 121
Both the Planning Board and in light of discussions held by the Board members, felt that the proposal will
have a positive impact on the physical and environmental conditions in the neighborhood, because it brings
the building up to code for universal access in an attractive way that is welcoming at the front of the
building.
2
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes ® No ❑
There is an argument that it is self-created even though the building is being brought up to code and they
need some type of accessible access. They can possible accomplish compliance with the code by installing
a lift, but this is less desirable and is outweighed by the other factors.
Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by Suzanne Charles.
Vote:
Steven Beer, Chair
Teresa Deschanes
Suzanne Charles
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, 6, and 13 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.
Gini ` ¶na
Secretary, Beard of Zoning Appeals
Zoning Administrator
March 5, 2020
Date
3