The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZBA Packet 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 3/17/25,10:02 AM ZBAA-25-7 O Town of Ithaca March 17,2025 ZBAA-25-7 Zoning Board of Appeals Area Variance Application Status:Active Submitted On:1/16/2025 Primary Location 0 Pleasant Grove Rd Unit Cornell University Area Directional Signs Ithaca,NY 14850 Owner Cornell University Humphreys Service Building Ithaca,NY 14850 Applicant X Leslie Schill J 607-255-5239 @ leslie.schill@cornell.edu A Cornell University Humphreys Service Building, Dryden Rd Ithaca,NY 14853 Internal Only-Review Tax Parcel No. 67.-1-1.1 Is Engineering Dept.Approval Required? Yes A GML-239 Reason for Review* The right of way of any existing or proposed county or state road A Appearance Date for Variance 3/25/25 Is Planning Dept.Approval Required? Yes A Is a GML-239 Review Required? Yes A Type of Variance Area Variance https://ithacany.workflow.opengov.eom/#/explore/records/33825/details 1/9 3/17/25,10:02 AM ZBAA-25-7 Variance Code Language 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 is 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. A Variance Code Section 270-249E and 270-254 Internal Tasks to be Completed Meeting Result (First Appearance)Materials For GML-239 Were Sent 02/24/2025 Deadline for Hearing Notice to Journal 3/14/25 Public Hearing Notice Was Sent 03/13/2025 Neighbor Notification Letters Were Sent Date Sign Was Picked-up 03/17/2025 03/14/2025 Material Packets Sent to ZBA Members 03/17/2025 https://ithacany.workflow.opengov.eom/#/explore/records/33825/details 2/9 3/17/25,10:02 AM ZBAA-25-7 Historical Only Address affiliated with request Status Applicant's Information Applicant is*Is the primary point of contact for application different than the applicant?*Owner's Agent If the applicant is NOT the owner,a letter/email from owner designating the applicant as agent or a copy of the contract with owner's signature will need to be provided. Description Brief Description of Variance Request* Cornell University proposes to install 7 signs on North Campus for vehicular wayfinding near its northern gateway.3 signs will be located at the intersection of Jessup Rd/Plesant Grove Dr and 3 signs will be located at the intersection of Cradit Farm/Plesaant Grove Dr.A single sign will also be installed on Program House Dr.All 7 signs are the same design,specification that has been reviewed by Town Planning Dept. Area Variance Criteria Form 1.Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or be a detriment to nearby properties?* No https://ithacany.workflow.opengov.eom/#/explore/records/33825/details 3/9 3/17/25,10:02 AM ZBAA-25-7 Reasons: Improved vehicular wayfinding at this gateway to Cornell's campus has been requested by the community. 2.Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by a feasible alternative to the variance?* No Reasons: Signage must be legible for cars travelling at posted speeds.Therefore the size of the signs exceeds local Town sign law. 3.Is the requested variance substantial?* No Reasons: These are routine vehicular wayfinding signs:simple,standard. 4.Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood?* No Reasons: Sign installation by nature has little/no impact on environment. https://ithacany.workflow.opengov.eom/#/explore/records/33825/details 4/9 3/17/25,10:02 AM ZBAA-25-7 5.Is the alleged difficulty self-created?* No Reasons: Intersections of existing roads and traffic patterns has necessitated better wayfinding signage. Affidavit The UNDERSIGNED respectfully submit this application requesting an appearance before the Zoning Board of Appeals.By filing this application,I grant permission for members of The Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals or Town staff to enter my property for any inspection(s)necessary that are in connection with my application.I acknowledge,that completed applications are scheduled on a first-come first-serve basis and that all documents ideally be submitted forty-five (45)days advance of the proposed meeting date,together with the required application fee.Failure to do so may result in a delay in my hearing. Digital Signature*Meeting Date Q Leslie Schill Jan 16,2025 01/16/2025 PAYMENT INFORMATION https://ithacany.workflow.opengov.eom/#/explore/records/33825/details 5/9 3/17/25,10:02 AM ZBAA-25-7 After submission,Code Department Administration will review the application and materials provided.After review,and email with instructions for paying the fee online