HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3180 - 710-734 S Meadow Street - Decision Ltr
CITY OF ITHACA BOARD of ZONING APPEALS
Area Variance Findings & Decision
Appeal No.: 3180
Applicant: Francis L. Gorman III, Harris Beach PLLC, for property owner G & I IX Tops Ithaca Plaza
LLC
Property Location: 614 S. Meadow Street; 702 S. Meadow Street; 710-734 S. Meadow Street
Zoning District: SW-2
Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: §325-8, Columns 5, 7, 11, and 12; §325-20I.
Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Off-Street Loading; Lot Width; Front Yard; Other Front
Yard; Parking in the Southwest Area.
Publication Dates: March 32, 2021 and April 3, 2021.
Meeting Held On: April 6, 2021.
Summary: Appeal of Francis L. Gorman III of Harris Beach PLLC on behalf of property owner G & I IX
Tops Ithaca Plaza LLC for an Area Variance from Section 325-8, Column 5, Off-Street Loading, Column
7, Lot Width, Column 11, Front Yard, and Column 12, Other Front Yard, requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance as well as Section 325-20I, Parking in the Southwest Area. The project site includes three
separate parcels – 614 S. Meadow Street, 702 S. Meadow Street, and 710-724 S. Meadow Street – that
collectively are known as the Tops Plaza. The applicant proposes to reconfigure the site to create five
separate parcels. Parcel A.1 will include the portion of the larger shopping center that is currently home to
Barnes and Noble, Orange Theory, and Home Goods. Parcel A.2 will include the remainder of the larger
shopping center (including Tops) and the smaller shopping center building. Parcel B will encompass the
current Chili’s Bar and Grill; this parcel will have no street frontage and will be surrounded in its entirety
by Parcel A.1. Parcel C will include the Elmira Savings Bank branch office, and Parcel D will include the
current Verizon retail store. Off-street parking will be shared among all of the commercial uses on all
parcels, as permitted under Section 325-20D(4) of the Zoning Ordinance, and a draft easement agreement
that guarantees shared parking and site access among the four parcels has been submitted to the City. The
proposed subdivision creates a new rear yard deficiency of 0’ of the required 18.7 feet for Parcel D. The
properties also have existing deficiencies in off-street loading, lot width, front yard, and other front yard
requirements of the SW-2 district that will not be exacerbated by the proposed subdivision. In addition, the
properties currently do not meet Section 325-20I, Parking in the Southwest Area, that mandates all parking
areas be set back 100’ from the curb if the front yard requirements are not met. These are also existing
deficiencies that are not exacerbated by the proposed subdivision.
The property is located in the SW-2 use district in which the proposed use is permitted. However, Section
325-32 requires that an area variance be granted before a building permit is issued and the subdivision is
approved.
Public Hearing Held On: April 6, 2021.
CITY 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: 607-274-6550 Fax: 607-274-6558 E-Mail: gleonardi@cityofithaca.org
Members present:
David Barken
Stephen Henderson
Stephanie Egan-Engels
Suzanne Charles, Chair
No interested parties commented in support of or in opposition to the requested variances.
Tompkins County Review per Section 239 -l & -m of New York State General Municipal Law:
Not Applicable
Environmental Review: This variance is a component of an action that also includes subdivision review.
Considered together, this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act for which the Planning and Development
Board, acting as Lead Agency, made a Negative Determination of Environmental Significance on March
23, 2021.
Planning & Development Board Recommendation:
The Planning Board does not identify any negative long-term planning impacts and supports this appeal.
The proposed subdivision does not change the layout of the site and therefore has no impact.
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission Recommendation:
Not applicable.
Motion: A motion to grant variance #3180 for 614 S. Meadow Street; 702 S. Meadow Street; and 710-734
S. Meadow Street was made by S. Henderson
Deliberations & Findings:
The Board noted that there will be no physical change to the site; it is a reconfiguration of property lines.
Since the built environment will remain the same, there will be no impact on the surrounding area.
Factors Considered:
1. Whether an undesirable change would be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties: Yes No
No new construction is proposed as part of this subdivision. Upon review of the proposed site plan and the
Board’s review of existing conditions, the Board finds that the proposed project will not result in an
undesirable change on the character of the neighborhood.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the
variance: Yes No
Most of the area deficiencies are existing deficiencies that will not be exacerbated by the proposed
subdivision. The new deficiency is a 0’ rear yard deficiency for Parcel D; however, no physical changes
are proposed.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes No
The requested variances range in significance from 9% to 100% of the requirement. Some of these may be
considered substantial but most are existing and there will be no physical change to the site.
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood: Yes No
The proposed project underwent an environmental review with the Planning and Development Board acting
as lead agency. The Planning Board determined that the project would not have a negative impact on the
environment on March 23, 2021. Furthermore, the Board’s review of the submitted site plans, testimony
from the applicant, and consideration of existing conditions have not provided evidence of adverse physical
or environmental impacts.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes No
The alleged difficulty is self-created in that the applicant could opt to not subdivide the site; However, there
are no physical changes proposed as part of the subdivision and there are no anticipated negative impacts
resulting from the granting of the requested variances.
Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by D. Barken
Vote: 4-0-0
David Barken YES
Stephen Henderson YES
Stephanie Egan-Engels YES
Suzanne Charles, Chair YES
Determination of the BZA Based on the Above Factors:
The BZA, taking into the five factors for an area variance, finds that the benefit to the applicant outweighs
the detriment to the neighborhood or community. The BZA further finds that the variances from the Zoning
Ordinance, §325-8, Columns 5, 7, 11, and 12 and §325-20I.are the minimum variances that should be
granted in order to preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety, and welfare
of the community.
___________________________ April 6, 2021
Megan Wilson, Senior Planner Date
Secretary, Board of Zoning Appeals