HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3241 - 105 Crescent Place - Decision
CITY OF ITHACA BOARD of ZONING APPEALS
Area Variance Findings & Decision
Appeal No.: 3241
Applicant: Jeffery Bowen and Mary Beth James, Property Owners
Property Location: 105 Crescent Pl.
Zoning District: R-1b
Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: §325-8, Column 6, Column 10, Column 11 and Column 13
Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Lot Area, Lot Coverage by Buildings, Front Yard and
Other Side Yard
Publication Dates: December 1, 2022 and December 6, 2022.
Meeting Held On: December 6, 2022.
Summary: Appeal of property owners Jeffrey Bowen and Mary Beth James for an area variance from
Section 325-8, Column 6, Lot Area; Column 10, Lot Coverage by Buildings; Column 11, Front Yard; and
Column 13, Other Side Yard requirements of the Zoning Ordinance as well as Section 325-25, Location of
Accessory Structures. The applicant proposes to demolish an existing 11’ x 19’ garage on the property at
105 Crescent Place and construct a new 14’ by 22’ garage in approximately the same location. Accessory
structures in the R-1b district are required to be 6’ from the side property line and 3’ from the rear property
line. The proposed location of the new structure is 2.5’ from the side property line and 4.5’ from the rear
property line. If the new garage was located to meet the required setbacks, it would not be aligned with
the driveway and would be located too close to the existing rear deck. The larger garage also increases the
property’s lot coverage by buildings to 26.3%, which exceeds the 25% permitted in the R-1b district.
The property also has existing lot area, front yard, and other side yard deficiencies that will not be
exacerbated by this proposal.
105 Crescent Place is located in a R-1b district in which the proposed use is permitted. However, Section
325-32 requires that an area variance be granted before a building permit is issued.
Public Hearing Held On: December 6, 2022
Members present:
Donna Fleming
Michael Cannon
Andre Gardiner
Joseph Kirby
David Barken, Chair
CITY OF ITHACA
108 E. Green Street — 3rd Floor Ithaca, NY 14850-5690
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING, ZONING, & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Division of Zoning
Megan Wilson, Secretary to the Board of Zoning Appeals
Telephone: 607-274-6550 Fax: 607-274-6558 E-Mail: mwilson@cityofithaca.org
The following interested parties submitted comments or spoke in support of the appeal:
• Carol Hoffman and D Chobra, 107 Crescent Place
There were no comments from interested parties in opposition to the appeal.
Tompkins County Review per Section 239 -l & -m of New York State General Municipal Law:
Not applicable.
Environmental Review: This is a Type 2 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is not subject to Environmental Review.
Planning & Development Board Recommendation:
The Planning Board is in favor of this variance as they support owner investments and property
improvement with minimal land use impacts. The Board finds no long-term negative impacts to planning.
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission Recommendation:
Not applicable
Motion: A motion to grant variance #3241 for 105 Crescent Pl. was made by M. Cannon.
Deliberations & Findings:
The Board found no feasible alternatives to this proposal, given the siting of the home and existing
driveway. The existing deficiency of the accessory structure’s rear yard deficiency is alleviated by the
proposal. The adjacent property owner is supportive of the proposal. The Board had no objections to this
request.
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 applicant is proposing to replace their existing garage with a larger one to accommodate larger
cars and conform with property lines. The new structure will lessen the Rear Yard deficiency.
• The Board has received a letter of support from a neighboring property owner and no comments in
opposition to the variance.
• Based on the submitted materials, observations of the neighborhood, and testimony at the
December 6th BZA meeting, the Board finds that the requested variance will not produce an
undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. The garage is consistent with other homes
in the area and compatible with the neighborhood.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the
variance: Yes No
• A garage cannot be constructed to fit the driveway without creating yard deficiencies due to the
proximity of the driveway to the lot line.
• The property’s lot area, front yard, and other side yard deficiencies are existing deficiencies that
will not be exacerbated by this proposal.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes No
• While proportionally this could be considered a substantial variance, the requested variance will
not have a substantial impact on adjacent properties or the neighborhood. The location of the
proposed garage is consistent with the historic use of the property as well as other properties in
the area.
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood: Yes No
• The requested variance is a Type II action that is predetermined to have no negative environmental
impact. Further environmental review is not required.
• Based on the submitted application materials and testimony of the applicant, the Board finds that
the location of the accessory structure will not have an adverse physical or environmental impact.
• The property’s lot area, front yard, and other side yard deficiencies are existing deficiencies that
will not be exacerbated by this proposal.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes No
• The alleged difficulty is self-created in that the applicant is proposing to construct a garage that
encroaches into the required yards. However, the requested variance will not have any adverse
community impacts, and the Board finds that the benefits to the applicants outweighs the fact that
the difficulty is self-created.
Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by J. Kirby
Vote: 5-0-0
Michael Cannon YES
Andre Gardiner YES
Donna Fleming YES
Joseph Kirby YES
David Barken, 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 applicants outweighs
the detriment to the neighborhood or community. The BZA further finds that the variances from the Zoning
Ordinance, §325-8, Columns 6, 10, 11 and 13 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.
___________________________ December 6, 2022
Megan Wilson, Zoning Administrator Date
Secretary, Board of Zoning Appeals