with credit card or E-check will be sent to the applicant. If it is preferred to pay by check,cash or money order: *Mail to Code Enforcement,Town Hall 215 N.Tioga St,Ithaca,NY 14850 *Drop off during business hours to Town Hall M-F 8-4 *Place in locked box next to the door on the Buffalo St side of Town Hall Attachments Determination/Denial Letter Sign permit denial.docx Uploaded by Leslie Schill on Jan 16,2025 at 11:35 PM Narrative North Campus Wayfinding Signage Project Narrative.docx Uploaded by Leslie Schill on Jan 16,2025 at 11:29 PM Survey and/or Plans NC Wayfinding Sign Package-June2024-E2.pdf Uploaded by Leslie Schill on Jan 16,2025 at 8:47 PM Environmental Assessment Form Short EAF Part 1-NC WayfindingSignage.pdf Uploaded by Leslie Schill on Jan 16,2025 at 8:46 PM Letter or Email of Authorization Designated Agent.docx Uploaded by Leslie Schill on Jan 16,2025 at 8:39 PM Denial Notice 3.10.25.pdf Denial Notice 3.10.25.pdf Uploaded by Marty Moseley on Mar 10,2025 at 5:09 PM https://ithacany.workflow.opengov.eom/#/explore/records/33825/details 6/9 3/11/25,12:21 PM SGN-25-2 Town of Ithaca March 11,2025 SGN-25-2 TOI -Sign Permit Application Status:Active Submitted On:1/12/2025 Primary Location 0 Pleasant Grove Rd Unit Cornell University Area Directional Signs Ithaca,NY 14850 Owner Cornell University Cornell University Humphreys Service Building Ithaca,NY 14850 Applicant X Leslie Schill J 607-255-5239 @ leslie.schill@cornell.edu A Cornell University Humphreys Service Building, Dryden Rd Ithaca,NY 14853 Site Information Zoning District* Residential/Conservation Zone Physical Location on the Property*0 7 signs total proposed.3 signs are located at Pleasant Grove Road/Jessup Road (NW,SW,SE corners of the intersection)and 3 at Pleasant Grove Road/Cradit Farm Rd (1 at NW,2 at SE corners of the intersection).Each of these signs is located on Cornell land within the Tompkins County ROW of Pleasant Grove Road.One additional sign is proposed along Program House Drive -a Cornell owned road. A separate application will need to be submitted for each individual sign Applicant Is:* Property Owner Sign Type and Details Sign Status Type of Sign * Free Standing Sign https://ithacany.workflow.opengov.eom/#/explore/records/30464/details 1/12 3/11/25,12:21 PM SGN-25-2 Length (ft)* 4.85 Width (ft)* 4.98 Size of Sign (Sq.Ft.) 24.153 B If sign new electrical work is being conducted a Town of Ithaca electrical permit is required to be issued prior to a Town of Ithaca Sign Permit being issued Sign Status Type of Sign Free Standing Sign Length (ft)*Width (ft) 4.85 4.98 Size of Sign (Sq.Ft.) 24.153 HHQB If sign new electrical work is being conducted a Town of Ithaca electrical permit is required to be issued prior to a Town of Ithaca Sign Permit being issued Sign Status Type of Sign * Free Standing Sign Length (ft)* 4.85 Width (ft)* 4.98 https://ithacany.workflow.opengov.eom/#/explore/records/30464/details 2/12 3/11/25,12:21 PM SGN-25-2 Size of Sign (Sq.Ft.) 24.153 HH If sign new electrical work is being conducted a Town of Ithaca electrical permit is required to be issued prior to a Town of Ithaca Sign Permit being issued Sign Status Yes Length (ft)* 4.85 Type of Sign * Free Standing Sign Width (ft)* 4.98 Size of Sign (Sq.Ft.) 24.153 If sign new electrical work is being conducted a Town of Ithaca electrical permit is required to be issued prior to a Town of Ithaca Sign Permit being issued Sign Status Type of Sign * Yes Free Standing Sign Length (ft)* 4.85 Width (ft)* 4.98 Size of Sign (Sq.Ft.) 24.153 https://ithacany.workflow.opengov.eom/#/explore/records/30464/details 3/12 3/11/25,12:21 PM SGN-25-2 If sign new electrical work is being conducted a Town of Ithaca electrical permit is required to be issued prior to a Town of Ithaca Sign Permit being issued Sign Status Yes Length (ft)* 4.85 Type of Sign * Free Standing Sign Width (ft)* 4.98 Size of Sign (Sq.Ft.) 24.153 QSQB If sign new electrical work is being conducted a Town of Ithaca electrical permit is required to be issued prior to a Town of Ithaca Sign Permit being issued Sign Status Yes Length (ft)* 4.85 Type of Sign * Free Standing Sign Width (ft)* 4.96 Size of Sign (Sq.Ft.) 24.056 If sign new electrical work is being conducted a Town of Ithaca electrical permit is required to be issued prior to a Town of Ithaca Sign Permit being issued https://ithacany.workflow.opengov.eom/#/explore/records/30464/details 4/12 3/11/25,12:21 PM SGN-25-2 Sign Measurements Setback (ft)*O Overall Height (ft)*& 0 10.2 Other Relevant Type(s)and Dimension(s) 6 of the 7 Signs are located within the Tompkins County ROW along Pleasant Grove Road. Will sign be Illuminated?