Tiny homes have been eyed as a solution to some of Jamestown’s housing problems for years.

But judging from last week’s Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, more work needs to be done before tiny home development is a serious part of Jamestown’s housing mix.

City Development Department officials have talked for the past few years about infill housing development on vacant lots in the city, but one of the hold-ups on that work is city zoning laws and state regulations. STEL’s Spring Street proposal was an early test of the tiny home concept that could be used to fill vacant lots and provide needed lower-income housing for those who may otherwise find themselves homeless.

It’s a good time to do so judging from the city Zoning Board of Appeals’ recent denial of area variances for a Southern Tier Environments for Living proposal to build 14 small homes on Spring Street. In the end, a majority of the Zoning Board of Appeals agreed with criticism that the project was putting too many homes on lots that were too small.

Zoning Board of Appeals members had several suggestions aimed at creating a couple more feet of space by moving driveways or rearranging how the homes are placed on the lots as well as simply reducing the number of homes in the development.

There are options for the developer to pursue. STEL can change the site plan to comply with zoning laws so that it doesn’t need the variance or remove some of the houses so the homes and lots can be bigger, request a rehearing and try again for zoning variances with the same project, or challenge the Zoning Board of Appeals’ decision with an Article 78 proceeding in state Supreme Court. Pursuing one of those options may allow STEL to have the approvals needed to apply for state funding for the Spring Street project, but that doesn’t solve a larger problem – the city has a housing need that could be solved with finding a way to use smaller lots than typically allowed for housing development.

It’s obvious after last week’s Zoning Board of Appeals meeting that city zoning law needs to be changed if the city is serious about the concept of infill housing development as a way to add new housing and redevelop residential neighborhoods that are filled with vacant homes, condemned homes or small empty lots after homes have been demolished. The concept of tiny homes seems like a good fit, but that doesn’t matter if a tiny home project can’t be built on a big enough scale to attract state funding.

That’s the rub with STEL’s proposal for Spring Street. Smaller homes on bigger lots work for Zoning Board of Appeals members. But it doesn’t work for the project budget and state funders. We have a feeling the same conflict will arise in some of the other locations where infill housing development is being considered.

The comprehensive plan is an opportunity for the city to set an agenda for itself for the next 10 years or so. If the community consensus is to allow infill housing development that includes tiny homes in neighborhoods, then it needs to be part of the comprehensive plan and zoning update. Those who have concerns about these types of projects, as well as those who support them, need to make sure they give feedback when the city’s comprehensive plan and zoning update is being written and reviewed.