Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2025-06-24 Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Tuesday June 24, 2025, at 6:00pm 215 N. Tioga St. AGENDA  Public Hearing and Consider: ZBAA-25-13 Appeal of Timothy Healey and Sandra Cuellar, owners of 156 Westview Ln., 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. 58.-2-39.682  Public Hearing and Consider: ZBAA-25-14 Appeal of Nancy Stewart and Raymond Terepka, owners of 509 Coddington Rd., Ithaca, NY, 14850; are seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section 270-54C (Permitted principal uses). The Town of Ithaca Code section 270-54C allows for a farm (except hog farm) to operate but requires any building where farm animals are kept to be a minimum of 100’ from any lot line, where the applicant is proposing to utilize an existing building that is less than 100’ from a lot line. The property is currently located in the Low-Density Residential Zone and in the Conservation Zone. The building where the farm animals are proposed to be kept is located in the Low-Density Residential Zone, Tax Parcel No. 51.-1-1.1  Public Hearing and Consider: ZBAA-25-15 Appeal of Sarah Schneider and Amy Krosch, owners of 23 Renwick Heights Rd., Ithaca, NY, 14850; are seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section 270-71E.(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 Zone, Tax Parcel No. 17.-3-24.  Public Hearing and Consider: ZBAA-25-16 Appeal of Robert and Diana Chamberlain, owners of 115 Kings Way, Ithaca, NY, 14850; are seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section 270-219.6B(1) (Accessory dwelling units). Town of Ithaca Code section 270-219.6B(1) limits the floor area of accessory dwelling units not to exceed 800 square feet or 70% of the floor area of the principle dwelling unit (whichever is less), where the proposal is to have an accessory dwelling unit that exceeds the limitations identified in section 270-219.6B(1) of Town of Ithaca Code. The property is currently located in the Medium-Density Residential Zone, Tax Parcel No. 43.-2-6.  Public Hearing and Consider: ZBAI-25-1 Appeal of the Town of Ithaca Planning Department, applicant, is seeking a determination/interpretation regarding front yard for the following properties: 31.1-1-1, 31.1-1-2, 31.1-1-3, 31.1-1- 4, 31.1-1-5, 31.1-1-6, 31.1-1-7, 31.1-1-8, 31.1-1-9, 31.1-1-10, 31.1-1-11, 31.1-1-12, 31.1-1-13, 31.1-1-14, 31.1-1-15, 31.1- 1-16, 31.1-1-17, 31.1-1-18, 31.1-1-19, 31.1-1-20, 31.1-1-21, 31.1-1-22, 31.1-1-23, 31.1-1-24, 31.1-1-25, 31.1-1-26, 31.1- 1-27, 31.1-1-28, 31.1-1-29 and 31.1-1-30. The applicant is seeking an interpretation and/or determination by the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding the Director of Code Enforcement’s determination that the front yard of the properties identified above is not facing tax parcel number 31.1-1-32, where the determination was made that the front yard faces the road or street-right of way line where the building is located. *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 2025-06-24 (Filed 6/25) Pg. 1 MEETING OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA Zoning Board of Appeals June 24, 2025 Minutes Meeting available on YouTube @TownofIthacaVideo Present: Board Members, Connor Terry Chair; Chris Jung, Kim Ritter, and Larry Sallinger Marty Moseley, Director of Code Enforcement; CJ Randall, Director of Planning, Ashley Colbert, Deputy Town Clerk; and Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town Mr. Terry opened the meeting at 6:00 p.m. ZBAA-25-13 Appeal of Timothy Healey and Sandra Cuellar, owners of 156 Westview Ln., 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. 58.-2-39.682 Overview Mr. Healy described that the shed was noticed at a roof permit inspection. The shed is custom made to match the house and has been there for approximately 7 years. The house only has a one car garage and the lot slopes. The only practical place for the shed is the side of the house. Discussion Mr. Terry asked Mr. Moseley if the shed required a building permit. Mr. Moseley replied that it did not because the footprint was smaller than the requirement for a building permit. Mr. Terry confirmed with the applicant that the shed is the same color of the house and abuts the side of the house. Public Hearing Mr. Terry opened the public hearing; there was no one wishing to speak and the hearing was closed. Determination ZBA Resolution ZBAA-12-13 Area Variance – Yard Regulations 156 Westview Ln. TP# 58.-2-39.682 MDR ZBA 2025-06-24 (Filed 6/25) Pg. 2 Resolved that this board grants the appeal of Timothy Healey and Sandra Cuellar, owners of 156 Westview Ln., seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section 270-71E(2)(Yard regulations) which requires an accessory building, other than a garage and woodsheds, to be placed in the rear yard, where the applicant has an accessory building located in the side yard, with the following: Conditions 1. That the existing shed is not enlarged. 