* No Property Owner Information Name*Phone* Leslie Schill 6072555239 Email*Street #* leslie.schill@cornell.edu 639 Dryden Road Street Name*City* Humphreys Service Building Ithaca State*Zip Code* NY 14853 https://ithacany.workflow.opengov.eom/#/explore/records/30464/details 5/12 3/11/25,12:21 PM SGN-25-2 Agent Information Name *Full Mailing Address* Leslie Schill 639 Dryden Road Phone Number*Email Address* 6072555239 leslie.schill@cornell.edu Sign Company Informaiton Company Name*Name of Contact Person * Precision Signs N/A Full Mailing Address Phone Number* 243 Dixon Ave,Amityville,NY 11701 631-841-7500 Email Address info@precisionsigns.com Owner Affidavit Signature*O O Leslie Schill Jan 12,2025 Applicant Affidavit https://ithacany.workflow.opengov.eom/#/explore/records/30464/details 6/12 3/11/25,12:21 PM SGN-25-2 Signature O Leslie Schill Jan 12,2025 Code Officer/lnternal Only-Review Planning Department Review Required*0 Yes Working without a permit? https://ithacany.workflow.opengov.eom/#/explore/records/30464/details 7/12 3/11/25,12:21 PM SGN-25-2 Planning Department Recomendation Per Town Code §270-260B outlined below,the following Sign review criteria (unbolded text)were applied for the following recommendation (bold text)on the acceptability of the proposed signs as to design,materials,illumination,placement, and size: (a)Signs should be legible in the circumstances in which they are seen and layout should be orderly.The proposed directional signs are legible for the surrounding vehicle speed limits and sign mounting height;the layout is orderly with a clear visual vocabulary. (b)Freestanding signs should be designed to be compatible with their surroundings and appropriate to the architectural character of the buildings near which they are placed.Sign panels and graphics on buildings should relate with and not cover architectural features or details and should be sized in proportion to them.The proposed freestanding signs are similar to directional signs on and near the Cornell University campus and are both obvious and recognizable.The signs have been specifically designed to be “wayfinding”-providing guidance and the means to help provide geographic direction --for campus visitors.Such signs purposely contain a uniform appearance,as that is part of the Cornell University branding.The proposed signs are compatible with their surroundings and appropriate to the architectural character of the buildings near which they are being placed. (c)Illumination should be appropriate to the character of the surroundings and shall be in accordance with the Town’s Outdoor Lighting Law.The proposed signs will not be illuminated.Should the Applicant decide to illuminate the signs,then the signs will be required to comply with the provisions of the Outdoor Lighting Law,Town Code §173. (d)Monument signs are preferable to pole signs.Pole signs should be as low to the ground as practical.The proposed signs are freestanding signs.They are taller than permitted in the Town Code.However,their height (10ft tall,instead of 6ft) does not create negative visual or traffic impacts,or block any known scenic views. (e)Multi-use or multi-tenant signs located on the same premises should meet the requirements of §270-256C and F.The proposed signs are directional signs,not multi-tenant signs.This criterion does not apply. (f)Landscaping should be installed and maintained at the base of a freestanding sign if such landscaping would improve the overall appearance of the sign.Landscaping could improve the overall appearance of the signs and could enhance the visual aesthetic provided the landscaping does not get overgrown and unkempt.However,this is not a requirement;it is included as an option for the applicant to consider. Such signage must comply with the location requirements of the Town Code. The signs are also a bit taller and larger than permitted by Town Code.The sign designs,illumination,materials,and placement appear appropriate for wayfinding/directional signs associated with a university campus.The signs as proposed do not create negative traffic or visual impacts and do not block any known scenic views.Given the design criteria above,and with express written permission from the entity having ownership jurisdiction (Tompkins County for Pleasant Grove Road,CR-122),the Director of Planning recommends approval of the proposed signs. https://ithacany.workflow.opengov.eom/#/explore/records/30464/details 8/12 3/11/25,12:21 PM SGN-25-2 A Does this application need an Area Variance?