HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3190 - 405 Elmira Road - Decision Letter
CITY OF ITHACA BOARD of ZONING APPEALS
Area Variance Findings & Decision
Appeal No.: 3190
Applicant: KPB Investments on behalf of property owner Buttermilk Falls, LLC
Property Location: 405 Elmira Road
Zoning District: SW-2
Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: §325-8, Columns 4, 7, and 11; §325-20I.
Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Off-Street Parking, Lot Width, and Front Yard; Parking
in the Southwest Area.
Publication Dates: July 29, 2021 and July 31, 2021.
Meeting Held On: August 3, 2021.
Summary: Appeal of KBP Investments on behalf of property owner Buttermilk Falls, LLC for an Area
Variance from Section 325-8, Column 4, Off-Street Parking, Column 7, Lot Width, and Column 11, Front
Yard, requirements of Zoning Ordinance as well as §325-20I, Parking in the Southwest Area. The applicant
proposes to construct a fast-food restaurant with a drive-thru on the vacant property located at 405 Elmira
Road. A shared access easement to the adjacent properties is located within the required front yard, causing
the building to be setback 81’ from the curb instead of the 15’-34’ required by the Zoning Ordinance. The
proposed building also does not meet the lot frontage requirements of the SW-2 zone. The district
regulations require that 35% of the lot frontage be occupied by buildings within the required front yard.
Since the building is proposed to be setback further than the required 15’-34’, it is unable to meet the lot
frontage requirement as well. In addition, §325-20I, Parking in the Southwest Area, requires off-street
parking to be setback 100’ from the curb when the front yard and lot frontage requirements are not met.
The parking cannot be set back 100’ without removing the existing vegetative buffer.
Additionally, the applicant seeks a variance for three off-street parking spaces. The proposed building
requires 23 off-street parking spaces, and the applicant proposes to construct 20 spaces on site. The reduced
off-street parking will allow space to accommodate outdoor dining.
Public Hearing Held On: August 3, 2021.
Members present:
Stephen Henderson
Stephanie Egan-Engels
David Barken, Acting Chair
Robert L. Halpin, on behalf of interested party Amiri, LLC of 407 Elmira Road, submitted a letter in
opposition to the appeal.
CITY OF ITHACA
108 E. Green Street — 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: 607-274-6550 Fax: 607-274-6558 E-Mail: gleonardi@cityofithaca.org
Tompkins County Review per Section 239 -l & -m of New York State General Municipal Law:
The Tompkins County Department of Planning & Sustainability had no recommendations or comments on
the proposal.
Environmental Review: This variance is a component of an action that also includes subdivision and site
plan review. Considered together, this is a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act for which the Planning and
Development Board, acting as Lead Agency, made a Negative Determination of Environmental
Significance on June 22, 2021.
Planning & Development Board Recommendation:
The Planning Board does not identify any negative long-term planning impacts and supports this appeal
for the following reasons:
• Due to the existing vehicular access to the site, the applicant cannot comply with the setback and
frontage requirements.
• The Board supports the parking variance because there is ample parking on the site as a whole
and removal a few spaces allows for additional site improvements such as an outdoor patio and
tree planting – which is much needed in paved areas.
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission Recommendation:
Not applicable
Motion: A motion to grant variance #3190 for 405 Elmira Road was made by S. Egan-Engels.
Deliberations & Findings:
In response to the letter submitted by Mr. Halpin, the Board noted that the parking concerns are a property
management issue and should be a discussion among the involved private property owners. Unauthorized
use of private parking is not a zoning issue. The Board discussed the claim that the property owner was not
notified of the appeal as required by Code. The appellant has submitted three sets of certified mail receipts
that demonstrate that three separate notifications were sent to the property owner’s address of record. This
evidence confirmed appropriate notifications of the appeal were sent to adjacent property owners. It was
also noted that the property at 407 Elmira Road was required to obtain the same variances to build, due to
the site constraints.
The vacant lot is currently an eye sore in the Southwest area. The variance will allow the restaurant to be
constructed and will activate the site. Due to the property easements, any construction on this site would
require front yard and frontage variances.
Factors Considered:
1. Whether an undesirable change would be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties: Yes No
The development of the property at 405 Elmira Road would be a positive change. The existing easement
requires variance for the development of the site in any manner. The proposed project is In-line with the
existing buildings on the surrounding lots. Furthermore, the accommodation of all required parking would
require removal of existing green space, and it is undesirable to remove vegetation at the rear of the site.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the
variance: Yes No
Due to the existing easements on this property, it is not possible to construct any building to meet the front
yard and frontage requirements of the SW-2 zone.
The off-street parking requirement could be met with the removal of existing green space; however, the
Board believes that the proposed 20 spaces will be sufficient and finds it undesirable to remove any green
space in this neighborhood to accommodate additional parking.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes No
The proposed building will be located 81’ from the curb, as opposed to the 15’-34’ required by the Zoning
Ordinance. This is a substantial request but the building is sited in line with other structures on that
particular block face and the existing easement necessitates this siting.
The Board does not find the request to reduce off-street parking or locate the parking closer to the curb to
be substantial.
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood: Yes No
The Board finds no evidence of adverse impact on physical or environmental conditions. As noted by the
Planning and Development Board, the requested variances allow the appellant to maintain existing green
space in an area already dominated by surface parking and paving. The ability to add additional plantings
and trees as well as an outdoor dining area will improve the environmental condition in the immediate
neighborhood.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes No
The alleged difficulty is self-created in that the appellant is choosing to develop this vacation site. However,
the proposed project, including all requested variances, are appropriate to the neighborhood and do not
exacerbate any existing site challenges on this property.
Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by S. Henderson.
Vote: 3-0-0
Stephen Henderson YES
Stephanie Egan-Engels YES
David Barken, Acting Chair YES
Determination of the BZA Based on the Above Factors:
The BZA, taking into the five factors for an area variance, finds that the benefit to the applicant outweighs
the detriment to the neighborhood or community. The BZA further finds that the variances from the Zoning
Ordinance, §325-8, Columns 4, 7, and 11, and §325-20I 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 3, 2021
Megan Wilson, Senior Planner Date
Secretary, Board of Zoning Appeals