HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3168 - 230 Bryant Ave - Decision Ltr1
CITY OF ITHACA BOARD of ZONING APPEALS
Area Variance Findings & Decision
Appeal No.: 3168
Applicant: Trade Design Build for owner John Rudan Jr.
Property Location: 230 Bryant Avenue
Zoning District: R-1b
Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: §325-8, Columns 4, 11, and 12.
Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Off-Street Parking, Front Yard, and Other Front Yard.
Publication Dates: September 30, 2020 and October 1, 2020.
Meeting Held On: October 6, 2020.
Summary: Appeal of Michael Barnoski of Trade Design Build Architecture for an Area Variance from
Section 325-8, Column 4, Off-Street Parking, Column 11, Front Yard, and Column 12, Other Front Yard,
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to construct a third story dormer to provide
additional space within an existing apartment as part of a larger renovation and reconfigurations of the
building. There are four apartments in the building (2 one-bedroom units, 1 two-bedroom unit, and one
four-bedroom unit), and the Zoning Ordinance requires five parking spaces for the dwelling. The property
has established parking rights and provides 4 off-street parking spaces. The proposed alteration will not
allow additional occupancy or require additional off-street parking; however, Section 325-32 of the Zoning
Ordinances states that an area variance must be granted to enlarge a nonconforming structure if it does not
comply with the parking requirements. The dwelling also has existing front yard and other front yard
deficiencies that will not be exacerbated by the proposal.
The property is located in a R-1b residential use district in which the proposed use is permitted pursuant to
a use variance granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals in 1948. However, Section 325-32 requires that an
area variance be granted before a building permit is issued.
Public Hearing Held On: October 6, 2020.
Members present:
Suzanne Charles
Teresa Deschanes, Acting Chair
Stephanie Egan-Engels
Steven Wolf
Ellen McCollister and Robert Frank, 221 Bryant Avenue, submitted a letter of support for the variance
request.
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
2
Ken Birman and Anne Neirynck, 225 Bryant Avenue, submitted a letter of support for the variance
request.
Tompkins County Review per Section 239 -l & -m of New York State General Municipal Law:
Not applicable.
Environmental Review: This is a Type 2 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act 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
proposal improves the property and makes it more contextual with the neighborhood.
Deliberations & Findings:
The Board noted there was little drawback to this proposal. The property owner is willing to invest and
upgrade interior quality and space. While the project does not include all of the exterior upgrades that the
neighbors suggested in their comments, the addition of the dormer adds interest to the building. The off-
street parking deficiency is not really an issue. It is an existing deficiency and the renovation is not
impacting parking demand or increasing the required off-street parking. There is no increase in occupancy
or square footage. The building is already out of character for the neighborhood and the proposed
renovations and requested variance will not make it more so.
Motion: A motion to grant the variance request was made by S. Charles.
Factors Considered:
1. Whether an undesirable change would be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties: Yes No
The issuance of the variance for off-street parking will not result in an undesirable change. No increase in
vehicle parking and traffic is expected as a result of the renovation. The addition of the dormer will add
visual interest to the building.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the
variance: Yes No
The owner could continue to rent out the apartment as it currently is configured but the renovation will
improve safety and code compliance.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes No
There is some existing parking on-site and this is an existing deficiency.
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood: Yes No
The renovations involves the an enlargement of an existing apartment. It will not increase occupancy,
create additional traffic, or result in more vehicular congestion.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes No
The applicant could leave the building as is but the change is an improvement for both the owner and the
neighborhood.
Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by S. Wolf.
Vote: 4-0-0
3
Suzanne Charles YES
Teresa Deschanes YES
Stephanie Egan-Engels YES
Steven Wolf YES
The BZA, taking into the five factors for an area variance, finds that the benefit to the applicant outweighs
the deterimant to the neighborhood or community. The BZA further finds that the variances from the
Zoning Ordinance, §325-8, Columns 4, 11, and 12, 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.
___________________________ October 7, 2020
Megan Wilson, Senior Planner Date
Secretary, Board of Zoning Appeals