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 rest of the rear of the property is steeply sloped and it would be difficult if not impossible to locate a shed there; and 2. That there will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that the shed has existed for 7 to 8 years and the shed is built with similar materials and coloring as the rest of the house, so it blends in; and 3. That the request is substantial given that sheds are not allowed in the side yard and this is to be located wholly in the side yard; and 4. The request will not have adverse physical or environmental effects as evidence by the fact that this is a type two action under SQER and is not required and placement of a minor accessory residential structure not changing land use or density; and 5. That while the alleged difficulty is self-created in that residents are expected to know the zoning laws in the Town Moved: Connor Terry Seconded: Larry Sallinger Vote: ayes – Terry, Ritter, Sallinger and Jung ZBAA-25-14 Appeal of Nancy Stewart and Raymond Terepka, owners, 509 Coddington Rd., TP 51.-1-1.1, LDR/CZ, seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section 270-54C (Permitted principal uses) which allows for a farm (except hog farm) to operate but requires any building where farm animals are kept to be a minimum of 100’ from any lot line, and the applicant is proposing for farm animals to be kept in an existing building that is less than 100’ from a lot line. Overview Brian DeYoung, agent, explained that the owner subdivided the 100-acre property and did not realize that the subdivision resulted in a deficient setback for using the barn for farm animals until a potential buyer asked about it. The barn is about 65 feet from the side lot line. ZBA 2025-06-24 (Filed 6/25) Pg. 3 Discussion Ms. Ritter wanted to clarify that the applicant is also the neighbor that will be affected by this variance. Mr. Terry asked what the existing setback is and Mr. Moseley stated that he measured it 50’ feet from the survey submitted, where the applicant claims it is 65’ feet. Ms. Jung asked what the intended use is and the potential owners responded that they want to keep about 14 sheep for homesteading purposes. Public Hearing Mr. Terry opened the public hearing; there was no one wishing to speak and the hearing was closed. Determination ZBA Resolution BAA-25-14 Setback Variance – Permitted Principal Uses 509 Coddington Rd. TP 51.-1-1.1 LDR Resolved that this board grants the appeal of Nancy Stewart and Raymond Terepka 509 Coddington Rd from Town of Ithaca Code section 270-54C, to keep farm animals in an existing barn which encroaches 50’ feet into the required 100’ foot lot line setback, with the following: Conditions 1. That the existing build will not be moved or enlarged in a way that encroaches further into the lot line setback. 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 the applicant wishes to achieve cannot be achieved by any other means feasible given that the existing barn is very old and would be impossible to move and met all requirements prior to the subdivision, and 2. That there will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties given the barn has existed for many years and the immediate neighbor has no objections to the variance, and 3. That the request is substantial given that a 100 ft setback is required and 50’ ft is being granted; and ZBA 2025-06-24 (Filed 6/25) Pg. 4 4. The request will not have adverse physical or environmental effects as evidence by the fact that SQER is not required under Type 2, the individual granting of a setback variance; and 5. That the alleged difficulty is self-created in that the difficulty was created at time of subdivision. Moved: Connor Terry Seconded: Christine Jung Vote: ayes – Terry, Ritter, Sallinger and Jung ZBAA-25-15 Appeal of Sarah Schneider and Amy Krosch, owners of 23 Renwick Heights Rd., TP 17.-3-24, MDR, seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section 270-71E.(2)(Yard Regulations, which requires accessory buildings, other than a garage and woodsheds, to be placed in the rear yard, and the request is to place a shed in the side yard. Overview Amy Krosch explained that the house has a single stall, narrow garage and does not provide enough storage space for their expanding family. She said she studied the Code, and because the shed is intended to store eBikes, she thought it would be considered a garage and permitted. The shed is 10x14 and was recently built and placed in the side yard, because of the limitations on the property and she felt this was the best placement. Discussion Ms. Ritter stated that she did a site visit, and she agreed the lot does have a steep slope and it is not easily visible from the street. Ms. Jung agreed, saying the slope of the property prohibits a shed in the rear yard. Mr. Terry also agreed, saying that the hill in that neighborhood makes it very challenging to place an accessory structure in the rear yard and he felt it fit in with the character of the neighborhood and it is also shielded by the trees. Public Hearing Mr. Terry opened the public hearing. Lyda Bogel, neighbor, spoke in support of granting the variance, saying that her window faces the side yard where the shed is and it blends in with the area and is not noticeable at all. Mr. Terry closed the public hearing. Determination ZBA 2025-06-24 (Filed 6/25) Pg. 5 ZBA Resolution ZBAA-25-15 Area Variance - Yard Regulations 23 Renwick Heights Rd. TP# 17.