HomeMy WebLinkAboutZONE-26-9 - 409 Columbia Street - Decision
CITY OF ITHACA BOARD of ZONING APPEALS
Area Variance Findings & Decision
Appeal No.: ZONE-26-9
Applicant: Noah Demarest, Steve Cariddi
Property Location: 409 Columbia Street
Zoning District: R1-b; SHOD
Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: §325-8, Columns 7, 12, 13 and §325-28C(8)
Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Lot Width, Side Yard, Other Side Yard,
Setback Requirements for Accessory Dwelling Units
Publication Dates: April 9, 2026 and April 14, 2026
Meeting Held On: April 14, 2026
Summary: Appeal of STREAM Collaborative on behalf of property owners Steve Cariddi and
Tammi Loomis for an area variance from §325-28C, Accessory Dwelling Unit requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to demolish an existing single-car garage and construct
a new two-story, single-car garage with an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) on the upper level. The
existing garage is too small to accommodate a modern vehicle, and the new accessory structure
will be larger and will be constructed to align with the existing driveway. The existing garage is
located 3’ from the side property line. The new garage/ADU will also be located 3’ from the side
property line; however, the Zoning Ordinance requires all newly constructed ADUs to be located
a minimum of 5’ from side and rear property lines. The new accessory structure will meet the rear
yard requirement but is deficient in the side yard requirement.
The property has existing deficiencies in lot width, side yard, and other side yard requirements of
the Zoning Ordinance that will not be exacerbated by this proposal.
Public Hearing Held On: April 14, 2026
Members present:
Michael Cannon
Andre Gardiner
Jason Houghton
David Barken, Chair
CITY OF ITHACA
108 E. Green Street — 3rd Floor Ithaca, NY 14850-5690
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
Megan Wilson, Secretary to the Board of Zoning Appeals
Telephone: 607-274-6550 Fax: 607-274-6558 E-Mail: mwilson@cityofithaca.org
There were no comments from interested parties regarding 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 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 variance #ZONE-26-9 was made by A. Gardiner.
Deliberations & Findings:
The proposed building will replace an existing garage, and the Board reiterated that the new
building will use the current driveway. It is not feasible to use the existing driveway and meet the
setback requirement for the new accessory structure. The Board clarified that the new structure
will be two stories, replacing a one-story building. The property is downhill from the neighbors
and therefore the additional height will not have a detrimental impact on the adjacent property.
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 requested area variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the
neighborhood. There is an existing structure that is already in place at the same location.
The proposed project would mirror the setback from the property line of the current
building. Any impacts from the addition of a second story are mitigated by the topography
of the site, as the building will be downhill from the neighboring property.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to
the variance: Yes No
Given the placement of the house, shifting the ADU over two feet to meet the setback
requirement would create a functionally awkward situation for getting cars in and out of
the garage.
Shrinking the size of the ADU and garage would make it difficult to accommodate modern
vehicles.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes No
The requested variance is not substantial. The existing garage is already located 3’ from
the side property line, as the new ADU will be the same distance from the property line.
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions
in the neighborhood: Yes No
The project is replacing an existing building. Additionally, building code requirements for
fire separation mitigate any potential adverse impacts.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes No
The alleged difficulty is self-created in that the project involves new construction that does
not meet the required setback of the zoning district. However, the benefits sought by the
applicant outweigh the fact that the alleged difficulty is self-created.
Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by D. Barken.
Vote: 4-0-0
Michael Cannon YES
Jason Houghton YES
Andre Gardiner YES
David Barken, Chair YES
___________________________ April 14, 2026
Megan Wilson, Zoning Administrator Date
Secretary, Board of Zoning Appeals