HomeMy WebLinkAboutZONE-26-7 - 119 Sears Street - Decision
CITY OF ITHACA BOARD of ZONING APPEALS
Area Variance Findings & Decision
Appeal No.: ZONE-26-7
Applicant: Chau Pham, Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services
Property Location: 119 Sears Street
Zoning District: R-2b
Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: §325-8 Column 6, 13
Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Lot Area, Other Side Yard
Publication Dates: February 26, 2026 and March 3, 2026
Meeting Held On: March 3, 2026
Summary: Appeal of Chau Pham on behalf of Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS) for the
following area variances to allow the occupancy of four newly-constructed single-family homes at the
parcels addressed 113, 115, 117, and 119 Sears Street:
113 Sears Street: §325-8 Column 13, Other Side Yard
115 Sears Street: §325-8 Column 13, Other Side Yard
117 Sears Street: §325-8 Column 6, Lot Area and Column 13, Other Side Yard
119 Sears Street: §325-8 Column 6, Lot Area and Column 13, Other Side Yard
The properties were originally one larger lot that was subdivided as part of this project. The Board of Zoning
Appeals previously granted area variances in 2024 for lot area, front yard, rear yard (BZA #3264) to allow
the construction of the homes.
The applicant recently finished the construction, and upon survey of the as-built condition of the new
subdivided lots, it was found that the new homes did not meet the secondary side yard requirements of 5’.
Additionally, the final lot sizes varied from the original proposed sizes, and the properties at 117 Sears
Street and 119 Sears Street are smaller than the lot sizes considered in the 2024 variance review.
Public Hearing Held On: March 3, 2026
Members present:
Donna Fleming
Andre Gardiner
Jason Houghton
David Barken, Chair
The following parties commented regarding the appeal.
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
- Mary L. White a resident at 114 Sears Street provided written comment. M. White stated that the
variance should not be granted due to the density of the homes on the street and the risk of fire.
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-26-7 was made by A. Gardiner.
Deliberations & Findings:
Board Members noted the mitigation efforts undertaken by INHS to address the fire risk inherent in the
smaller side yard setback and the fact that the property already received a NYS code variance. The Board
also noted the impact that a vacant home, or the tearing down of a recently built home, would have on the
neighborhood. The Board noted that the four homes are lower-density than could have been built as-of-
right, but also that trying to place four detached homes on these parcels contributed to the need for a
variance. The Board discussed that there was no viable alternative to granting the variance.
Factors Considered:
1. Whether an undesirable change would be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties: Yes No
This property previously received variances in 2024 for front yard, rear yard, and lot area
deficiencies. As built, this property has a 4.5’ other side yard, which is less than the required 5’.
The final subdivided lot size for this property was smaller than intended. The property is 2,667.3
square feet, which is less than the required 2,669 square feet.
The variances for side yard and lot area will not produce an undesirable change in the
neighborhood. The side yard and lot area variances will be unnoticeable from the street.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the
variance: Yes No
There is no reasonable alternative that can be sought. To solve the deficiencies and build to the
original variances the building would have to be torn down, including the foundation, and rebuilt.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes No
The requested other side yard setback is 4.5’, while the required setback is 5’. The property’s lot
area is deficient by 1.7 square feet, out of the required 2,669 square feet. The requested variance
is not substantial, both as a percentage and in absolute numbers.
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood: Yes No
Based on submitted documentation and testimony of the applicant, the Board does not identify any
adverse impacts on physical or environmental conditions.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes No
The alleged difficulty is self-created, as the applicant constructed a building that did not meet the
lot requirements. However, the benefits sought by the applicant outweighs the fact that the
difficulty is self-created.
Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by D. Fleming.
Vote: 4-0-0
Donna Fleming YES
Jason Houghton YES
Andre Gardiner 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 applicants outweighs
the detriment to the neighborhood or community. The BZA further finds that the variances from the Zoning
Ordinance, §325-8, Column 13, is 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.
___________________________ March 3, 2026
Megan Wilson, Zoning Administrator Date
Secretary, Board of Zoning Appeals