[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6092366,"mediaKeyId","2854282-12000f42cbdc3aeb1185866a953ff1fb","parentId",2854282,"title","Developers seek variance to connect two building masses at proposed 201 Oak Ave student housing","audioSeconds",1303,"startMs",742470,"endMs",2045495,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2854282-12000f42cbdc3aeb1185866a953ff1fb&start=742&end=2045","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2854282-12000f42cbdc3aeb1185866a953ff1fb/thumbnail_742470.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6092366/New-York/Developers-seek-variance-to-connect-two-building-masses-at-proposed-201-Oak-Ave-student-housing","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6092366-5c76aa81a0d838cf18b69981bb3ad4e4/orig.mp4?Expires=1770931471&Signature=D7fJBd7hx4mJt12MlHfiB2hBuTx-kwcEFZk4qOezqPZ0eRkPVgAF4RIUyuj3dTXDLRSy-qEOF~9wub6Xvo677Apr4iWRqEDzxjgo54hAJ0e6uPPafDWmF0qiZTwE3sF68UnOVcSquAJYQCeGVfn96sA5OaavYRLnKEoswZRz~LhAM1KYxZjpw0PXk9WTZ74PtjBUhVF3G3O4k6hvaYX3Y0V-XV0F0DDYC4O--xQ~yPSVX9ddEwhRhc96k4N2sAnHkgB8py9MbCHPs3cWBrsUxfsNdSsiWVKWgPauat1z8OP3BAWg4rSuC4MhaiukQuWn6cZwQJJBu8kP1OdwX4FiMw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Ithaca City","date","2025-04-03T00:27:42.297Z","article","The Ithaca City Zoning Board of Appeals heard a preliminary presentation for a proposed 4-story, through-block residential project at 201 Oak Avenue by Modern Living Rentals and its design team.

Developer representatives said the proposal is roughly 52 units, four stories above grade with a story below, totaling about 95 bedrooms and approximately 43,000 square feet. The team described a triangular corner lot with a private Summit Avenue fire lane and said the proposal would place a courtyard on the south side and break the Oak Avenue facade into smaller bays to meet College Town form-district facade standards.

The design team—identified in the hearing as Charlie (applicant), Mike (team member), and Craig (design/architect)—asked the board to consider a variance to allow a connection between two building masses where form-based rules impose maximum façade lengths (100 feet for row houses, 45 feet for other structures on Oak Ave). The connector at a narrow 5-foot point would make the project a single building under the zoning-length standard; the team said connection reduces the number of required elevators and stairwells and improves exit separation and overall fire safety.

Craig said the connection responds to both building and fire codes. “We’re making this move to connect the buildings, mostly for code and safety and fire access reasons,” he said. Team members told the board they had worked with the fire department and planned to provide an easement on Summit so the city could tow vehicles and treat Summit as an enforceable fire lane.

Board members pressed the team for clearer technical justification. Joe asked why the buildings could not remain separate. The applicant replied that separating them would likely require cutting floors from the back building (to remain under 40 feet without aerial access), adding duplicate elevators and stairwells, and would likely make the project financially infeasible. One member asked the applicant to make the safety rationale “really clear” in subsequent submittals, and another recommended staff obtain formal written comment from the fire department about aerial access and the proposed Summit easement.

The board did not take a formal vote on the preliminary presentation. Members requested that the applicant supply additional documentation: written confirmation of fire-department discussions, more explicit egress diagrams showing elevator and stair locations, and materials/rendering options if the board has sightline or material concerns. Several board members said they were sympathetic to the safety argument but wanted concrete evidence from fire officials.

Why this matters

Connecting building masses can change how a development is classified under zoning and can affect required fire access, egress configuration, and the number of required elevators and stairs—factors that materially affect cost and design feasibility for large multiunit developments.

Next steps

The applicant will return with more detailed materials and the board requested staff coordinate or provide fire-department comments to include in the record.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","4/1/2025 Board of Zoning Appeals Monthly Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","The Ithaca City Zoning Board of Appeals heard a preliminary presentation for a proposed 4-story, through-block residential project at 201 Oak Avenue by Modern Living Rentals.","taxTitle","Ithaca City, Tompkins County, New York","taxId",52738,"location","New York","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":46,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6092361,"Developers present revised design for 215 College Ave; board questions extra story and lot coverage variances",1456,3502265,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2854282-12000f42cbdc3aeb1185866a953ff1fb&start=2045&end=3502","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2854282-12000f42cbdc3aeb1185866a953ff1fb/thumbnail_2045495.jpg","/articles/6092361/New-York/Developers-present-revised-design-for-215-College-Ave-board-questions-extra-story-and-lot-coverage-variances","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6092361-62b342a05f68d7eae09616608ff2652f/orig.mp4?Expires=1770931471&Signature=V8t4Zo1faiHn-mwlGuTGt-9iidPyjCBAdmhDQGsBBJ1pthhr4H5SkUWbPaIkb3bW6Y2CC3OiJjLig1yoG8PIDbtrcPz~F8MQFp6bD3oMxXxjr-GA~Hd7WNxYamSeId8Eka2QU61rj7HniovMvI08au6nEZ-ZY~B1h-xvS6-0ZOqde7bGS7MtlXddfERr2BOhj7RokikMJwJBmSAqfOpj0aQOcOKzLHSOjAMYzktK9pGA5aKwXH6im3kmOe6UeHQLv6xUzbXnnXdy61PXHyGDppcX-nuV9nW68ikb59ocPIq3BPxdNyb6iBLYwsv4Hb4B8X1dFOorFslbzq1nYD~CBQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Developers presented a preliminary design for a mixed residential project at 215 College Avenue and requested feedback on multiple variance issues tied to zoning and grade-plane calculations across MU-1 and CR-4 zoning areas.