* Yes A Detailsfor Area Variance A Does this application need a Use Variance?*A Tax Parcel Number (Permit &CO) No A Permit Type A Comments/Conditions (Permit) A Scope of Work (P)ZDescription (CO) A Code Officer Name Printed on Document A Historical Background A Date Submitted A Municity App # https://ithacany.workflow.opengov.eom/#/explore/records/30464/details 9/12 I filed sign permit application SGN-25-2 on 1/12/25 with the Town of Ithaca for these 7 signs and the application was reviewed and denied by Marty Moseley on 1/15/16. He determined that the signs do not comply with the requirements of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law and would require an area variance. To Whom It May Concern: I am a designated agent of Cornell University for submittal of permits, applications, and official requests for municipal project reviews/approvals for any Cornell project. Sincerely, Leslie Schill Director of Campus Planning Cornell University North Campus Wayfinding Signage Project The North Campus Wayfinding Signage project in the Town of Ithaca consists of the installation of 7 vehicular directional signs; 3 at the intersection of Pleasant Grove and Jessup Roads, 3 at the intersection of Pleasant Grove Road and Cradit Farm Drive, and 1 on Program House Drive. These signs would replace and enhance the existing vehicular directional signs on Pleasant Grove Drive that are in poor conditions with outdated information and are inconsistent with our current university signage standard. The proposed signs have been designed to comply with the Cornell University Signage and Wayfinding Plan which establishes signage standards for the Ithaca campus. The signs will support clearer information to visitors coming to the Cornell campus from points north. (Arrow points to message face) (Number keys to message) (Arrow points to message face)(Number keys to message ) Central Campus Tang Welcome Ctr North Campus RPCC Center Hasbrouck Apts Sign 102 - Traveling East Central Campus Tang Welcome Ctr Airport Hasbrouck Apts Sign 103 - Traveling North North Campus RPCC Center Hasbrouck Apts Airport Sign 104 - Traveling South Central Campus Tang Welcome Ctr Observatory Helen Newman Hasbrouck Apts Sign 101 - Traveling South Sign 105 - Traveling Northeast Sign 106 - Traveling North Central Campus Tang Welcome Ctr North Campus RPCC Center Hasbrouck Apts North Campus RPCC Center Airport Hasbrouck Apts Sign 120 - Traveling West Program Houses Hu Shih Delivery RPCC Center Front View Scale: 1/32=1 NOTE: Overall dimensions may represent nominal sizes in order to improve material yield.VERSION NUMBER:Engineering Page 2 of 13 SIGN TYPE:DESCRIPTION:CLIENT:Scale: 1/32=1 jlorber 10/15/2020 10/15/2020 jlorber Model By WWW.PRECISIONSIGNS.COM Drawing By PMCORNELL-NCR-X.30B Cornell jlorberThe materials and ideas embodied herein are the valuable proprietary and confidential information of Precision Signs.Com. By receiving these materials the recipient agrees that it will not sue, disclose, reproduce, publish, or disseminate these materials or the information contained herein without the advanced written approval of Precision Signs.com. 58.5" 57.75" 10" 1/8" 6061 Aluminum Face Panel (Removable) Painted MP84702 Dark Grey, MP14833 Black Princess Ruby and MP18084 Champion Silver Metallic. Map Direct Print on Face (Front Side Only) Welded to Join Angles and Intermidiate Plate Stencil Cut Base Welded to Upright 61.25" All Painted Elements to Receive Topcoat with MP290228SP Super Satin Clear Side A Side B Painted Aluminum Face Panel with Reflective White Vinyl Graphics 10" 5/8"-11 Breakaway Hardware 10" Rebar Concrete Anchor 122.5" #8 x 1/2" Flat Head Screw Painted MP14833 Black Princess Ruby, (3x) Places 12.5" 4" x 4" Aluminum Extrusion with Face and Edges Painted MP14833 Black Princess Ruby Reflective White Vinyl Graphic 6063 Aluminum Structure with All Visible Surfaces Painted MP 18084 Champion Silver Metallic North Campus Vehicular Signage Plan - Message Schedule and Sign Details COMMISSIONER Katherine Borgella DEPUTY COMMISSIONER M. Megan McDonald 121 E. Court St, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 | Phone: (607) 274-5560 | tompkinscountyny.gov/planning Creating and implementing plans that position Tompkins County communities to thrive. March 5, 2025 Lori Kofoid, Administrative Assistant IV Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga St. Ithaca, NY 14850 Re: Review Pursuant to §239 -l, -m and -n of New York State General Municipal Law Proposed Action: Sign Variances for proposed Cornell Directional Signs, Tax Parcel #67.