Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2025-03-25 Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Tuesday March 25, 2025, at 6:00pm 215 N. Tioga St. AGENDA  ZBAA-25-7 Appeal Cornell University, Owner; Lelie Schill, Agent: is seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code sections 270-49E (Prohibited signs and displays) and 270- 254 (Residential and Conservation Zones). Town of Ithaca Code section 270-254 limits signs to 32 square feet of aggregate area, limits one sign to 24 square feet, and limits the maximum freestanding sign height to 6 feet, where the applicant is proposing to exceed the aggregate sign area, exceed the maximum size allowed for a single sign, and exceed the maximum height for free standing signs. Town of Ithaca Code section 270-249E prohibits signs with phosphorescent, fluorescent, or reflective material or paint, where the applicant is proposing to utilize reflective material or paint on the sign. Town of Ithaca Code section 270-254I requires signs to be placed outside of the public right of way, where the applicant is proposing to install signs in the public right of way. The properties are currently located in the Low-Density Residential District Zone and the Multiple Residence District Zone, Tax Parcel Numbers: 67.1-1.1. and 67.-1-2.1.  ZBAA-25-9 Appeal of Matthew Bollinger and Ann Weber, owners of 232 Troy Road, Ithaca, NY, 14850; are seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section 270-56C (Permitted accessory buildings and uses). Town of Ithaca Code section 270-56C allows for a maximum aggregate footprint of all accessory buildings to exceed 600 sq.ft. where the lot is less than 3 acres, where the applicant is proposing to exceed the total aggregate footprint area for all accessory buildings on site by approximately 555 sq.ft. due to the lot only being 1.9 acres. The property is currently located in the Low-Density Residential Zone, Tax Parcel No. 45.-2-11.  ZBAA-25-10 Appeal of Jessica and Nicolas Romero, owners of 135 Ridgecrest Road, Ithaca, NY, 14850; are seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code sectionn270- 71E.(2)(Yard Regulations).Town of Ithaca Code section 270-71E.(2) requires an accessory building, other than a garage and woodsheds, to be placed in the rear yard, where the applicant is proposing to locate an accessory building in the side yard. The property is currently located in the Medium-Density Residential District Zone, Tax Parcel No. 45.-2-23. *Appeal materials are available at the Town website via the “Public Meetings”. *Comments on the appeal(s) can be made in person or via ZOOM during the meeting. Comments & questions can be emailed to codes@townithacany.gov up until 3pm the day of the meeting. All comments become part of the official record. Accessing the Meeting:  Youtube Live: “Town of Ithaca Public Meetings”  Zoom: Meeting ID: 852-5587-1576  Zoom: Call (929) 436-2866 same meeting ID as above  The Youtube recording of the meeting is archived Youtube.com/@TownofIthacaVideo. Marty Moseley Director of Code Enforcement ZBA 2025-03-25 (Filed 3/27) Pg. 1 MEETING OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES (The video recording of this meeting is available on the Town’s YouTubeLive Meeting channel.) Present: Board Members, Connor Terry Chair; Chris Jung, Kim Ritter, Matthew Minnig, Larry Sallinger and Lindsay Garner (Alt.) Dana Magnason, Senior Code Officer; Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk; and Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town Mr. Terry opened the meeting at 6:00 p.m.  ZBAA-25-7 Cornell University, Owner, Pleasant Grove Rd., TP 67.-1-1.1 and 2.1, LDR and MDR seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code Sections 270-49E (Prohibited signs and displays) and 270-254 (Residential and Conservation Zones) to be permitted to install wayfinding signs with reflective material or paint, which will exceed the 32’ square feet in aggregate, the 24’ sq feet for a single sign, and the maximum height of 6’ feet and they are proposed to be placed within the public ROW where they are not permitted. Leslie Schill gave an overview of the proposed wayfinding signs that have been worked on for over 4 years. The presentation showed depictions of the locations of the signs and the information presented on the signs. They will direct traffic to central campus. She added that part of the project is looking at existing signs and whether they are needed to reduce overall sign clutter. Ms. Garner asked about the need for these signs, given the use of google maps and similar devices. Ms. Schill answered that the community has asked for these signs. It will direct people away from residential areas like Forest Home where google or other wayfinding programs may send people through. On campus the wayfinding services are not correct a lot of the time. You would be surprised how many people ask for directions as they are traveling through. Ms. Brock added that this has been an ongoing goal and Cornell has worked with the County, the City and the Town for a number of years. This included independent studies, grants and public input sessions to explore the best possible ways to direct traffic onto central campus. Public Hearing Mr. Terry opened the public hearing. One member of the public attempted to speak; however, it was not about this agenda item, and she had no comment on the project associated with the public hearing. Mr. Terry closed the public hearing. ZBA 2025-03-25 (Filed 3/27) Pg. 2 Determination Board members had no further questions. ZBA Resolution ZBAA-25-7 Area Variance – Signs Cornell University Pleasant Grove Rd TP 67.-1-1.1 & 2.1 Resolved that this Board grants the appeal of Cornell University seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code Chapter 270-49e and 270-254, to install wayfinding signs at intersections on Pleasant Grove Rd and Program House Dr. that will be reflective in nature, exceed the maximum size, height and aggregate total and will be in the public ROW, with the following Conditions 1. That the signs be installed substantially as shown and placed in the application materials. Findings That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community, specifically 1. That the benefit that the applicant wishes to achieve cannot be achieved by any other means feasible given that the benefit is to assist with vehicular traffic wayfinding and the size, placement and reflective materials are necessary for them to serve that purpose; and following State guidelines for wayfinding signage, and 2. That there will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties given the majority of area surrounding where the signs will be placed is college campus. In addition, the community has been requesting these types of signs for a long time and the Town’s Planning Department has reviewed and recommended the signs as submitted; and 3. That the request is substantial given that every maximum in the associated with these signs is exceeded, but as stated the size, materials and placement are necessary for moving vehicles to be able to read them; and 4. The request will not have adverse physical or environmental effects as evidence by the fact that SEQR is not required, under the Town’s Type 2 SEQR requirements, and 5. That while the alleged difficulty is self-created in that signs are being requested and added, it is not self-created in that the material, size and location are necessary and standard for these types of wayfinding road signs. Moved: Connor Terry Seconded: Larry Sallinger Vote: ayes - Terry, Jung, Ritter, Minnig and Sallinger ZBA 2025-03-25 (Filed 3/27) Pg. 3  ZBAA-25-9 Matthew Bollinger & Ann Weber, 232 Troy Road, TP 45.