HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3266 - 39 Woodcrest Avenue - Decision
CITY OF ITHACA BOARD of ZONING APPEALS
Area Variance Findings & Decision
Appeal No.: 3266
Applicant: Carol Chock and Paul Mazzarella, Property Owners
Property Location: 39 Woodcrest Avenue
Zoning District: R-1a
Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: §325-8, Columns 7 and 12.
Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Lot Width and Side Yard.
Publication Dates: December 7, 2023 and December 12, 2023.
Meeting Held On: December 12, 2023
Summary: Appeal of property owners Carol Chock and Paul Mazzarella for an area variance from Section
325-8, Column 7, Lot Width, and Column 12, Side Yard, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The
property owners will be rebuilding their existing 12’ x 12’ rear deck and are proposing to add a gazebo as
an addition to the southwest corner of the deck. The gazebo will be a covered 11’ x 11’ structure that will
extend into the side yard by 4.5’, reducing the side yard to 6.5’ or 65% of the required 10’.
39 Woodcrest Avenue is a “flag lot” with narrow lot frontage on Woodcrest Avenue and a long drive that
leads to the single-family home. The property has an existing lot width deficiency that will not be
exacerbated by the proposal.
Public Hearing Held On: December 12, 2023
Members present:
Michael Cannon
Andre Gardiner
Joseph Kirby
David Barken, Chair
There were no comments from interested parties 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 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.
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
Planning & Development Board Recommendation: The Planning Board does not identify any negative
long-term planning impacts and supports this appeal provided any neighborhood concerns are addressed.
As the parcel is a flag lot, they find there is minimal visual impact from Woodcrest Avenue. Further, th e
Board supports homeowner investment to allow for property owners to remain in their homes.
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission Recommendation: Not Applicable
Motion: A motion to grant variance #3266 for 39 Woodcrest Avenue was made by A. Gardiner.
Deliberations & Findings:
The Board had no objections to the appeal. Members noted that the applicants had considered zoning-
compliant alternatives, but those alternatives had other undesirable impacts and did not meet the needs of
the property owners. The encroachment into the side yard will have no or minimal impact on adjacent
properties and the lot width deficiency is an existing condition.
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 are proposing to construct a gazebo at the corner of the deck at the rear of their
home. The gazebo will extend into the required side yard.
• The reduced front yard is located next to the rear yards of the adjacent properties. The gazebo will
be at least 45’ from the nearest neighboring structure.
• The property has an existing deficiency in lot width that will not be exacerbated by the proposal.
• 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 applicants considered alternate locations for the new gazebo but determined that the proposed
location at the southwest corner best meets their needs. The site topography and the design of the
gazebo will limit any impact on neighboring properties.
• The lot width deficiency is existing and will not be exacerbated by the proposal.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes No
• The construction of the new gazebo will reduce the side yard to 6.5’ of the required 10’ (35%
deficiency). While this is request is proportionally substantial, it will have minimal impact on the
neighborhood and nearby properties.
• The property has an existing deficiency in lot width that will not be exacerbated by the proposal.
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 requested variances.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes No
• The alleged difficulty is self-created in that the applicants are proposing new construction that does
not meet the area requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. However, the Board finds that the
granting of the requested area variances will achieve the goals of the property owner with minimal
impacts on the neighborhood. This outweighs the fact that the deficiencies are self-created.
Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by M. Cannon.
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 7 and 12 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