HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BZA-2021-12-07
Approved 5/9/2022
City of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals
Minutes – December 7, 2021
Board Members Present: David Barken, Acting Chair
Michael Cannon
Stephanie Egan-Engels
Steven Henderson
Board Members Absent: Vacancy
Staff Present: Victor Kessler, Assistant City Attorney
Gino Leonardi, Zoning Administrator
Megan Wilson, Zoning Administrator
Applicants: Jason Demarest, Greg Mezey, Chris Petrillose (325 Dryden Road)
Jon Tantillo, Russ Maines, John Snyder, Bear Smith (815 S. Aurora Street)
Chair D. Barken called the meeting to order at 6:11 p.m. and read the opening statement.
I. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS – NONE
II. CONTINUED APPEALS
APPEAL # 3203 325 Dryden Road & 320 Elmwood Avenue
Appeal of Jason K Demarest Architecture on behalf of property owners Red Door Rental and AdBro
Development for an area variance from Section 325-45.2E, Collegetown Residential 2 (CR-2) and
Collegetown Residential 3 District Standards for Off-Street Parking, Lot Coverage by Buildings, Front Yard,
Rear Yard, Minimum Spacing of Primary Structures, and Maximum Building Length as well as Section 325-
45.2B(11), Required Vegetative Buffer, and Section 325-20F(3)(a)(1), Maximum Parking Area Coverage,
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing structures at 325
Dryden Road and 320 Elmwood Avenue and consolidate the two parcels into a single lot with primary
frontage on Dryden Road. The consolidated parcel will be located in two zoning districts: CR-3 in the
northern portion of the lot (original 325 Dryden Road parcel) and CR-2 in the southern portion of the lot
(320 Elmwood Avenue parcel). The applicant proposes to construct a new multiple dwelling in the CR-3
district and a new two-family dwelling in the CR-2 district. The consolidated site has sufficient lot area to
allow two primary structures on the same parcel; however, the proposed project creates multiple area
deficiencies:
• Off-Street Parking: The proposed project includes 1 one-bedroom apartment; 9 two-bedroom
apartments; 2 three-bedroom apartments; and 1 four-bedroom apartment. This combination of
units requires 14 off-street parking spaces, and the applicant proposed to construct 4 spaces.
• Lot Coverage by Buildings: Lot coverage by buildings is calculated for the portion of the building
and lot in each zone, not as a consolidated lot. The lot coverage by buildings in the CR-3 zone is
53%, which exceeds the maximum 40% allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. The portion of the lot in
the CR-2 district complies with those regulations.
Board of Zoning Appeals
12/7/21 Meeting Minutes
2
• Front Yard: The project site has one front yard in the CR-3 district along Dryden Road and a second
front yard in both the CR-3 and CR-2 districts along Elmwood Avenue. Both districts require a
minimum front yard of 10’. In an effort to provide more space between the buildings, the applicant
has shifted the larger building to the north, resulting in a 6’ front yard. This has created a front yard
deficiency of 4’ along Dryden Road.
• Rear Yard: The rear yard for the consolidated lot is located in the CR-2 district, adjacent to 318
Elmwood Avenue. The proposed site plan shows a rear yard of 8.9’ of the required 20’.
• Minimum Space of Primary Structures: The CR-2 district regulations require a minimum of 20’
between primary structures on the same lot; a distance of 10’ is required in the CR-3 district. The
proposed structures are located 10.5’ apart, creating a deficiency of 9.5’ in the CR-2 district.
• Maximum Building Length: The CR-3 district limits building width to 45’ in length; this regulation
applies to the entire building, not individual facades. The full building length along Dryden Road
measures 74.5’, which exceeds that maximum allowed by the Zoning Ordinance by 29.5’ or 65.6%.
• Required Vegetative Buffer: A minimum 10’ vegetative buffer from the rear property line is required
for all properties within the CR-2 districts. The proposed project does not provide sufficient
vegetative buffer in the rear yard.
• Maximum Parking Area Coverage: While driveways may be located within the required rear and
side yards, parking and maneuvering must meet these setback requirements. The proposed site plan
locates vehicle maneuvering areas within both the rear and side yards.
The applicants presented the appeal at the November 2nd BZA meeting to gather initial feedback. A public
hearing was also opened on this date and closed on Friday, November 5, 2021. Board members expressed
concern about the appropriateness of a project of this massing and scale at this location, as evidenced by
the number of requested variances. The Board encouraged the applicants to consider its comments and put
forward a project that better meets the zoning. The applicants have declined to make any changes to the
project in response to the Board’s comments.
325 Dryden Road is located in CR-2 and CR-3 districts in which the proposed uses are permitted. However,
Section 325-38 requires that area variances be granted before a building permit is issued.
Deliberation
Acting Chair Barken summarized last month’s meeting and noted that additional information on this appeal
had been distributed since that that meeting. The Board resumed deliberation of the appeal and asked
several questions of the applicants. The Board considered each of the variance requests but noted several
of the variances were related. Board members expressed concern about several of the requests,
particularly building length, lot coverage, and off-street parking, and their potential impact on the
neighborhood.
The appeal was postponed by the Board to the January 2022 meeting to allow staff to draft a decision that
reflects the Board comments during deliberation. The applicants also indicated that they would like time
to consider the Board’s comments.
Approved 5/9/2022
III. NEW APPEALS
APPEAL # 3202 815 S. AURORA STREET
Appeal of Susanne Dennis and South Hill Living Solutions, LLC of the Zoning Administrator’s determination
that the construction of three multiple dwellings at 815 S. Aurora Street meets the requirements of §325-8,
Column 14/15, Rear Yard; §325-20F(3)(b), Landscape Compliance Method for New or Enlarged Parking
Areas with the Capacity for Three or More Parking Spaces on Lots within Residential Zoning Districts; and
§325-29.9, Fall Zone and Setback Requirements for Tier Three Personal Wireless Service Facilities (PWSF).
