HomeMy WebLinkAboutZONE-26-8 - 920 N Cayuga Street - Decision
CITY OF ITHACA BOARD of ZONING APPEALS
Use Variance Findings & Decision
Appeal No.: ZONE-26-8
Applicant: Spencer Freeman
Property Location: 920 N Cayuga Street
Zoning District: R-2b
Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: §325-8, Column 2
Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Permitted Primary Use
Publication Dates: April 9, 2026 and April 14, 2026
Meeting Held On: April 14, 2026
Summary: Appeal of Spencer Freeman, on behalf of property owners Michael and Jolie Massicci,
for an area variance from §325-8, Column 2, Permitted Primary Use, requirement of the Zoning
Ordinance. The property at 920 N Cayuga Street is a commercial site in the R-2b zone that is
currently home to a hair salon. The applicant proposes to purchase 920 N Cayuga Street and
operate a medical office in the building, specifically a chiropractor and massage therapy wellness
practice. There is one commercial building on the site.
The property at 920 N Cayuga Street is located on the corner of W Jay Street and N Cayuga Street,
surrounded by the R-2b zoning district. In the R-2b zoning district, single-family and two-family
homes are the primary permitted uses. Properties in the immediate area include single- and two-
family homes. The property was developed originally as a gas station and has a history of
commercial use. In 1926, the property received a variance (BZA #33) for the construction and
operation of a gas station. In 1957, an additional variance (BZA #510) was granted to add auto
repair as a use on the property. In 2003, the property received a use variance to use the existing
building, which was a gas filling station and repair garage, to conduct a garage business (BZA
#2571). The property received a special permit in 2008 for a neighborhood commercial facility,
specifically the hair salon, to operate on the site (BZA #2760). In 2009, the property received an
area variance for the rear yard requirement of the Zoning Ordinance, when DEC relinquished a
shed on the property and the property owners incorporated the shed into the salon space.
The applicants are proposing no exterior changes to the property at this time. There will be an
interior reconfiguration to create 5 individual treatments rooms within the existing open floor plan.
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
Parking and traffic generation are anticipated to be less than the previously salon, and water and
other infrastructure demands are expected to be less than past uses as well.
Public Hearing Held On: April 14, 2026
Members present:
Michael Cannon
Andre Gardiner
Jason Houghton
David Barken, Chair
Comments from interested parties in support of the appeal were submitted by:
Michael Cooper, 1002 N. Cayuga Street
Marty Hiller, 110 W. Lewis Street
Rebecca James, 512 Utica Street
Anne Robbins, 411 Auburn Street
Tompkins County Review per Section 239 -l & -m of New York State General Municipal
Law: Not applicable.
Environmental Review: This is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental
Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”), and State Environmental Quality Review
Act (“SEQRA”), and is subject to Environmental Review. The City of Ithaca Board of Zoning
Appeals, on April 14, 2026 declared itself Lead Agency for the environmental review for the
approval of zoning appeal ZONE-26-8, a use variance for the property located at 920 N. Cayuga
Street in the City of Ithaca. The Board reviewed the Short Environmental Assessment Form
(SEAF) and determined the requested variance will result in no significant impact on the
environment.
Motion: A motion to grant variance #ZONE-26-8 to allow use of 920 N Cayuga Street as a
professional office was made by A. Gardiner.
Deliberations & Findings:
The Board discussed the high cost of bringing the property into compliance and the uniqueness of
the property, including that the property has always been commercial. Board members agreed that
it would not be financial feasible to convert the property to a residential use as allowed in the R-
2b zone. The Board discussed the impacts of a professional office on the neighborhood, such as
traffic flow, and determined that the proposed professional office use would be less impactful to
the neighborhood than the current salon or other uses allowed by special permit.
Factors Considered: No such Use Variance shall be granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals
without a showing by the applicant that applicable zoning regulations and restrictions have caused
unnecessary hardship. To prove such unnecessary hardship, the applicant shall demonstrate
unnecessary hardship to the Board of Zoning Appeals for each and every permitted use under the
zoning regulations for the particular district where the property is located.
1. The applicant cannot realize a reasonable return, provided that lack of return is
substantial as demonstrated by competent financial evidence. Yes No
The applicant has demonstrated that they cannot realize a reasonable return utilizing the
property as a zoning compliant use.
The current owners testified that they attempted to sell the property for 18 months. As part
of that process, they explored converting the property to a single- or two-family residence,
which would be allowed under current zoning. Quotes by reasonable contractors in the area
estimated that converting the property to a residential use would be $540,000, relative to
the building’s assessed value of $180,000. This is evidence that the applicant cannot
achieve a reasonable financial return through a zoning-compliant use, given the property’s
history of commercial use.
2. The alleged hardship relating to the property in question is unique and does not apply to
a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood. Yes No
The alleged hardship relating to the property is unique. This property is unique in that it
was initially constructed as a gas station and has never been zoning compliant. The first
use variance was granted for the construction of the gas station in 1926, and the property
has been used for commercial purposes since that time. The majority of properties in the
neighborhood are residential structures and do not face similar hardships to 920 N. Cayuga
Street.
3. The requested use variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the
neighborhood. Yes No
The requested variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Existing
business traffic for the property is approximately 50-60 people per day. The applicants
have testified that they will see no more than 30 people per day, resulting in lower traffic
flow in the neighborhood. Additionally, neighbors commented that they do not expect the
character of the neighbor to be altered and believe the use will be a positive addition to the
neighborhood.
4. The alleged hardship has not been self-created. Yes No
The alleged difficulty is self-created in that the applicant is proposing to change the use of
the building from neighborhood commercial to a medical office. However, the benefits of
the proposed use to the applicant, the lack of alternatives, and the lack of negative impacts
outweigh the fact that the 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