Zoning board tables variance request for deck and hot tub at 119 First Street

The Ithaca City Zoning Board of Appeals on an unspecified date opened and then tabled Appeal No. 3292, a homeowner request to build a 12-foot deck with a hot tub and adjoining privacy fence at 119 First Street.

The applicant team included Mark Cushing, project manager for Rocco Design Build, and Corbin Street, the homeowner. Cushing told the board the existing rear of the house averages about 14 feet, 3 inches from the rear lot line and that the proposed deck would be 12 feet deep to provide safe circulation around a hot tub and access to an existing sauna. He said the house sits close to the sidewalk and property boundaries, so the proposal would increase lot coverage.

The board and staff focused on whether the deck could be lowered so it would not count as a structure under building rules. “If this was 18 inches or below, this wouldn’t count towards lot square footage, and you wouldn’t have to come for a variance,” said a board member. Cushing said the design had three 6-inch risers and that dropping the deck 6 inches would put it about 12 inches above grade and require only one additional step from the kitchen.

Megan, identified in the meeting as building-department staff, advised the applicants to work with the building department and the code inspector to redesign the deck to meet the 18-inch threshold; staff suggested withdrawing or redesigning if they preferred to avoid a variance. Megan also recommended allowing the public hearing to remain open and tabling the item so the applicants could test the lower-deck approach without having to repeat the full variance process and fees if the redesign failed.

A written neighborhood comment from Linda Holds Bar of 111 Monroe Street asked that any fence be sited wholly inside 119 First Street’s boundary, expressing concern about using a ribbon-tied branch as a boundary marker. Cushing said the applicant used a survey map to determine property lines.

After discussion, a board member moved to table Appeal No. 3292; the motion was seconded and the board chair called for a vote. The motion to table passed; the transcript records “all those in favor” and “none opposed” but does not list an individual roll-call tally.

The board directed the applicant to confer with the building department and the code inspector about a redesign that drops the deck height below the 18-inch threshold and about lot-coverage effects. The applicant indicated willingness to meet staff and return to the board if the redesign did not avoid the variance requirement.

Votes at a glance

- Appeal No. 3292 (119 First Street): Motion to table passed; transcript records "all those in favor; none opposed." Individual vote counts were not specified in the hearing record.

Why this matters

A deck treated as a structure can trigger lot-coverage and setback variances; the board’s direction to test a lower-profile design reflects a common code remedy that can avoid a formal variance and associated fees.

Next steps

Staff and the applicant will meet to test a lowered design and clarify lot-coverage counting with the code inspector; the applicant may return to a future meeting if the redesign does not resolve zoning concerns.