HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3142-66 Woodcrest Ave-Decision Letter-11-5-2019CITY OF ITHACA
108 E. Green Street — 3rd Floor Ithaca, NY 14850-5690
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING, ZONING, & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Division of Zoning
Gino Leonardi, Secretary to the Board of Zoning Appeals
Telephone: 607-274-6513 E -Mail: gleonardi@cityofithaca.org
CITY OF ITHACA BOARD of ZONING APPEALS
Area Variance Findings & Decision
Appeal No.: 3142
Applicant: Emily Petrina, Firehouse Architecture Lab, for Chris & Cindy Milner, owner.
Property Location: 66 Woodcrest Avenue
Zoning District: R -la
Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: Section 325-8, Columns 10, 11, 13, and 14/15
Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Maximum Lot Coverage by Buildings; Front, Other
Side, and Rear Yards
Publication Dates: October 30, 2019 and November 1, 2019.
Meeting Held On: November 5, 2019
Summary:
Appeal of Emily Petrina, Firehouse Architecture LAB, on behalf 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 306 -square foot 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 is currently deficient in lot coverage by
buildings and the addition of the new porch will increase this deficiency from 21.9% to 24.5% of the
allowable 20%. It will also create a rear yard deficiency by reducing the rear yard setback to 27' 7" of the
required 31'. The property has existing front and side yard deficiencies that will not be exacerbated by the
proposal.
The property is located in an R -la residential use district in which the proposed use is permitted. However,
Section 325-38 requires that an area variance be granted before a building permit is issued.
Public Hearing Held On: November 5, 2019.
No public comments in opposition.
Joy Blumkin and Lewis Golinker submitted a letter in favor of the appeal.
1
Members present:
Steven Beer, Chair
Teresa Deschanes
Steven Wolf
Stephanie Egan -Engels
Suzanne Charles
Tompkins County Review per Section 239 -1 & -m of New York State General Municipal Law:
N/A
Planning & Development Board Recommendation:
The Planning Board does not identify any negative long term planning impacts and supports this appeal. The
additions is in the rear yard, will not be visible to the public and there are no immediate rear yard neighbors.
Environmental Review: Type: 2
This is a Type 2 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.
Motion: A motion to grant the variance request was made by Steven Wolf.
Deliberations & Findings:
Factors Considered:
1. Whether an undesirable change would be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties: Yes E No
The screened porch is located on the rear of the building. The neighbor immediately adjacent to the property
has written that they are in support of the variance. Only at the eastern most corner of the porch
Will the new porch impinges on the rear setback. This would not create a significant undesirable change to
the character of the neighborhood.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the
variance: Yes C No
A narrow porch that did not encroach into the rear yard setback would not serve purpose of even having a
porch.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes ❑ No
The variance is not substantial either on a percentage basis or on a square footage basis. The variance
request is not substantial.
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood: Yes ❑ No
The Board discussed the adjacent access to the East Ithaca Recreation Way and questioned whether the
public had rights to use the neighboring foot path to access the Recreation Way. The porch addition would
therefore not have an impact on the physical or environmental conditions. The porch would enhance the
livability and property values for the owner.
2
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes ® No ❑
The need for the porch is self-created because the owner could live without a screened in porch. Although,
this factor was not out weighted by the other factors.
Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by Teresa Deschanes.
Vote:
Steven Beer, Chair Yes
Teresa Deschanes Yes
Steven Wolf Yes
Stephanie Egan -Engels Yes
Suzanne Charles Yes
Determination of BZA Based on the Above Factors:
The BZA, taking into consideration the five factors, finds that the Benefit to the Applicant outweighs the
Determinant to the Neighborhood or Community. The BZA further finds that variances from Zoning
Ordinance, Section 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.
Gin
Secretary,
November 26, 2019
Zoning Administrator Date
oard of Zoning Appeals
3