HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA Decision Letter - Appeal 2989 - 308-318 Elmira Rd. (Maguire Fiat Chrysler) - 08-20-15
CITY OF ITHACA BOARD of ZONING APPEALS
Area Variance Findings & Decision
Applicant: Thomas Schickel, RA, for Maguire Family Enterprises
Appeal No.: 2989
Zoning District: SW‐2
Hearing Held On: A Public Hearing was held on July 7, 2015; however, the Board did not have a quorum.
Deliberations 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, who were absent at the July 7,
2015 hearing, reviewed the tape recording of the July hearing and the submitted material for the case in order to
participate in deliberations and vote on the variance requests.
Property Location: 308‐318 Elmira Road
Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Section 325‐8, Columns 7 & 11, Width at Street and Front Yard
requirements. In addition, Section 325‐29 B. (2) provides that one‐third of the building frontage can be substituted
for an architectural fence between 15 and 34 feet from street curb.
Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: Section 325‐8, Columns 7 & 11, and Section 325‐29 B. (2). The SW‐2 Zone
requires that 35% of the parcel’s lot width have building frontage between 15 and 34 feet from the street curb
(Elmira Road) under Section 325‐8, Columns 7 and 11. Section 325‐29 B. (2) allows up to one‐third of the building
frontage requirement to be substituted with an architectural fence meeting the front yard setback requirement
between 15 and 34 feet from street curb. The applicant proposes to erect the fencing 13 feet from the street curb
and in the same location as the fencing proposed for the original Fiat/Chrysler building constructed in 2010, under
Zoning Appeal 2831. The applicant proposes 54.44 feet of fencing for the proposed addition, which is slightly less
than 35% of the building frontage requirement. However, the amount of fencing allowed under the variance for the
original building, and what is proposed for the addition, will be 110 LF, or approximately twice as much allowed by
the Zoning Ordinance
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 Steven Wolf.
Tompkins County Review per Section 239 ‐l and ‐m, New York State General Municipal Law: The Tompkins County
Planning Department reviewed the proposal and found no negative intercommunity or county‐wide impacts.
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
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.
Planning & Development Board Recommendation: The Planning Board could identify no long‐range planning issues
and supports granting the appeal, stating the applicant has resolved all site plan issues.
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 addition to an existing building on site. The addition will be a new showroom for a Fiat
dealership. While the building setback will not be within 15‐34 feet from the street curb line, it will be in line with
the existing building, which is 57.3 feet from the street curb. The proposed architectural fencing is 13 feet from
street curb and does not meet setback requirements, but it will be set back from curb the same distance granted in a
previous appeal. Many lots in the SW‐2 Zone face the same issue when adding to existing buildings or constructing
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 addition and fencing will be in line with the existing building and approved fencing setback. The need
for safe access to the building from Elmira Road and the fact that the property is used for two car dealerships, where
cars need to be close to the curb, can only feasibly be achieved by granting the variance requests.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes No
Reasons: The distance setback for the addition is in line with the setback approved for the original Maguire Chrysler
building, which is 57.3 feet from curb and 23.3 feet more than allowed by zoning. The proposed addition will
increase the existing front yard setback deficiency by 43.25 feet, the width of the addition. The fence will be in line
with previously approved fencing, which is deficient 2 feet from minimum required setback. These two variances
and the request to provide more fencing than allowed by zoning are not substantial requests.
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood:
Yes No
Reasons: Review of the materials submitted by the applicant and Planning Board indicate there will be no adverse
impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self‐created: Yes No
Reasons: The proposal is in keeping with existing deficiencies and the use needs to showcase cars at the curb.
Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by Moriah Tebor
Vote: Steven Beer: Yes
Moriah Tebor: Yes
Steven Wolf: 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, and Section 325‐29 B. (2) 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