HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3267 - 308 Wood Street - Decision
CITY OF ITHACA BOARD of ZONING APPEALS
Area Variance Findings & Decision
Appeal No.: 3267
Applicant: Kristen Ciferri and Jon Roman, Property Owners
Property Location: 308 Wood Street
Zoning District: R-2b
Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: §325-8, Columns 12 and 14/15.
Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Yard and Rear Yard.
Publication Dates: December 7, 2023 and December 12, 2023.
Meeting Held On: December 12, 2023
Summary: Appeal of property owners Kristen Ciferri and Jon Roman for an area variance from Section
325-8, Column 12, Side Yard, and Column 14/15, Rear Yard, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The
property at 308 Wood Street is currently a two-family home with one unit on the lower level and a second
apartment on the second story. The property owners are proposing to demolish the existing deteriorated
two-car garage and replace it with a new primary structure that will provide a one-bedroom apartment and
a single-car garage. Once construction of the new garage and dwelling unit is completed, the existing two-
family home will be converted to a single-family residence.
The construction of the new dwelling unit in a separate building will result in a second primary structure
on the property. The Zoning Ordinance permits the construction of a second primary structure on a lot if
the property has sufficient lot area to meet the minimum requirement for two structures. 308 Wood Street
has enough lot area for two single-family homes in the R-2b district. However, the construction of the
second primary structure will create side yard and rear yard deficiencies. The new building will be
constructed at the same location as the existing two-car garage and will not provide the required 10’ side
yard on the east side of the property. In addition, the new building will extend further into the rear yard,
resulting in a 38’ rear yard where 40.5’ is required.
Public Hearing Held On: December 12, 2023
Members present:
Michael Cannon
Andre Gardiner
Joseph Kirby
David Barken, Chair
Nicole Carrier-Titti, 311 Wood Street, spoke in support of 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
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 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 II Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance (“CEQRO”), and State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), and is not subject to
Environmental Review.
Planning & Development Board Recommendation: The Planning Board fully supports this appeal
provided any neighborhood concerns are addressed. The Board supports conversion of a historic single -
family stock back into single-family use while also increasing the supply of housing where the City needs
it. The Boards finds there will be minimal impact at the street as the proposed dwelling is designed to look
like the existing building and no negative long-term planning impacts.
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission Recommendation: Not Applicable
Motion: A motion to grant variance #3267 for 308 Wood Street was made by M. Cannon.
Deliberations & Findings:
The Board noted that this lot is large enough to potential build two two-family homes so the addition of a
small, single unit is a modest request. The Board added that the proposal is a good example of an accessory
dwelling unit that is integrated into an existing property to meet the needs of the property owner.
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 applicants propose to replace an existing two-car garage with a single-car garage and one-
bedroom apartment.
• The new primary structure is larger than the existing garage but will be located in approximately
the same location.
• Based on the submitted materials and observations of the area, the Board finds that the requested
variance will not result in an undesirable change on the character of the neighborhood or be a
detriment to nearby properties.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the
variance: Yes No
• The applicant has not demonstrated that there is no feasible alternative to the variances. However,
the proposed location for the new structure is compatible with existing conditions on the lot and
within the neighborhood.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes No
• The new structure will be larger than the existing accessory structure and will extend further into
the interior of the lot as well as further into the rear yard. Additionally, the new structure is
considered a primary structure and must meet yard setbacks for primary uses, rather than the
small accessory structure setback requirements.
• The new building will reduce the rear yard to 38’ or 23.5% in a district where the rear yard is
required to be at least 25% of the lot depth. The Board does not consider this variance to be a
substantial request.
• The new structure will be 1.25’ from the side property line. The designation of this new building
as a primary structure requires that it be sited a minimum of 10’ from the property line. The
Board considers this variance to be a substantial request but notes it reflects existing conditions
on the site.
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood: Yes No
• The Board of Zoning Appeals does not identify additional adverse impacts on the physical or
environmental conditions of the neighborhood resulting from the side yard and rear yard
deficiencies.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes No
• The alleged difficulty is self-created in that the applicant is undertaking new construction that does
not meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. However, the Board finds that the benefits of
the project to the applicant and the absence of any detrimental neighborhood impacts outweigh the
fact that the deficiencies are self-created.
Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by J. Kirby.
Vote: 4-0-0
Michael Cannon YES
Andre Gardiner 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 12 and 14/15 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.
___________________________ December 12, 2023
Megan Wilson, Zoning Administrator Date
Secretary, Board of Zoning Appeals