-3-24 MDR Resolved that this board grants the appeal of Sarah Schneider and Amy Krosch, 23 Renwick Heights Rd., from Town of Ithaca Code section 270-71E.(2)(Yard Regulations) to be permitted to place a shed in the side yard where rear yard placement is required, . Town of Ithaca Code section 270-71E.(2) which 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 requested, with the following: Conditions 1. That the shed that has already been built is not enlarged or moved, unless it’s to the rear yard. 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 front yard and rear yard of this lot are very steep and it would not be possible to build a shed in these areas; and 2. That there will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that other properties in that area have accessory structures in the front and side yard; and 3. That the request is substantial given that the shed will be entirely in the side yard where accessory buildings are not allowed to be; and 4. The request will not have adverse physical or environmental effects as evidence by the fact that SQER is not required since this is a type two action and placement of a minor accessory residential structure not changing land use or density; and 5. That while the alleged difficulty is self-created in that there is a desire to build a shed, although a shed cannot be feasibly built on any other part of the property. Moved: Connor Terry Seconded: Kim Ritter Vote: ayes - Terry, Ritter, Sallinger and Jung ZBAA-25-16 Appeal of Robert and Diana Chamberlain, owners, f 115 Kings Way, TP 43.- 2-6, MDR, seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section 270-219.6B(1) (Accessory dwelling units), which limits the floor area of accessory dwelling units not to exceed 800 square feet or 70% of the floor area of the principle dwelling unit (whichever is less), where the proposal is to ZBA 2025-06-24 (Filed 6/25) Pg. 6 have an accessory dwelling unit that exceeds the limitations identified in section 270-219.6B(1) of Town of Ithaca Code. Overview Robert Chamberlain explained that the property has a single dwelling unit with an ADU. The ADU is on the second floor with a single room on the second floor assigned to the primary dwelling. The previous tenant used that room primarily for storage, but the applicant would like to make this room attached to the ADU and allow a garage on the first floor to be assigned to the primary dwelling which is now occupied by a tenant. This change would exceed the 800 square feet for the ADU that is allowed under the code. Discussion Mr. Connor clarified that the ADU is above a garage. Mr. Moseley confirmed that the garage is not part of the calculation because it is not attached to the house. Mr. Terry asked the applicant if more space would be built. The applicant said no new space would be built, the room would now just be accessible to the tenant. The applicant further explained if this appeal is successful, he would explore creating a door to connect the room to the existing ADU from within rather than going outside to access it. Mr. Terry further stated that there would be no change in the exterior of the property and therefore no detriment to the neighboring properties. Public Hearing Mr. Terry opened the public hearing; there was no one wishing to speak and the hearing was closed. Determination ZBA Resolution ZBAA-25-16 Area Variance – Accessory Dwelling Units 115 Kings Way TP 43.-2-6 MDR Resolved that this board grants the appeal of Robert and Diana Chamberlain, 115 Kings Way from Town of Ithaca Code section 270-219.6B(1) (Accessory dwelling units) to be permitted to include existing additional floor area to an existing ADU, with the following: Conditions 1. That there be no exterior enlargements to the ADU. 2. That the total square footage of the ADU does not exceed 872 square feet, and with the following: Findings ZBA 2025-06-24 (Filed 6/25) Pg. 7 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 this is an existing building and the space already exists, and they are just changing who can access it; and 2. That there will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that this is an already existing building none of the changes can be seen outside of the property and there is no change to how the ADU will be used; and 3. That the request is not substantial given that 872 square