HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BZA-2022-02-08Approved 5/9/2022
City of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals
Minutes – February 8, 2022
Board Members Present: David Barken, Chair
Michael Cannon
Steven Henderson
Joseph Kirby
Staff Present: Anya Harris, Office Assistant
Megan Wilson, Zoning Administrator
Applicants: Melanie Dorn, Jared Lusk (Appeal #3208)
Colleen Anunu, Ann Piombino (Appeal #3201)
Michael Cook (Appeal #3204)
Micaela Karlsen (Appeal #3206)
Scott Whitham, Yifei Yan (Appeal #3207)
Chair D. Barken called the meeting to order at 6:02 pm and read the opening statement.
I. TELECOMMUNICATIO APPEALS
APPEAL #3208 110 DRYDEN ROAD
Appeal of Tilson Technology Management and Dish Wireless LLC as well as Nixon Peabody LLP and
Verizon Wireless on behalf of property owner TTEPA Associates, LLC for an area variance from Section
325-29.8C(1), Design Standards for Personal Wireless Service Facilities, of the City of Ithaca Zoning
Ordinance. Dish Wireless proposes to add an antenna array to an existing personal wireless service facility
(PWSF) located on the rooftop of the property at 110 Dryden Road. The new array will be an addition to
existing communications antennas on the property and is considered a modification of the existing PWSF.
Verizon Wireless is proposing to replace an existing array on the property with new equipment and this is
also considered a modification of the existing PWSF.
The City recently amended Article VA, Telecommunications Facilities and Services, of the Zoning
Ordinance, and the amendment requires all PWSF to be located at least 250’ from adjacent residences.
The existing PWSF at this property is located on top of a residential building. This is an existing deficiency
that will not be exacerbated by this proposal.
110 Dryden Road is located in the MU-2 district in which the proposed PWSF is permitted. However,
Sections 325-29.6 and 325-29.16 require compliance with Article VA, including the location requirements
set forth in Section 325-29.8, before a building permit may be issued. Section 325-29.28 authorizes the
Board of Zoning Appeals to grant a variance from any provision of Article VA.
Jared Lusk, on behalf of Nixon Peabody LLP and Verizon Wireless, and Melanie Dorn, on behalf of Tilson
Technology Management and Dish Wireless LLC, presented the proposed upgrade of the
telecommunications equipment at 222 S. Geneva Street. The Board did not have questions for the applicant.
Public Hearing
Chair D. Barken opened the public hearing.
There were no comments in support of or in opposition to the appeal.
Board of Zoning Appeals
2/8/22 Meeting Minutes
2
Staff read the Planning and Development Board’s recommendation on the appeal:
As this is an existing nonconformity and an update not causing visual impact, the Planning board finds no
long-term negative impacts to planning.
There being no further comments from interested parties, Chair D. Barken closed the public hearing.
Deliberation & Decision
The Board had no concerns about the requested variance, noting it is an existing facility that is already
deficient in the required setback.
On a motion by S. Henderson, seconded by M. Cannon, the BZA voted 4-0-0 to approve Appeal #3208.
II. NEW APPEALS
APPEAL #3201 430 N. CAYUGA STREET
Appeal of Gimme Coffee! on behalf of property owner 430 N Cayuga LLC for an area variance from Section
325-8, Column 4, Off-Street Parking, Column 6, Lot Area, Column 7, Lot Width, Column 10, Lot Coverage
by Buildings, Column 11, Front Yard, Column 12, 2nd Front Yard, and Column 13, Other Side Yard,
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. In 2020, the applicants temporarily installed outdoor seating on
top of the surface parking behind the Gimme Coffee! Location at 428-430 N. Cayuga Street to provide
additional outdoor space during the COVID-19 pandemic. The applicants now propose to make this
outdoor area permanent, which will remove the property’s 4 on-site parking spaces. In addition to Gimme
Coffee! on the ground floor, the building contains 5 apartments on the upper stories. The property has a
total requirement of 6 off-street parking spaces. The property is deficient in off-street parking and the
removal of the 4 spaces will exacerbate this existing deficiency.
The property also has existing deficiencies in use, lot area, lot width, lot coverage by buildings, front yard,
2nd front yard, and other side yard that will not be exacerbated by this proposal.
430 N. Cayuga Street is located in a R-2b use district in which the coffee shop is permitted by special
permit. However, Section 325-32 requires that an area variance be granted before the final approval of
the outdoor area is issued.