-1-1.1, Cornell University, Owner; Leslie Schill, Applicant. Dear Ms. Kofoid: This letter acknowledges your referral of the proposed action identified above for review by the Tompkins County Department of Planning and Sustainability pursuant to §239 -l, -m and -n of the New York State General Municipal Law. We have determined the proposed action will have no significant county-wide or inter-community impact. We look forward to receiving notification on the final action taken by your municipality within 30 days of decision, as required by State law. Sincerely, Katherine Borgella, AICP Commissioner of Planning and Sustainability Page 1 of 3 Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1 - Project Information Instructions for Completing Part 1 – Project Information. The applicant or project sponsor is responsible for the completion of Part 1. Responses become part of the application for approval or funding, are subject to public review, and may be subject to further verification. Complete Part 1 based on information currently available. If additional research or investigation would be needed to fully respond to any item, please answer as thoroughly as possible based on current information. Complete all items in Part 1. You may also provide any additional information which you believe will be needed by or useful to the lead agency; attach additional pages as necessary to supplement any item. Part 1 – Project and Sponsor Information Name of Action or Project: Project Location (describe, and attach a location map): Brief Description of Proposed Action: Name of Applicant or Sponsor: Telephone: E-Mail: Address: City/PO: State: Zip Code: 1.Does the proposed action only involve the legislative adoption of a plan, local law, ordinance, administrative rule, or regulation? If Yes, attach a narrative description of the intent of the proposed action and the environmental resources that may be affected in the municipality and proceed to Part 2. If no, continue to question 2. NO YES 2.Does the proposed action require a permit, approval or funding from any other government Agency? If Yes, list agency(s) name and permit or approval: NO YES 3.a. Total acreage of the site of the proposed action? __________ acres b. Total acreage to be physically disturbed? __________ acres c. Total acreage (project site and any contiguous properties) owned or controlled by the applicant or project sponsor? __________ acres 4.Check all land uses that occur on, are adjoining or near the proposed action: 5. Urban Rural (non-agriculture) Industrial Commercial Residential (suburban) Aquatic Other(Specify): Forest Agriculture Parkland SEAF 2019 North Campus Wayfinding Signage Pleasant Grove Drive from Jessup Rd to Cradit Farm Dr. Cornell University Installation of 7 vehicular directional signs; 3 at the intersection of Pleasant Grove and Jessup Rd and 3 at the intersection of Pleasant Grove and Cradit Farm Dr. One additional sign will be posted on Program House Dr. The signs are in accordance with the Cornell University Signage and Wayfinding Plan which establishes signage standards for the Ithaca campus and designed toward MUCTD standards, defining size and fonts for legibility at posted speeds. Institutional .02 <0.01 >100 Ithaca NY 14853 Page 2 of 3 5.Is the proposed action, a.A permitted use under the zoning regulations? b.Consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan? NO YES N/A 6.Is the proposed action consistent with the predominant character of the existing built or natural landscape? NO YES 7.Is the site of the proposed action located in, or does it adjoin, a state listed Critical Environmental Area? If Yes, identify: ________________________________________________________________________________ NO YES 8.a. Will the proposed action result in a substantial increase in traffic above present levels? b.Are public transportation services available at or near the site of the proposed action? c.Are any pedestrian accommodations or bicycle routes available on or near the site of the proposed action? NO YES 9.Does the proposed action meet or exceed the state energy code requirements? If the proposed action will exceed requirements, describe design features and technologies: NO YES 10.Will the proposed action connect to an existing public/private water