The applicant team (identified in the hearing as Nick Roberts and Jack, with Charlie participating) described a through-block project with 91 units and what the team stated as \"52 beds\"; they explained the site spans two zoning districts (MU-1 and CR-4) and varies roughly 15 to 18 feet in grade between College Avenue and Linden. The team said the project is intended as market-rate, student-oriented housing and that the existing building on the site will be demolished; they reported asbestos surveys and plans to evaluate salvage reuse of materials prior to demolition.

The variance requests described by the team include a story/height variance for the CR-4 portion (the applicant said the CR-4 portion would be 1 story and 4 inches taller than the zoning definition allows when the entire through-block grade plane is applied) and two minor lot-coverage variances: about 5.67% over on the CR-4 portion and about 3.59% over on the MU-1 portion. The team said much of the measured lot-coverage overage derives from terraces, projection allowances such as balconies and roof projections and that ground-level experience would not feel overcrowded.

Board members focused on the height/story variance and the project’s visual impacts on an adjacent historic building. One member asked specifically whether the adjacent structure was a designated historic building and whether the Historic Preservation Board would issue an advisory review; staff (Megan) said she would check and that preservation comments typically go to the planning board for advisory review. Another member raised shading and material concerns, noting a dark façade facing the adjacent historic building and asked for a shade study. Several members requested a clearer narrative explaining why the extra story is required, and whether alternatives exist that would not require the variance.

On market and demolition questions, the applicant said the units would be market-rate student housing and that the existing structure would be demolished in the fall; they reported having performed asbestos surveys and exploring material salvage. Board members asked for more details on how the zoning change the common council was considering would affect the design and for economics that show how a denial of the variance would change the project’s rents or feasibility.

No formal vote was taken. The board requested follow-up materials: a shade study, a stronger written justification for the CR-4 story variance tied to grade-plane math, clearer lot-coverage calculations, documentation of any advisory review from the Historic Preservation Board or planning board, and an explanation of the project’s change in response to an upcoming common council vote. One member also asked for more economic context on the project’s sensitivity to denied variances.

Why this matters

Height and lot-coverage variances on through-block sites with large grade changes can materially affect building massing, views to adjacent historic structures and the number of permitted stories under local zoning and state building-code interpretations of grade plane.

Next steps

The applicant will return with the requested shadow analysis, revised diagrams and a written narrative on the grade-plane/height calculation; staff will verify whether the adjacent structure has a historic designation and whether the Historic Preservation Board will provide advice to the planning board.","Developers presented a preliminary design for a mixed residential project at 215 College Avenue and requested feedback on multiple variance issues tied to zoning and grade-plane calculations across MU-1 and CR-4 zoning areas.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6092370,"Zoning board tables variance request for deck and hot tub at 119 First Street",683,42775,725825,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2854282-12000f42cbdc3aeb1185866a953ff1fb&start=42&end=725","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2854282-12000f42cbdc3aeb1185866a953ff1fb/thumbnail_42775.jpg","/articles/6092370/New-York/Zoning-board-tables-variance-request-for-deck-and-hot-tub-at-119-First-Street","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6092370-ab1cb7738fb9112085c2e3885dd88f8a/orig.mp4?Expires=1770931471&Signature=BlPdw40F~fbsMye5kJeO-T1Ik4Oaf~Ew6B-DRAAT-H-nXrDm27knGfd4VI~j8CDh3rwNtkIoZB74KsC7C2d57bxdWx8dc5xTyTV~tE~KFxmUSCS5N0Du3bkI0VAb9LuP-4tY2LOP2q6MjU3cDUOo1At24ToCFeFdxGQAzcOt7itIPkbXty31FsRiQwleVuI03cKmYUVpIuvc11D~hb~~Sn7OMRIpGUG5ijNGJV94dX1t093l8SsivKN1ouYNkCqilg-aboJ724uucx~tidTiZjzWmGuV0N-8mus6Oi-ULbFafP2W0JMJwkXt81~GcEYYMJuw6pNgyHcFlO2kfsZkLg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","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.","The Ithaca City Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on Appeal No. 3292, a request to build a 12-foot deck with hot tub and a privacy fence at 119 First Street. The board voted to table the appeal after staff and board members suggested redesigning the proposal to avoid a variance by lowering the deck height below the 18-inch threshold.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Developers seek variance to connect two building masses at proposed 201 Oak Ave student housing

Developers present revised design for 215 College Ave; board questions extra story and lot coverage variances

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