HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3251 - 66 Woodcrest Ave. - Decision
CITY OF ITHACA BOARD of ZONING APPEALS
Area Variance Findings & Decision
Appeal No.: 3251
Applicant: Chris Milner, Property Owner
Property Location: 66 Woodcrest Avenue
Zoning District: R-1a
Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: §325-8, Columns 10, 11, 13, 14/15
Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Lot Coverage by Buildings, Front Yard, Side Yard, Rear
Yard
Publication Dates: April 27, 2023 and May 2, 2023.
Meeting Held On: May 2, 2023.
Summary: Appeal of property owners Chris and Cindy Milner, for an area variance from Section 325-8,
Column 10, Maximum Lot Coverage by Buildings, Column 11, Front Yard, Column 13, Side Yard, and
Column 14/15, Rear Yard requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to add a roof to
the existing front stoop and to construct a screened-in porch on the rear of the dwelling located at 66
Woodcrest Avenue. The addition of the roof to the front stoop is intended to provide shelter from weather
throughout the year and will not create new or exacerbate existing deficiencies. The applicant also proposes
to construct a 16’ x 18’ (288 SF) screened-in porch on the north side of the house. The new porch will allow
the property owners to enjoy their yard for more of the year. It will also provide a visual screening of the
main portion of the house from users of the adjacent access path to the East Ithaca Recreation Way. The
property currently exceeds the maximum 20% coverage by buildings allowed in the R-1a zone, and the
addition of the new porch will increase lot coverage from 21.9% to 24.3%. It will also create a rear yard
deficiency by reducing the rear yard to 25' 5" of the required 28'. The property has existing front and side
yard deficiencies that will not be exacerbated by the proposal.
The applicant applied for an area variance for a previous version of this project and was granted an area
variance by the Board of Zoning Appeals in 2019. The applicant was unable to start construction within
two years of the approval and the variance expired. The applicant has now returned to the Board with a
revised proposal.
Public Hearing Held On: May 2, 2023.
Members present:
Michael Cannon
Donna Fleming
Andre Gardiner
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
David Barken, Chair
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.
Planning & Development Board Recommendation: The Planning Board supports these variances as
they support owner-occupied improvements and appreciate the design of the porch. The Planning Board
finds no long-term negative impacts to planning.
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission Recommendation:
Not applicable
Motion: A motion to grant variance #3251 for 66 Woodcrest Ave. was made by M. Cannon.
Deliberations & Findings:
The Board noted that this is a great project and the new screen room will be a nice addition. The appeal is
for minor variances, and the rationale that supported the original 2019 area variance still applied to this
revised design. 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 new addition will be located on the rear of the house and will not be highly visible from the
street. The property will maintain a 25’ rear yard, and approximately 24% of the lot will be covered
be buildings.
• The front yard and side yard deficiencies are existing and will not be exacerbated by the proposal.
• The Board does not find that the requested area variance will have an undesirable change on the
character of the neighborhood.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the
variance: Yes No
• The applicant could build a smaller addition that would not encroach into the rear yard. However,
the proposed addition better meets the needs of the property owners without creating negative
impacts on the neighborhood or nearby properties.
• The property already exceeds the maximum lot coverage by buildings permitted in the R-1a
district so it is not feasible to add any new construction without exacerbating this deficiency.
• The property has existing front yard and side yard deficiencies that will not be exacerbated by this
proposal.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes No
• The new addition will encroach into the front yard by 5’ 7” and will reduce the yard to 82% of the
required depth.
• The additional will also increase the lot coverage by buildings by 288 SF. This results in 24.3%
lot coverage by buildings of the 20% allowed in the R-1a district.
• The Board does not find these to be substantial variances.
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 as the applicant is proposing new construction that does not
meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. However, the benefit to the applicant and the
absence of any negative impacts on the neighborhood outweigh the fact that the difficulty is self-
created
Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by D. Fleming
Vote: 4-0-0
Andre Gardiner YES
Donna Fleming YES
Michael Cannon 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 10, 11, 13 and 14/15 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.
___________________________ May 2, 2023
Megan Wilson, Zoning Administrator Date
Secretary, Board of Zoning Appeals