Colleen Anunu and Ann Piombino, on behalf of Gimme! Coffee, presented the appeal. The Board asked
questions of the applicant regarding the location and utilization of on-street parking, past use of the
current parking area by residential tenants, and the special permit for the coffee shop use.
Public Hearing
Chair D. Barken opened the public hearing.
The following interested party submitted comments in support of the appeal:
• Bill and Sarah Demo, 105 Farm Street
There were no comments in opposition to the appeal.
Staff read the Planning and Development Board’s recommendation on the appeal:
The Planning Board supports community spaces and this seating area is sensitive to adjacent neighbors.
Designed with a built-in surrounding privacy fence, the space is beautiful and is well used. The Planning
board finds no long-term negative impacts to planning as there is on-street parking available and the
business is in a walkable location.
Board of Zoning Appeals
2/8/22 Meeting Minutes
3
Staff read the comment from Tompkins County’s Review per Section 239 -l & -m of New York State
General Municipal Law:
The Tompkins County Department of Planning & Sustainability has reviewed the proposal as required by
New York State General Municipal Law §239-l, -m, and -n and has no comments or recommendations.
There being no further comments from interested parties, Chair D. Barken closed the public hearing.
Deliberation
The Board noted that the property is located in an extremely walkable location, for both the residential
tenant and patrons of Gimme! Coffee. Board members added that the outdoor seating area is a great benefit
to the community as well as the coffee shop and they understood that interest in making the area permanent.
However, the Board expressed concern about a variance for the neighborhood commercial use permitted
by the special permit, noting that the variance will be in effect in perpetuity. While Gimme! Coffee may
not need off-street parking, a future neighborhood commercial use may have a different demand but would
not be required to provide the necessary off-street parking due to the variance.
The Board tabled further consideration of this appeal and directed staff to work with the City Attorney’s
Office to investigate feasible alternatives to the requested variance that would meet the needs of the
applicant while addressing the Board’s concerns.
APPEAL #3204 308 ITHACA ROAD
Appeal of property owners Michael Cook and Laura Miller for an area variance from Section 325-8,
Column 10, Lot Coverage by Buildings, Column 11, Front Yard, and Column 13, Other Side Yard,
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance as well as Section 325-25, Location of Accessory Structures. The
applicant proposes to demolish an existing 12’ x 20’ garage on the property at 308 Ithaca Road and
construct a new 16’ by 30’ garage. The new garage will be constructed at approximately the same distance
from the side property line as the existing structure; however, this sites the garage at 4.8’ of the required
6’ setback for accessory structures in an R-1 district. In addition, the larger garage will exacerbate an
existing deficiency in lot coverage by buildings. The R-1b district allows a maximum of 25% lot coverage
by buildings. The property has an existing lot coverage by buildings of 26.4% and the larger garage will
increase this to 28.9%.
The property also has existing front yard and other side yard deficiencies that will not be exacerbated by
this proposal.
308 Ithaca Road is located in a R-1b 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.
Property owner Michael Cook presented his appeal to the Board. Board members asked about occupancy
and code requirements for the second story of the proposed garage and the potential for future use of the
garage as an accessory apartment.
Public Hearing
Chair D. Barken opened the public hearing.
The following interested parties submitted comments in support of the appeal:
• Laura Myer, 310 Ithaca Road
• Adrienne Roeder and Erich Schwarz, 317 Ithaca Road
• Elizabeth Martyn and Michael Ryzewic, 306 Ithaca Road
Board of Zoning Appeals
2/8/22 Meeting Minutes
4
There were no comments in opposition to the appeal.
Staff read the Planning and Development Board’s recommendation on the appeal:
The Planning Board supports home improvement and ownership investments, and in older homes and
neighborhoods, this inevitably triggers existing variances. They find these to be minor deficiencies, like
that the proposed garage is sited further away from the public way, and find no long-term negative
impacts to planning.
There being no further comments from interested parties, Chair D. Barken closed the public hearing.
Deliberation & Decision
The Board finds that the relocation of the accessory structure is a good plan for the individual property and
is consistent with the neighborhood. The Board notes that the support from the immediately adjacent
neighbors is indicative of the positive change that this project will have on the neighborhood.
On a motion by M. Cannon, seconded by S. Henderson, the BZA voted 4-0-0 to approve Appeal #3204.
