HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA Decision Letter - Appeal 2969 - 222 Elmira Rd. (Marx Realty) - 08-20-15
CITY OF ITHACA BOARD of ZONING APPEALS
Area Variance Findings & Decision
Applicant: Marx Realty & Improvement Company, for Ithaca Joint Venture
Appeal No.: 2969
Zoning District: SW‐2
Hearing Held On: A Public Hearing was held on July 7, 2015; however, the Board did not have a
quorum. Deliberation and decision were carried over to the August 11, 2015 BZA Special Meeting. Prior
to the continuation of the meeting on August 11, 2015, Board members Moriah Tebor and Steve Wolf
reviewed the audio recording of the July 7, 2015 hearing and reviewed the application in order to
participate in deliberations and vote on the variance requests.
Property Location: 222 Elmira Road
Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Sections 325‐8, Columns 7 and 11, Width at Street, and
Front Yard requirements. Also Section 325‐20 I., which requires off‐street parking to be 100 feet back
from street curb, if requirements in Section 325‐8, Columns 7 and 11, cannot be met.
Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: Section 325‐8, Columns 7 & 11, and Section 325‐20 I.
Members Present:
Steven Beer, Chair
Moriah Tebor
Steven Wolf
Hearing: A Public Hearing was held on July 7, 2015 and adjourned to the August 11, 2015 BZA Special
Meeting.
Motion: A motion to grant the variance requests on August 11, 2015 was made by Moriah Tebor.
Tompkins County Review per Section 239 ‐l and ‐m of New York State General Municipal Law: The
Tompkins County Planning Department reviewed the proposal and found no negative intercommunity
or county‐wide impacts.
Environmental Review: Type: Unlisted Action
The Planning Board acting as Lead Agency for Environmental Review for Site Plan Review and the
requested Zoning Variances determined on July 28, 2015 that this proposed project will result in no
significant impact on the environment and made a Negative Declaration for the purposes of Article 8 of
the Environmental Conservation Law, which was filed in accordance with the provisions of Part 617 of
the State Environmental Quality Review Act.
CITY OF ITHACA
108 E. Green Street — 3rd Floor Ithaca, NY 14850-5690
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING, ZONING, & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Division of Zoning
PHYLLIS RADKE, DIRECTOR OF ZONING ADMINISTRATION
Telephone: Planning & Development – 607-274-6550 E-Mail: cpyott@cityofithaca.org
2
Planning & Development Board Recommendation: The Planning Board could identify no long‐range
planning issues and supports granting the appeal. The applicant has proposed a site plan that vastly
improves the functionality and attractiveness of the site.
Factors Considered:
1. Whether an undesirable change would be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties: Yes No
Reasons: The project is an additional building to a site previously developed under different zoning
requirements (prior to the SW‐2 Zone being adopted in 2003). While the building setback will not be
within 15‐34 feet from the street curb line and 35% of the lot’s street width will not have building
frontage within the front yard setback requirements, the new building will be in line with the existing
plaza. Many lots in the SW‐2 Zone face the same issue when adding to existing buildings or building new
buildings on a previously developed site. There will be no discernible changes to the neighborhood and
it will not be a detriment to nearby properties.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the
variance: Yes No
Reasons: The applicant claims that a large reason for the positioning of the new building to be in line
with the existing plaza is due to the plaza’s traffic flow, and how restaurant patrons will enter and exit
the project site. The project needed a permit for NYS DOT for access to Elmira Road and the
development of this project is in accordance with DOT requirements.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes No
Reasons: Being that the entire street width at 222 Elmira Road was developed prior to the adoption of
the SW‐2 Zone, no part of the existing development meets building frontage and front yard setbacks. In
addition, parking already exists close to the street curb. The addition of 6 more spaces closer than 100
feet from the street curb, and the new 3400‐SF restaurant, do not greatly increase existing deficiencies.
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood: Yes No
Reasons: No. The property conforms with other properties in the SW‐2 Zone.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self‐created: Yes No
Reasons: The applicant is trying to develop on an existing parcel, which basically contains an opportune
area where the restaurant can be sited. Because of the existing access and traffic flow to and from the
plaza, the applicant did not create the alleged difficulties.
Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by Steve Wolf
Vote: Moriah Tebor: Yes
Steven Wolf: Yes
Steven Beer: Yes
3
Determination of BZA Based on Above Factors:
Taking into consideration the five factors, the BZA 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, Columns 7 and 11, Street Width and Front Yard, and Section 325‐20 I., 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.
_____________________________ August 20, 2015
Secretary, Board of Zoning Appeals, Date
Director of Zoning Administration