HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3264 - 117-119 Sears Street - Decision
CITY OF ITHACA BOARD of ZONING APPEALS
Area Variance Findings & Decision
Appeal No.: 3264
Applicant: Leslie Ackerman, on behalf of property owner Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services
Property Location: 117-119 Sears Street
Zoning District: R-2b
Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: §325-8, Columns 6, 11 and 14/15
Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Lot Area, Front Yard and Rear Yard
Publication Dates: February 1, 2024 and February 6, 2024.
Meeting Held On: February 6, 2024.
Summary: Appeal of Leslie Ackerman, on behalf of property owner Ithaca Neighborhood Housing
Services (INHS), for an area variance from Section 325-8, Column 6, Lot Area, Column 11, Front Yard,
and Column 14/15, Rear Yard, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to subdivide
the existing lot at 117-119 Sears Street into four individual lots and construct four for-sale, single-family
homes. The housing is modular construction consisting of two 3-bedroom (1305 SF each) and two 2-
bedroom (1190 SF each) homes on four different lots.
The Zoning Ordinance requires each lot in the R-2b district to be a minimum of 3,000 SF for a single-
family home. The proposed lots with 3-bedroom units (113 & 119 Sears Street) will have lot areas of
2,669 SF or 89% of the minimum required lot area. The proposed lots with 2-bedroom units (115 & 117
Sears Street) will have lot areas of 2,533 SF and 2,550 SF or 83-84% of the required minimum lot area.
The Zoning Ordinance also requires a minimum front yard of 10’ and a minimum rear yard of 20’ for the
proposed lots. The applicant is proposing a 4’ front yard for all properties or 40% of the required front
yard. Additionally, the applicant is proposing an 8’ 10” rear yard for 113 and 119 Sears Street (44% of the
required rear yard). A rear yard of 12’ 10” (or 64% of the required rear yard) is proposed for both 115 &
117 Sears Street.
Public Hearing Held On: February 6, 2024.
Members present:
Donna Fleming
Andre Gardiner
Marshall McCormick
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
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 in support of the requested variance.
George Maltezos, 428 N. Tioga Street, submitted a written comment in opposition to the appeal.
Tompkins County Review per Section 239 -l & -m of New York State General Municipal Law:
The Tompkins County Department of Planning & Sustainability reviewed the application for area variances
and found that the requested variances will have no significant county-side or inter-community impacts.
Environmental Review: This variance is a component of an action that also includes subdivision and site
plan review. Considered together, this is a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act for which the Planning and
Development Board, acting as Lead Agency, made a Negative Determination of Environmental
Significance on January 26, 2024.
Planning & Development Board Recommendation: The Planning Board finds no long-term negative
impacts to planning and fully supports these variances. The Board notes this development is an
improvement to existing conditions and supports affordable home ownership in the downtown area. The
Board also notes the four buildings with the requested variances fit into the character of the street and the
neighborhood.
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission Recommendation:
Not applicable
Motion: A motion to grant variance #3264 117-119 Sears Street was made by D. Barken.
Deliberations & Findings:
The Board acknowledged that many of the homes on Sears Street are not compliant with the existing zoning
setbacks and found that the proposed setbacks, particularly front yard, are more compatible with the
neighborhood. The Board debated whether there was a feasible alternative to the proposed project that
would be zoning-compliant with lot area requirements and still meet the applicant’s goals of providing
multiple affordable units on the site. Members noted that it would be impossible to find a viable alternative
project that would be fully zoning-compliant.
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 variances will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood
as the proposal is consistent with community plans. The proposed lot sizes and yard setbacks are consistent
with the current built environment and will be compatible with conditions of the neighborhood.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the
variance: Yes No
The applicant could have pursued a project that is in greater compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, and
the applicant has not demonstrated that such a project is not feasible. However, the Board notes that the
variances requests will not have a negative impact on the neighborhood and will address the County’s
goals for the property as well as neighborhood concerns about the site.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes No
The Board finds that the requested variances are substantial. However, the Board finds that, while
proportionally substantial, the requested variances will not have significant impacts on the neighborhood
or nearby properties. Additionally, the proposed site has a unique relationship to County-owned land that
reduces the need for a larger rear yard.
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood: Yes No
The Planning and Development Board, acting as lead agency, has determined that the proposed project will
not have an adverse impact on the environment. Based on the submitted application materials, testimony
of the applicant, and observations of existing conditions, the Board does/does not find any evidence of
adverse physical or environmental conditions.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes No
The alleged difficulty is self-created as the applicant has designed new subdivided parcels and new
construction that do not meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. However, the Board finds that the
project’s benefits to the property owner and the broader community outweigh the fact that the difficulty is
self-created.
Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by D. Fleming.
Vote: 3-1-0
Andre Gardiner NO
Donna Fleming YES
Marshall McCormick 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, Columns 6, 11, and 14/15 are the minimum variances 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 12, 2024
Megan Wilson, Zoning Administrator Date
Secretary, Board of Zoning Appeals