supply? If No, describe method for providing potable water: _________________________________________ NO YES 11.Will the proposed action connect to existing wastewater utilities? If No, describe method for providing wastewater treatment: ______________________________________ NO YES archaeological sites on the NY State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) archaeological site inventory? NO YES 13. a. Does any portion of the site of the proposed action, or lands adjoining the proposed action, contain wetlands or other waterbodies regulated by a federal, state or local agency? b.Would the proposed action physically alter, or encroach into, any existing wetland or waterbody? If Yes, identify the wetland or waterbody and extent of alterations in square feet or acres: _____________________ NO YES 12.a. Does the project site contain, or is it substantially contiguous to, a building, archaeological site, or district which is listed on the National or State Register of Historic Places, or that has been determined by the Commissioner of the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation to be eligible for listing on the State Register of Historic Places? b.Is the project site, or any portion of it, located in or adjacent to an area designated as sensitive for 14.Identify the typical habitat types that occur on, or are likely to be found on the project site. Check all that apply:□Shoreline D Forest D Agricultural/grasslands D Early mid-successional□Wetland D Urban Ji{ Suburban 15.Does the site of the proposed action contain any species of animal, or associated habitats, listed by the State or NO YES Federal government as threatened or endangered? � □ 16.Is the project site located in the 100-year flood plan?NO YES � □ 17.Will the proposed action create storm water discharge, either from point or non-point sources?NO YES If Yes, � □ a.Will storm water discharges flow to adjacent properties?� □ b.Will storm water discharges be directed to established conveyance systems (runoff and storm drains)?� □ If Yes, briefly describe: 18.Does the proposed action include construction or other activities that would result in the impoundment of water NO YES or other liquids ( e.g., retention pond, waste lagoon, dam)? If Yes, explain the purpose and size of the impoundment: � □ 19.Has the site of the proposed action or an adjoining property been the location of an active or closed solid waste NO YES management facility? If Yes, describe: � □ 20.Has the site of the proposed action or an adjoining property been the subject ofremediation (ongoing or NO YES completed) for hazardous waste? If Yes, describe: � □ I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Applicant/sponsor/name: Date: Signature: Title: PRINT FORM Page 3 of 3 Leslie Schill 1-16-25 Leslie Schill Dir, Cornell Campus Planning Outlook Turf concerns From Wendy Susan Wolfe <ww16@cornell.edu> Date Mon 3/24/2025 12:40 PM To Codes <codes@townithacany.gov> **WARNING** This email comes from an outside source. Please verify the from address, any URL links, and/or attachments. Any questions please contact the IT department Please do not allow Cornell’s synthetic turf to go forward, for the reasons stated below. Wendy Wolfe, Town of Ithaca 1. Signage Placement in Off-Limits Areas "I oppose Cornell's request to place signs within the public right-of-way. According to the Town of Ithaca's zoning regulations, such encroachments are prohibited to preserve public spaces and prevent visual clutter. Allowing these signs would set a concerning precedent, leading to potential billboard-like intrusions that degrade our community's aesthetic. Ithaca's zoning laws are designed to protect our scenic environment, much like Vermont's successful prohibition of roadside billboards. I urge the board to uphold these standards and deny the variance." 2. Synthetic Turf as an Impervious Surface "I am concerned about Cornell's synthetic turf project, which effectively creates an impervious surface. The Town of Ithaca's zoning ordinance emphasizes minimizing increases in impervious surfaces to manage stormwater runoff and prevent flooding. Synthetic turf prevents natural water infiltration, leading to increased runoff and potential environmental issues. I request that the zoning board consider these implications carefully and require comprehensive stormwater management plans before approval." 