APPEAL #3206 1203 N. CAYUGA STREET
Appeal of property owners Mark and Micaela Karlsen for an area variance from Section 325-8, Column 6,
Lot Area, Column 7, Lot Width, Column 10, Lot Coverage by Buildings, Column 11, Front Yard, Column
12, Side Yard, and Column 13, Other Side Yard, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicants
are undertaking a renovation of their home and, as part of the larger renovation, propose to demolition
their existing front steps and construct a landing and new steps at the front entry. The landing will provide
a safer space to enter and exit the home, particularly while carrying items or assisting children. The
landing will be approximately 9’ by 9’ including steps that exit into the side yard. The property has an
existing front yard deficiency, and the new construction will exacerbate that deficiency by bringing the
landing within 1’ of the front lot line. The additional square footage of the landing will also increase the
lot coverage by buildings to 35.5% of the 35% allowed by the Zoning Ordinance.
The property also has existing lot area, lot width, side yard, and other side yard deficiencies that will not
be exacerbated by this proposal.
1203 N. Cayuga Street is located in a R-2b 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.
Property owner Micaela Karlsen presented the appeal to the Board. Board members asked if the property
owners had considered an in-swing door, a smaller landing, or a side yard location.
Public Hearing
Chair D. Barken opened the public hearing.
There were no public comments in support of or in opposition to the appeal.
Staff read the Planning and Development Board’s recommendation on the appeal:
While the Planning Board, supports and appreciates that the applicant is trying to improve their house, it is
unclear what the design rationale is for the proposed landing and stairs from the submitted drawings. It is
difficult to understand how the proposed structure relates to the sidewalk and how it is integrated into the
house. The variance seems to be self-imposed and the Planning Board believes there are other options for
incorporating a new landing that would not exacerbate the front yard setback.
Board of Zoning Appeals
2/8/22 Meeting Minutes
5
There being no further comments from interested parties, Chair D. Barken closed the public hearing.
Deliberation
The Board expressed concern about the size of the landing and its proximity to the sidewalk. While the
Board has often approved variances for front steps that project into the required front yard, the Board has
tried to avoid approving requests for front porches or stoops to be located close to the sidewalk. The height
of the porch or stoop is more impactful on the public realm than the steps. The Board encouraged the
applicants to consider other options that would provide the space they are seeking.
The Board tabled further consideration of this appeal to allow the applicants to consider a smaller landing
or alternative design.
APPEAL #3207 CAYUGA PARK
Appeal of Whitham Planning & Design on behalf of owner Cayuga Medical Center for a sign variance
from §272-6 B(2), Number and Size of Permitted Signs in a Commercial Zone. The applicant is constructing
a new five-story medical office building as part of the Cayuga Park project, located off Carpenter Circle.
The applicant is proposing to install five wall signs on the new building: three “Cayuga Health” signs, one
“Main Entrance” sign, and one “CMC Immediate Care” sign. The City’s Sign Ordinance limits building
signs to two signs per business. In addition, the Sign Ordinance limits each individual sign to a maximum
of 50 square feet. Three of the five proposed signs exceed the maximum size allowed by the ordinance: (1)
Cayuga Health – 107.7 SF; (2) Cayuga Health – 107.7 SF; and (5) Cayuga Health – 81.5 SF.
The property is located in the Carpenter Circle Planned Unit Development in which the proposed use is
permitted. However, the Sign Ordinance, §272-18, requires that variances be granted before a sign permit
is issued.
Yifei Yan of Whitham Planning & Design presented the appeal to the Board on behalf of Cayuga Medical
Center. Board members asked the applicant about the viewpoints of the various signs.
Public Hearing
Chair D. Barken opened the public hearing.
There were no comments in support of or in opposition to the appeal.
Staff read the comment from Tompkins County’s Review per Section 239 -l & -m of New York State
General Municipal Law:
The Tompkins County Department of Planning & Sustainability has reviewed the proposal as required by
New York State General Municipal Law §239-l, -m, and -n and has no comments or recommendations.
Staff read the Planning and Development Board’s recommendation on the appeal:
The Planning and Development Board requested the applicant, and the applicant agreed, to have the large
signs (Signs 1 & 2) dimmed at 10 pm, closing time, and turned completely off at midnight. The lower access
signs (Signs 3, 4, & 5) will be turned off at midnight as it is understood the need for emergency services
does not strictly follow closing times. The Lead Agency feels the size and quantity of the signs has been
mitigated for the neighboring residential areas at this time and mitigated to the best ability for potential
long-term negative impacts to new development and planning around this site.
There being no further comments from interested parties, Chair D. Barken closed the public hearing.
