Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ithaca board approves setback and loading-space variances for 132 Cherry Street with conditions
Summary
The Ithaca City Board of Zoning Appeals granted variances to a revised workforce housing project at 132 Cherry Street, conditioned on a public walkway along the inlet and a loading zone of at least 425 sq ft; the board cited revised FEMA maps that required moving the buildings.
The Ithaca City Board of Zoning Appeals on March 3 approved variances allowing an upper-floor overhang into the front-yard setback and a reduced on‑street loading space for a workforce housing project at 132 Cherry Street.
Craig Jensen, an architect with CJS Architects, said the project — originally approved in 2022 as market-rate housing and now retooled as a Housing and Community Renewal (HCR)-funded workforce housing development — needs two variances because revised FEMA flood maps forced the team to shift the buildings eastward. "We are seeking two variances, an area variance related to the front yard setback and a variance associated with the loading space requirements," Jensen said during his presentation.
Megan Wilson, staff to the Board of Zoning Appeals, clarified how the waterfront district measures the front yard: "The front yard requirement is actually not 15 feet from the property line... the base level of the building is... 8'6" in from the inside edge which is also in the front setback and then the upper floors are 3'6" in from the inside edge of the sidewalk." That measurement mattered because portions of the second and upper floors project over the tree lawn, producing a limited encroachment into the code setback.
The applicant also proposed using two on‑street spaces as a right‑of‑way loading zone; staff and the applicant acknowledged the proposed loading area totals roughly 409 sq ft, short of the 450 sq ft minimum under city code. Board members and the applicant discussed design tradeoffs: losing balconies or reconfiguring parking could reach the code square footage but would alter the project’s character and reduce on‑street parking.
During deliberation members repeatedly pointed to the updated FEMA maps and the project's public amenity as reasons to grant relief. "This shift is due to the change in the FEMA maps," a board member said, urging that the waterfront trail created by shifting the buildings be treated as a public benefit. Board members ultimately voted to grant the variance with conditions that the applicant establish and maintain a walking trail along the inlet and provide a loading area no less than 425 square feet (final language to be refined by staff).
The board’s roll call recorded four affirmative votes: Donna Fleming (yes), Andre Gardner (yes), Jason Hton (yes) and Mr. Barkin (yes). The decision instructs staff to write up the findings and circulate the written decision to the applicant before the end of the week so the team can proceed with site plan approval.
The board packet shows no written public comments and no in‑person speakers for the appeal. Next steps: the applicant will finalize plans to meet the conditions and staff will produce the formal variance findings and conditions for administrative follow‑up.
