HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3293 - 213 Cascadilla Park Road - Decision
CITY OF ITHACA BOARD of ZONING APPEALS
Area Variance Findings & Decision
Appeal No.: 3293
Applicant: Reed and Rebecca Huegerich
Property Location: 213 Cascadilla Park Road
Zoning District: R-1a
Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: §325-8, Columns 6, 7, 11, 12, 14/15
Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Lot Area, Lot Width, Front Yard, Side Yard, Rear
Yard
Publication Dates: August 28, 2025 and September 2, 2025.
Meeting Held On: September 2, 2025.
Summary: Appeal of property owners Reed and Bryn Huegerich for an area variance from Sections 325-
8, Column 6, Lot Area, Column 7, Lot Width, Column 11, Front Yard, Column 12, Side Yard, and Column
14/15, Rear Yard requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing
freestanding garage and construct a new addition on the single-family home that will contain a mudroom
and single-car garage. The current garage is located 4’ from the front property line and 1.9’ from the si de
property line. The new addition will be set further back from the front property line to provide additional
space in the driveway. This will reduce the existing front yard deficiency but will extend it laterally across
the lot, as the new addition will be set back 18’ from the front property line where a minimum of 25’ is
required. The new addition will align with the existing home at the rear of the property, laterally extending
the existing rear yard deficiency (19’ 8” of the required 20’). Lastly, the new mudroom/garage will become
part of the primary structure and must meet those setback requirements. The new garage will be located 3’
from the side property line, and a minimum setback of 10’ for primary structures is required.
The property has existing deficiencies in the minimum required lot area and lot width that will not be
exacerbated by this proposal.
Public Hearing Held On: September 2, 2025.
Members present:
Michael Cannon
Donna Fleming
Joseph Kirby
Andre Gardiner
David Barken, Chair
CITY OF ITHACA
108 E. Green Street — 3rd Floor Ithaca, NY 14850-5690
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
Megan Wilson, Secretary to the Board of Zoning Appeals
Telephone: 607-274-6550 Fax: 607-274-6558 E-Mail: mwilson@cityofithaca.org
There were no comments in support of or 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 variance is a Type II Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is not subject to environmental
review.
Motion: A motion to grant variance #3293 213 Cascadilla Street was made by D. Fleming.
Deliberations & Findings:
Board members noted the unique conditions of the site and street, including the topography. Although the
need for the variance is self-created, the Board concluded that the request is not substantial and the benefit
to the applicants outweighs any possible detriment to the neighborhood.
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 Board finds that the requested area variance will not produce an undesirable change in the
character of the neighborhood as the project is consistent with existing conditions. The location of
the new addition is further from the adjacent property than the current stand-alone garage. The
applicants have sufficiently demonstrated that the location of the proposed addition, containing a
mudroom and single-car garage, will not be a detriment to nearby properties.
• The property has existing deficiencies in lot area and lot width that predate the adoption of current
zoning regulations.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the
variance: Yes No
• The applicant has demonstrated that there is no feasible alternative to the variance to achieve the
goals of the project, particularly given the challenging topography on the site.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes No
• The requested variance is not substantial as the proposed addition would extend the front yard and
rear yard laterally but not increase the setback deficiencies. Additionally, the proposed addition
would decrease the side yard from 26’ 8” to 3’ where a minimum of 10’ is allowed. However, the
impact will be minimal because the addition would be located further from the side property line
than the existing freestanding garage.
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood: Yes No
• Based on the submitted application materials, testimony of the applicant, and observations of
existing conditions, the Board does not find any evidence of adverse physical or environmental
conditions. The proposed project would improve the physical conditions of the neighborhood.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes No
• The alleged difficulty is self-created in that the applicant is proposing a new addition that does
not meet the area requirements of the zoning district. However, the benefits of the proposal to the
applicant and the lack of negative community impacts outweigh the fact that the difficulty is self-
created.
Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by J. Kirby.
Vote: 5-0-0
Michael Cannon YES
Donna Fleming YES
Joseph Kirby YES
Andre Gardiner 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, 7, 11, 12, 14/15 is 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.
___________________________ September 2, 2025
Megan Wilson, Zoning Administrator Date
Secretary, Board of Zoning Appeals