-2-11, LDR, seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section 270-56C (Permitted accessory buildings and uses) to exceed the maximum aggregate footprint of all accessory buildings on less than a 3- acre parcel by approximately 555 sq ft. Mr. Bollinger gave an overview, saying that they had neglected to take into consideration blocking sunlight on their garden and he had submitted a lengthy application with multiple pictures depicting the new location and the reasons for his request. Discussion Ms. Ritter asked the applicant to clarified that the request is to simply shift the building, not increase the size. Mr. Bollinger responded that that is correct. He added that the new location is actually shields the view of the building more from the roadway as is tucked behind some very tall bushes in the new configuration. Public Hearing Mr. Terry opened the public hearing; there was no one wishing to speak and the hearing was closed. Determination ZBA Resolution ZBAA-25-9 Area Variance 232 Troy Road, TP 45.-2-11, LDR Resolved that this Board grants the appeal of Matthew Bollinger & Ann Weber, seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section 270-56C (Permitted accessory buildings and uses) to exceed the maximum aggregate footprint of all accessory buildings on less than a 3-acre parcel by approximately 555 sq ft., with the following: Conditions 1. That the building to be placed on the lot and constructed substantially as shown in the application, and with the following: Findings That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community, specifically 1. That the benefit that the applicant wishes to achieve cannot be achieved by any other means feasible given that although there are other commercial spaces for rent in the community, the applicant has provided evidence that the space needed is scarce and ZBA 2025-03-25 (Filed 3/27) Pg. 4 prohibitively expensive. In addition, sufficient space for the unique type of art practiced is not readily available.; and 2. That there will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties given the design is complementary to the existing home and will be located on the lot and in a position that will be hidden from the street view by topography and existing mature vegetation.; and 3. That the request is substantial given that the aggregate of accessory buildings is a maximum of 600 square feet where 1,155 square feet is being sought. This is mitigated by the fact that no SEQR is required for the area variance; and 4. The request will not have adverse physical or environmental effects as evidence by the fact that this is a type 2 action and SEQR is not required. 5. That while the alleged difficulty is self-created in that the applicant wishes to have a studio workshop on his property rather than elsewhere. This is mitigated for the reasons stated above and additionally the type of art the applicant practices involves very large structures and canvases that are not easily accommodated in standard commercial or residential structures, and be it further Resolved that this variance does not have any effect on the home occupation variance granted in ZBAA-24-11 and the home occupation remains valid and in effect. Moved: Connor Terry Seconded: Kim Ritter Vote: ayes - Terry, Jung, Ritter, Minnig and Sallinger  ZBAA-25-10 Jessica and Nicolas Romero, owners, 135 Ridgecrest Road, MDR, TP 45.- 2-23, seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code Section 270-71E.(2) (Yard Regulations) to be permitted to have an accessory building in the side yard. Discussion The applicant was not present. Mr. Minnig had some reservations about acting on the appeal without the ability to ask the applicant questions but was willing to move forward. Mr. Terry stated that this shed has been in existence since approximately 2010 and there have been four previous owners since that time and he felt this was not a self-created hardship given that information and no detriment to the community given the length of time it has been there. Ms. Magnuson noted that if the addition had not been added to the existing home in the past, the shed would have been in the rear yard and a significant portion of it is still in the rear yard. Ms. Jung stated that she did a site visit, and there are many accessory buildings of various sizes and locations throughout the neighborhood and therefore, this shed does not stand out as unusual. ZBA 2025-03-25 (Filed 3/27) Pg. 5 Public Hearing Mr. Terry opened the public hearing; there was no one wishing to speak and the hearing was closed. Determination Mr. Minnig asked if the shed could be moved and noted that he also did a site visit, and the applicant had indicated the rear yard had a significant slope, yet there is a swimming pool in the rear yard. Discussion followed on the possibility of moving the shed. Members felt that given the size, age, and condition of the shed, moving it was not a feasible alternative. ZBA Resolution ZBAA-25-10 Area Variance 135 Ridgecrest Road MDR, TP 45.-2-23 Resolved that this Board grants the appeal of Jessica and Nicolas Romero seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code Section 270-71E.(2) (Yard Regulations) to be permitted to have an accessory building in the side yard, with the following: Conditions 1. That the existing shed shall not be enlarged, and with the following Findings That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community, specifically 1. That the benefit that the applicant wishes to achieve can be achieved by any other means feasible however given the existing condition with visible rot and deterioration seen during site visits and in photographs submitted it may not survive a move; and 2. That there will not be an undesirable change in neighborhood character or to nearby properties given how long it has been existing and there are many accessory buildings in the area with no uniform placement or size of the various structures; and 3. That the request is substantial given that sheds are not permitted in the side yard; and 4. The request will not have adverse physical or environmental effects as evidence by the fact that SQER is not required as Type 2 minor residential accessory structure, and 5. That while the alleged difficulty is not self-created in that it was in the current location prior to purchase