Board of Zoning Appeals
2/8/22 Meeting Minutes
6
Deliberation & Decision
The Board noted that the lighting was their primary concern but believes that the timing of the illumination
will mitigate potential impacts. The Board finds all five signs to be necessary for wayfinding and agrees
that the proposed sizes are appropriate to the size of the building.
On a motion by D. Barken, seconded by M. Cannon, the BZA voted 4-0-0 to approve Appeal #3207.
III. CONTINUED 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
1 Mr. Grout has since sold his property and has been replaced by South Hill Living Solutions LLC.
Board of Zoning Appeals
2/8/22 Meeting Minutes
7
and the appellants assert that a parking area is an area of congregation and, as such, should not
be permitted within the fall zone.
At the December 7, 2021 Board of Zoning Appeals meeting, the Zoning Administrator and the appellants’
presented their analyses of the project, and the Board held a public hearing on the appeal. The Board
began its deliberation at the January 4, 2022 meeting and will continue at the February 1, 2022 meeting.
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.
Staff distributed the written decision, as provided by the Board at the February 1, 2022 meeting, via email
for review. The purpose of this discussion is to confirm that the written decision accurately reflects the
Board’s findings and decision on each of the five determinations made by the Zoning Administrator.
The Board discussed each of the five written decisions, and there was unanimous consent among Board
members that all five written decisions reflected the motions made at the February 1, 2022 meeting. No
revisions were made by the Board.
IV. PRELIMINARY PRESENTATIONS – NONE
V. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
a. Joint Training with the Planning and Development Board will be held February 15th at 6 pm
via Zoom
b. March 1st agenda has 6 scheduled appeals.
VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – NONE
VII. ADJOURNMENT – Chair D. Barken adjourned the meeting at 8:32 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
___________________________ February 8, 2022
Megan Wilson, Zoning Administrator Date
Secretary, Board of Zoning Appeals
Board of Zoning Appeals
2/8/22 Meeting Minutes
8
SUBMITTED PUBLIC COMMENTS
Appeal #3201
We live near the corner of Farm and North Cayuga in relavely close proximity to Gimme Coffee. We
support their request for an Area Variance for official approval of their outdoor seang area. It is a welcome
neighborhood gathering spot for Gimme customers, and we’ve detected lile impact on parking due to the
loss of three parking spaces. It has been our observaon that most people in cars that patronize the Cayuga
Street Gimme tend to park on the street.
Bill and Sarah Demo
105 Farm St.
Appeal #3204
I recently learned from my neighbor at 308 Ithaca Road that they plan to submit a zoning application to
move their garage. I am submitting this letter to indicate my wholehearted support for this project. The
present garage is in need of extensive repair and moving a garage backward will allow additional driveway
space. There is no off-street parking on Ithaca Road. Because this project in no way infringes on any other
property in the area, I am certain there will be no objection from other homeowners.
Sincerely,
Laura W. Myer
310 Ithaca Rd.
Dear Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals,
We support the appeal of our neighbors Laura Miller and Michael Cook at 308 Ithaca Road to replace their
garage as described. We are the neighbors directly across the street in 317 Ithaca Road.
Sincerely,
Adrienne Roeder and Erich Schwarz
317 Ithaca Rd.
Greetings Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals,
We are writing in support of our neighbors Michael Cook and Laura Miller, owners of 308 Ithaca Road,
who wish to rebuild their current garage structure on a new location on their property as proposed in appeal
#3204. We are the owners of 306 Ithaca Road, and share the property line on the south side of their lot; we
are one of only two homes immediately adjacent to their property.
We fully support the proposed project, and believe that the relocation of the garage further from the street
will enhance the appeal of their home by bringing the garage more in line with others similarly configured
throughout the neighborhood. A critical benefit of this project would be the expanded driveway and
improved parking at their residence. Michael and Laura are all too familiar with the constraints with the
current setup and are always respectful of keeping the sidewalk clear. However, prior homeowners
frequently parked cars across the sidewalk, and on the road strip (road verge) creating issues for pedestrians
and causing blind spots for us when backing out of our own driveway (a true risk on Ithaca Road).
Board of Zoning Appeals
2/8/22 Meeting Minutes
9
Approving this proposal wouldn't just benefit Mike and Laura as current owners of 308 Ithaca Road, but
would enhance the home and resolve a parking issue in a way that is productive for other members of the
Belle Sherman community and for the two adjacent homes on Ithaca Road.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Elizabeth Martyn & Michael Ryzewic
306 Ithaca Road