In April 2019, the Zoning Administrator reviewed plans for the construction of a new 66-unit student housing
complex on the property located at 815 S. Aurora Street. The property is an irregularly shaped 2.85-acre lot
that is also the site of an existing cell tower facility. After a complete review of project plans, the Zoning
Administrator determined that the new project met all requirements of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, and no
variances were required.
On September 16, 2019, Susanne Dennis, owner of 117-119 Coddington Road, and Brian Grout1, owner of
809 S. Aurora Street, submitted an application to the Board of Zoning Appeals to appeal the Zoning
Administrator’s decision. The appellants claimed that the proposed project did require variances for (1) rear
yard; (2) siting of a parking area in the fall zone of a cell tower; and (3) the landscape compliance method
for locating a new parking lot in the rear and/or side yards. The Zoning Administrator determined that the
appeal could not be heard by the BZA because it was submitted more than 60 days after the decision on the
project’s zoning compliance. The appellants filed an Article 78 proceeding to challenge the rejection of their
appeal. On September 16, 2019, the Appellate Division, Third Department, ruled that the Zoning
Administrator’s rejection of the appeal was improper because the initial no-variance determination had not
been formally filed with the City Clerk. The Court has ordered the BZA to hear the appellants’ appeal.
On October 22, 2021, the appellants Susanne Dennis and South Hill Living Solutions, LLC timely submitted
an application to appeal the Zoning Administrator’s decision that the project at 815 S. Aurora Street is
compliant with the following zoning regulations:
1) §325-8, Column 14/15, Rear Yard: The appellants assert that the average lot depth was calculated
incorrectly and the project is deficient in the required rear yard.
2) §325-20D(2)(e), Access Requirements: The appellants argue that the driveway grade exceeds the
8% allowed by the Zoning Ordinance.
3) §325-20E(3), Front Yard Parking: The appellants claim that the proposed front yard parking and
driveways exceed the 25% permitted by the Zoning Ordinance.
4) §325-20F(3)(b), Landscape Compliance Method: The appellants state that the proposed parking
area does not meet the landscape compliance method for locating a parking area in the rear and
side yards.
5) §325-29.9, Fall Zone and Setback Requirements for Tier Three Personal Wireless Service Facilities
(PWSF): The project sites a parking area within the fall zone for the existing cell tower and the
appellants assert that a parking area is an area of congregation and, as such, should not be
permitted within the fall zone.
The Board of Zoning Appeals must determine whether the Zoning Administrator’s application of the
above referenced sections of the Zoning Ordinance to the subject property in April 2019 was correct.
1 Mr. Grout has since sold his property and has been replaced by South Hill Living Solutions LLC.
Board of Zoning Appeals
12/7/21 Meeting Minutes
4
Zoning Administrator Gino Leonardi presented his 2019 zoning analysis. Bear Smith presented the
appellants’ analysis of the same project.
Public Hearing
Acting Chair Barken opened the public hearing.
The following interested party submitted comments in support of the appeal:
• Peter Penniman, 106 Grandview Place
The following interested party submitted comments in opposition to the appeal:
• Lauren Baron, Weaver Mancuso Brightman PLLC, representative of IC Overlook LLC (property
owner of 815 S. Aurora Street) spoke in opposition to the appeal.
NOTE: The property owner’s representative was granted 8 minutes to speak, which was the
same amount of time allocated to Zoning Administrator Leonardi and the appellants.
The Planning and Development Board had no comments on this appeal.
There being no further comments from interested parties, Acting Chair Barken closed the public hearing.
Attorney Maines and Mr. Smith offered a rebuttal to Ms. Baron’s comment that reiterated their approach
to applying the zoning regulations.
Deliberation
Board members asked clarifying questions of Zoning Administrator Leonardi and Mr. Smith that focused
on the details of their respective calculations. The Board noted that 815 S. Aurora Street is an unusual
property and the zoning calculations are complex. The Board postponed further consideration of the
appeal to the January 2022 meeting to allow Board members to review the testimony and written
information, including an updated document from Mr. Smith.
IV. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
A. January Agenda Review: January agenda will include the two continued appeals from this
evening, a telecommunications appeal, and a preliminary presentation of the Catherine
Commons project in Collegetown.
B. Joint Training with the Planning Board: The joint training has been tentatively scheduled for
Tuesday, February 15th.
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – NONE
VI. ADJOURNMENT – Acting Chair Barken adjourned the meeting at 9:18 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
___________________________ December 7, 2021
Megan Wilson, Senior Planner Date
Secretary, Board of Zoning Appeals
Board of Zoning Appeals
12/7/21 Meeting Minutes
5
SUBMITTED PUBLIC COMMENTS
Appeal #3202
To be read aloud at the appropriate meeting of the BZA:
I am a close neighbor to the project at 815 S Aurora Street. We live at 106 Grandview Place. Our
house is now about 45 to 50 feet from the northeast corner of the new building. In spite of that,
many of the project documents provided to the Planning Board in 2019 (and perhaps to the City
as well) did not even show our house as a close neighbor.
I would also note that most of the homes in our neighborhood are owner occupied, including
ours. This project is a huge encroachment on a quiet family neighborhood. Five out of the six
houses on Grandview Place are occupied by working people, not students, and four of them are
owner occupied.
The very small rear setback of this new building affects us greatly, increasing the noise and making
the building loom over ours, blocking the sun for several hours in the afternoon. As a
mitigation measure for this, my wife Sue Fritts and I request that you correct this problem by
increasing the rear setback by at least 10 feet.
Thank you for your work on behalf of the City.
Peter Penniman
106 Grandview Place