The City of Canandaigua Zoning Board of Appeals opened its January meeting by organizing for the new year, then spent the bulk of the evening deliberating a proposed oversized detached garage on Academy Place and beginning review of a requested use variance for a hair salon on Pleasant Street.
Proposed second garage at 28 Academy Place
The first application reviews involved a request by property owner Todd LaBarr for three area variances to construct a 44-foot by 40-foot (1,760-square-foot) detached garage behind his residence at 28 Academy Place, in addition to an existing detached garage.
Under the city zoning ordinance, only one detached garage is permitted per residential lot, the maximum garage size is 750 square feet, and the portion of a garage running parallel to the street may not exceed 24 feet. The proposal complied with setback requirements but exceeded size and dimensional limits and required approval for a second garage.
LaBarr told the board the garage would be used to store four classic cars and said he was willing to reduce the size if necessary. He said the structure would be single-story, likely include electricity and heat, and would not include plumbing or vehicle repair activity. He also said the building would be placed toward the rear of the property and accessed by a gravel or stone driveway extending from the existing garage.
Public hearing and neighborhood concerns
During the public hearing, nearby residents raised concerns primarily about the size, placement and visual impact of the proposed structure.
Michael Cozzitti of North Main Street said the neighborhood includes historic properties and asked the board to consider aesthetics and scale, noting that nearby outbuildings predate current garage size regulations. Tom McCauley of Academy Place said the proposed garage appeared larger than many homes in the area and expressed concern about potential impacts on views, driveway placement and a mature Osage orange tree on the property.
Zoning Officer Brown said the city notified nearby property owners in accordance with state and local law and explained that while residential structures are generally not subject to design review, architectural features could be attached as conditions if the board deemed them relevant to mitigating impacts.
Board members also acknowledged receiving a written comment from a Perry Place resident expressing concerns about the structure’s size and effect on neighboring properties.
Board deliberation and decision to table
After closing the public hearing, the board worked through the five-part legal test required for area variances, focusing discussion on the scale of the building, its placement on the lot, potential visual impacts, and whether the applicant’s goals could be met with a smaller structure.
Several members said a garage in the rear yard was acceptable in principle but described the proposed 1,760-square-foot size as excessive. Multiple members suggested a structure closer to 1,200 square feet could still accommodate the applicant’s needs while reducing neighborhood impacts. Members also discussed relocating the building slightly forward on the lot to preserve trees and provide additional screening for adjacent properties.
The board unanimously voted to table the application. In its motion, the board directed the applicant to return with a revised proposal reflecting:
- A reduced garage size of approximately 1,200 square feet,
- Consideration of architectural elements similar to those presented,
- A revised location intended to minimize tree loss and visual impact,
- Further coordination with city staff before resubmission.
No final action was taken on the variances at this meeting.
Hair salon use variance introduced at Pleasant Street property
The board then opened it’s second application of the night, submitted by John Frarey, seeking a use variance to operate a hair salon within an existing structure at 191 Pleasant Street. The property is located in an R-2 two-family residential zoning district, where commercial uses such as salons are not permitted without a variance.
Frarey told the board the building has a long history of commercial use, including as a grocery store and restaurant, and noted that the board previously approved a separate use variance for a restaurant at the same location, which was not ultimately pursued.
Zoning Officer Brown explained that because the property remains zoned residential, any nonresidential use requires a specific use variance, and approval would be limited to the requested salon use rather than a blanket commercial designation.
The board had just begun discussion of the application when the available transcript concluded, and no vote was recorded on the salon request during the portion of the meeting provided.
Next steps
The Zoning Board of Appeals is expected to revisit the Academy Place garage application after the applicant submits revised plans. Further review of the Pleasant Street hair salon use variance is also anticipated at a future meeting.
FingerLakes1.com is the region’s leading all-digital news publication. The company was founded in 1998 and has been keeping residents informed for more than two decades. Have a lead? Send it to [email protected].