HomeMy WebLinkAboutZONE-25-6 - 607 Mitchell Street - Decision
CITY OF ITHACA BOARD of ZONING APPEALS
Area Variance Findings & Decision
Appeal No.: ZONE-25-6
Applicant: Kristin Bartholomew on behalf of property owners Alexandra and Scott Strong
Property Location: 607 Mitchell Street
Zoning District: R-1b
Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: §325-8, Columns 11, 13
Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Front Yard and Other Side Yard
Publication Dates: July 31, 2025 and August 5, 2025
Meeting Held On: August 5, 2025
Summary: Appeal of Kristin Bartholomew on behalf of property owners Alexandra and Scott Strong for
an area variance from Sections 325-8, Column 11, Front Yard, and Column 13, Other Side Yard. The
applicant is proposing to demolish the existing front stoop and steps and to construct an 8’ x 22’ front porch
with steps to grade on the existing single-family home. The new porch and steps will be located 16’6” from
the front property line, in a district where a minimum front yard of 25’ is required. The new porch will be
located the same distance from the front property line as the existing stoop; however, the new porch will
extend the existing front yard deficiency laterally across the front of the building.
The property also has an existing deficiency in a required side yard that will not be exacerbated by this
proposal.
Public Hearing Held On: August 5, 2025
Members present:
Michael Cannon
Donna Fleming
Andre Gardiner
David Barken, Chair
There were no comments from interested parties regarding this appeal.
Tompkins County Review per Section 239 -l & -m of New York State General Municipal Law: Not
Applicable
CITY OF ITHACA
108 E. Green Street — 3rd Floor Ithaca, NY 14850-5690
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
Megan Wilson, Secretary to the Board of Zoning Appeals
Telephone: 607-274-6550 Fax: 607-274-6558 E-Mail: mwilson@cityofithaca.org
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 #ZONE-25-6 607 Mitchell Street was made by A. Gardiner.
Deliberations & Findings:
The Board noted that the proposed porch would be consistent with the neighborhood and would blend in
nicely with the existing context. There is a history of a front porch on this site, as evidenced by the historic
photos submitted by the applicant. There is no feasible alternative to the variance for a front porch at this
location, and Board members noted that the proposal was the least intrusive and most compatible solution.
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 requested area variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood
as the project is consistent with existing conditions. The applicants have sufficiently demonstrated that the
lateral extension of the front yard deficiency would not be a detriment to nearby properties. Additionally,
the property owners have provided evidence that a porch across the front of the building, like the one
proposed, was present on the property in the past.
The property has an existing deficiency in the other side yard requirement that predates 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 property has an existing front yard deficiency, and the applicant has demonstrated that there is no
feasible alternative to the variance that would allow a front porch on the home.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes No
The proposal will provide a front yard of 16’ 6” or 66% of the required 25’ yard. The existing steps also
extend into the required yard, reducing it to 16’ 6”. The proposed porch would extend the existing front
yard deficiency laterally across the front of the building. The Board finds this to be a substantial request.
However, the Board finds that, while proportionally substantial, the requested variance will not have
significant impacts on the neighborhood or nearby properties.
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.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes No
The alleged difficulty is self-created in that the applicant is proposing a new porch 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 M. Cannon.
Vote: 4-0-0
Michael Cannon YES
Donna Fleming 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 11 and 13, 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 5, 2025
Megan Wilson, Zoning Administrator Date
Secretary, Board of Zoning Appeals