feet is being requested, where 800 square feet is allowed; and 4. The request will not have adverse physical or environmental effects as evidence by the fact that SQER is not required as this is an area variance for a toe family residence and is a type two action; and 5. That while the alleged difficulty is self-created in that there is a desire to use existing space for an ADU, where it was previously used for the principal residence. Moved: Connor Terry Seconded: Kim Ritter Vote: ayes - Terry, Ritter, Sallinger and Jung ZBAI-25-1 Appeal of the Town of Ithaca Planning Department, applicant, is seeking a determination/interpretation regarding front yard for the following properties: 31.1-1-1, 31.1-1-2, 31.1-1-3, 31.1-1-4, 31.1-1-5, 31.1-1-6, 31.1-1-7, 31.1-1-8, 31.1-1-9, 31.1-1-10, 31.1- 1-11, 31.1-1-12, 31.1-1-13, 31.1-1-14, 31.1-1-15, 31.1-1-16, 31.1-1-17, 31.1-1-18, 31.1-1-19, 31.1-1-20, 31.1-1-21, 31.1-1-22, 31.1-1-23, 31.1-1-24, 31.1-1-25, 31.1-1-26, 31.1-1-27, 31.1-1- 28, 31.1-1-29 and 31.1-1-30. The applicant is seeking an interpretation and/or determination by the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding the Director of Code Enforcement’s determination that the front yard of the properties identified above is not facing tax parcel number 31.1-1-32, where the determination was made that the front yard faces the road or street-right of way line where the building is located. Overview Ms. Randall explained that the concept of the cluster subdivision, Amabel, is one of a “pocket neighborhood” where a cluster of 24 smaller homes with front doors that face a central courtyard and that would be the “front yard.” This type of layout contradicts the traditional definition of “front yard” in Town Code. Mr. Moseley explained that this cluster subdivision was approved by the Planning Board prior to his and Ms. Randall’s tenure and this issue was not thought of at the time. ZBA 2025-06-24 (Filed 6/25) Pg. 8 He made the determination under our Code that the front yards are defined for TP numbers 31.1-1-1 through 31.1-1-30 as that which faces the road/street ROW, not what is commonly called the “Courtyard.” Mr. Moseley and Ms. Randall shared images and maps of the neighborhood to help the board visualize the neighborhood. Discussion Mr. Terry clarified that the request is for an interpretation regarding the front facade of the properties involved. The neighborhood buildings have porches and front looking facades facing an inner courtyard with garages and rear looking facades facing the street. The current code defines the front of a property as the one facing a street. In this neighborhood this is not the case and is causing problems for the enforcement of the Code in certain instances. This is unique to this property, where 30 lots are affected, and would define the front yards of those particular properties as that which faces the courtyard as intended in the approved pocket neighborhood concept. Public Hearing Mr. Terry opened the public hearing. Tom Davco spoke, saying that it is aesthetically obvious that the front is what faces the courtyard. Tom Richard spoke, saying he is a resident of the Amabel neighborhood and supports decision from this Board that the front façades, and therefore the front yard is that which faces the courtyard. Mr. Terry closed the public hearing. Interpretation The Board agreed that the front of the homes face the courtyard and should be considered the “front yard”. ZBAI-25-1 Front Yard defined for 30 parcels at Amabel Pocket Neighborhood Resolved for all the reasons stated during the discussion of the Zoning Board of Appeals at its meeting on June 24, 2025, it is determined that the front yards of the following properties; Tax Parcels 31.1-1-1, 31.1-1-2, 31.1-1-3, 31.1-1-4, 31.1-1-5, 31.1-1-6, 31.1-1-7, 31.1-1-8, 31.1-1-9, 31.1-1-10, 31.1-1-11, 31.1-1-12, 31.1-1-13, 31.1-1-14, 31.1-1-15, 31.1-1-16, 31.1-1-17, 31.1-1- 18, 31.1-1-19, 31.1-1-20, 31.1-1-21, 31.1-1-22, 31.1-1-23, 31.1-1-24, 31.1-1-25, 31.1-1-26, 31.1- ZBA 2025-06-24 (Filed 6/25) Pg. 9 1-27, 31.1-1-28, 31.1-1-29 and 31.1-1-30 face Tax Parcel 31.-1-1-32 which is the common courtyard. Moved: Connor Terry Seconded: Larry Sallinger Ayes: Terry, Sallinger, Ritter, Jung Other Business: Request from Ithaca College regarding variance for signage. They would like to increase the size of the sign. The board is allowed to rehear the case according to the law. Motion for a rehearing of the appeal of ZBAA-25-04. Moved: Connor Terry Seconded: Chris Jung Ayes: Terry, Sallinger, Ritter, Jung Change the October meeting to the second Tuesday of October (October 14, 2025) to avoid any issues with early voting at Town Hall. Motion to cancel the October 28, 2025 meeting and add a meeting on October 14, 2025. Moved: Connor Terry Seconded: Chris Jung Ayes: Terry, Sallinger, Ritter, Jung The meeting was adjourned upon a motion and a second at 7:26pm; unanimous. Submitted by Monica Moll Deputy Town Clerk