HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3204 - 308 Ithaca Road - Decision
CITY OF ITHACA BOARD of ZONING APPEALS
Area Variance Findings & Decision
Appeal No.: 3204
Applicant: Michael Cook and Laura Miller, Property Owners
Property Location: 308 Ithaca Road
Zoning District: R-1b
Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: §325-8, Columns 10, 11, and 13 and §325-25.
Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Lot Coverage by Buildings, Front Yard, Other Side
Yard, and Location of Accessory Structure.
Publication Dates: February 2, 2022 and February 5, 2022.
Meeting Held On: February 8, 2022.
Summary: Appeal of property owners Michael Cook and Laura Miller for an area variance from Section
325-8, Column 10, Lot Coverage by Buildings, Column 11, Front Yard, and Column 13, Other Side Yard,
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance as well as Section 325-25, Location of Accessory Structures. The
applicant proposes to demolish an existing 12’ x 20’ garage on the property at 308 Ithaca Road and construct
a new 16’ by 30’ garage. The new garage will be constructed at approximately the same distance from the
side property line as the existing structure; however, this sites the garage at 4.8’ of the required 6’ setback
for accessory structures in an R-1 district. In addition, the larger garage will exacerbate an existing
deficiency in lot coverage by buildings. The R-1b district allows a maximum of 25% lot coverage by
buildings. The property has an existing lot coverage by buildings of 26.4% and the larger garage will
increase this to 28.9%.
The property also has existing front yard and other side yard deficiencies that will not be exacerbated by
this proposal.
308 Ithaca Road is located in a R-1b 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: February 8, 2022
Members present:
Michael Cannon
Steven Henderson
Joseph Kirby
David Barken, Chair
CITY 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: 607-274-6550 Fax: 607-274-6558 E-Mail: gleonardi@cityofithaca.org
The following interested parties submitted comments in support of the appeal:
- Laura Myer, 310 Ithaca Road
- Adrienne Roeder and Erich Schwarz, 317 Ithaca Road
- Elizabeth Martyn and Michael Ryzewic, 306 Ithaca Road
Tompkins County Review per Section 239 -l & -m of New York State General Municipal Law:
Not applicable.
Environmental Review: This is a Type 2 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 home improvement and ownership investments, and in older homes and
neighborhoods, this inevitably triggers existing variances. They find these to be minor deficiencies, like
that the proposed garage is sited further away from the public way, and find no long-term negative
impacts to planning.
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission Recommendation:
Not applicable.
Motion: A motion to grant variance #3204 for 308 Ithaca Road was made by M. Cannon.
Deliberations & Findings:
The Board finds that the relocation of the accessory structure is a good plan for the individual property and
is consistent with the neighborhood. The Board notes that the support from the immediately adjacent
neighbors is indicative of the positive change that this project will have on the neighborhood.
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 existing garage is located at the same distance from the neighboring property at 310 Ithaca
Road. While not conforming to the zoning regulations, this is an existing condition that has
characterized the property and is not further exacerbating the deficiency.
• The proposed garage will be large than the existing structure, but the expansion will be toward the
rear of the lot, which abuts City-owned parkland, and moves the structure further from the
neighbor’s home. The increase in lot coverage will not be perceived from the public way.
• The front yard and other side yard deficiencies are existing and will not be exacerbated by the
proposal.
• The Board has received multiple comments in support of this appeal from nearby property owners.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the
variance: Yes No
• It may be feasible to locate the new garage to meet the 6’ accessory structure setback requirement.
However, this location would not align with the existing driveway. In addition, the garage would
be located closer to the primary structure, which would result in additional requirements for NYS
Residential Code. It would also remain as close to the neighbor’s house.
• The applicant could also choose to rebuild within the current footprint. However, the existing
garage is too small to accommodate the needs of the property owners or a modern vehicle.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes No
• The Zoning Ordinance requires that the garage be located 6’ from the side lot line, and the applicant
proposes to locate the new structure 4.8’ from the adjacent property. The property has an existing
deficiency in lot coverage by buildings, and the larger garage will increase the lot coverage to
26.4% of the required 25%. The Board does not find either of these to be substantial requests.
• The front yard and other side yard deficiencies are existing and 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 new garage is located in approximately the same locate location as the existing garage.
• The existing driveway can be reused by utilizing this location, avoiding further disruption to the
environment.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes No
• The property has established rights to the existing condition, and the applicant is choosing to
construct a larger accessory structure. However, the proposed garage will better meet the needs of
the property owner without exacerbating negative impacts on surrounding properties or the
neighborhood as a whole.
Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by S. Henderson.
Vote: 4-0-0
Michael Cannon YES
Steven Henderson 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 applicant outweighs
the detriment to the neighborhood or community. The BZA further finds that the variances from the Zoning
Ordinance§325-8, Columns 10, 11, and 13, and §325-25 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.
___________________________ February 8, 2022
Megan Wilson, Zoning Administrator Date
Secretary, Board of Zoning Appeals