HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3132-315 Elmira Rd.-Decision Letter-8-6-2019CITY OF ITHACA
108 E. Green Street â 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: 607-274-6513 E -Mail: gleonardi@cityofithaca.org
CITY OF ITHACA BOARD of ZONING APPEALS
Area Variance Findings & Decision
Appeal No.: 3132
Applicant: John Snyder Architects for Maguire Family Limited Partnership, LLC, Owner
Property Location: 315 Elmira Road
Zoning District: SW -2
Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: Section 325-8, Column 11 and Section 325-29.2 B (2)
Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Front Yard and Building Setback Requirements
Publication Dates: July 31, 2019 and August 1, 2019.
Meeting Held On: August 6, 2019.
Summary: Appeal of John Snyder Architects on behalf of the owner Maguire Family Limited
Partnership, LLC for area variance from Section 325-8, Column 11, Front Yard, and Section 325-29.2 B
(2) SW -2 Building Setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant is proposing an
improvement project at the property located at 315 Elmira Road. The project includes the reconfiguration
of the interior space and upgrading the exterior facade to meet the Honda dealership requirements. As part
of the project, the applicant proposes to construct a new addition that will be used as a vehicle delivery
carport and also a display for the newest technologies in electronic vehicles. In order to maintain the
existing building facade, the new carport will be setback 67.9 feet from the curb line in line with the
existing building. Section 325-29.2 B (2) requires that buildings be setback a minimum of 15-34 feet from
the curb. The carport will be a total of 916 square feet and extend 35.8 feet along the existing face of the
building. This will exacerbating the existing front yard setback an addition 35.8 feet.
The property is located in an SW -2 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.
Public Hearing Held On: August 6, 2019.
No public comments in favor or in opposition.
Members present:
Steven Beer, Chair
Teresa Deschanes
Steven Wolf
Stephanie Egan -Engels â prospective member
1
Tompkins County Review per Section 239 -1 & -m of New York State General Municipal Law:
Tompkins County has reviewed the proposal, as submitted and has determined that it has no negative
intercommunity, or county wide impacts.
Planning & Development Board Recommendation:
The Planning Board does not idents any negative long term planning impacts and supports this appeal.
Environmental Review: This is a Type 2 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance ("CEQRO"), and State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA"), and is not subject to
Environmental Review.
Motion: A motion to grant the variance request was made by Teresa Deschanes
Deliberations & Findings:
Factors Considered:
1. Whether an undesirable change would be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties: Yes E No
The new structure is in line with the existing building and is in character with the nearby properties. The
existing building previously received a variance for the front yard setback and the addition of the carport
will not increase the deficient setback from the curb. It will extend the deficiency parallel to the road and
there will be little change as viewed from the passerby's. The carport is an open display and it is in an area
that was previously used for displaying vehicles.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the
variance: Yes E No
The applicant discussed the need for the variance to meet dealership requirements for the Honda
franchise. Because of site constrains, attaching the carport on any portion of the building front would
require some type of variance. In order to have the carport in view, the location results in a minimal
variance.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes â No
The variance is not substantial due to it is exacerbating a pre-existing deficiency in length and not
increasing the setback deficiency from the road.
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood: Yes [ No
There was no evidence of large lit signs or other adverse effects that would impact the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes E No
The difficulty is less self-created due to the franchise requirements for the dealership.
Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by Steven Wolf.
2
Vote:
Steven Beer, Chair Yes
Teresa Deschanes Yes
Steven Wolf Yes
Determination of BZA Based on the Above Factors:
The BZA, taking into consideration the five factors, fmds 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, Column 11, and Section 325-29.2 B (2) are the minimum variance that should
be granted in order to preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety, and
welfare of the community.
Sec a P - IV
, B âĒd of Zoning Appeals
August 21, 2019
Date
3