3. Public Health Implications of Synthetic Turf "I wish to highlight the public health concerns associated with synthetic turf fields. Studies have shown that these surfaces can reach extreme temperatures, posing heat-related health risks. Additionally, there is potential for chemical leaching into our water systems. The Town of Ithaca's zoning laws are established to protect public health and safety. I urge the board to thoroughly assess these health risks and ensure that any development complies with our community's health standards." 4. Environmental Impact of Synthetic Turf "I am concerned about the environmental impact of Cornell's proposed synthetic turf field. The Town of Ithaca's zoning ordinance requires consideration of environmentally sensitive areas and mandates that developments minimize adverse environmental effects. Synthetic turf can contribute to microplastic pollution and negatively affect local ecosystems. I urge the zoning board to require a comprehensive environmental impact assessment before granting approval." 5. Lighting and Wildlife Disruption "I oppose Cornell's request for reflective signage materials, as they may lead to increased light pollution. The Town of Ithaca's zoning regulations aim to protect the community's welfare, which includes minimizing light pollution that can disrupt local wildlife, particularly nocturnal species. I request that the board consider these ecological impacts and deny the variance for reflective materials." 3/17/25,11:32 AM ZBAA-25-9 O Town of Ithaca March 17,2025 ZBAA-25-9 Zoning Board of Appeals Area Variance Application Status:Active Submitted On:1/27/2025 Primary Location 232 Troy Rd Unit Anne Weber & Matthew Bollinger Ithaca,NY 14850 Owner Anne Weber &Matthew Bollinger 232 Troy Rd Ithaca,NY 14850 Applicant X Matthew Bollinger J 816-885-6325 @ bollingermatt@gmail.com A 232 Troy Road Ithaca,NY 14850 Internal Only-Review Tax Parcel No. 45.-2-11 Is Planning Dept.Approval Required? Is Engineering Dept.Approval Required?Is a GML-239 Review Required? Yes A GML-239 Reason for Review*Type of Variance The right of way of any existing or Area Variance proposed county or state road Appearance Date for Variance 3/25/25 https://ithacany.workflow.opengov.eom/#/explore/records/29092/details 1/9 3/17/25,11:32 AM ZBAA-25-9 Variance Code Language 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 A Variance Code Section 270-56C Internal Tasks to be Completed Meeting Result (First Appearance)Materials For GML-239 Were Sent Deadline for Hearing Notice to Journal Public Hearing Notice Was Sent 3/13/25 03/13/2025 Neighbor Notification Letters Were Sent Date Sign Was Picked-up 03/17/2025 Material Packets Sent to ZBA Members 03/17/2025 Historical Only https://ithacany.workflow.opengov.eom/#/explore/records/29092/details 2/9 3/17/25,11:32 AM ZBAA-25-9 Address affiliated with request Status Applicant's Information Applicant is* Property Owner Is the primary point of contact for application different than the applicant?* No Description Brief Description of Variance Request* In the summer of 2024,I was granted a variance to build an artist studio (1000 sq/ft,20 x 50 feet,20 feet high)behind our home at 232 Troy Road.Currently there is a small shed (155 sq/ft)on the property.We were granted two variances,one for home occupation and one for outbuilding size. After planting a test garden and doing a lighting study,we realized our original proposed site for the studio would block sun for our garden and the afternoon sun for part of the house,and cut off connection to the north side of the property. We are applying for a new variance to allow us to erect the same-sized studio further back in the property instead of directly behind the house as originally proposed.This new location is further from the road and stream and would not significantly alter our original, approved application. Area Variance Criteria Form 1.Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or be a detriment to nearby properties?* No https://ithacany.workflow.opengov.eom/#/explore/records/29092/details 3/9 3/17/25,11:32 AM ZBAA-25-9 Reasons: Many houses in our neighborhood have outbuildings and detatched garages.My proposed barn studio will have no effect on the nearby properties and has the support of our neighbors. 2.Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by a feasible alternative to the variance?* No Reasons: We have sought to purchase additional land from our neighbor to avoid this variance,but it wasn't possible.We also looked into attaching the barn to the house but the exisiting grade would make this cost prohibitive.It would also block the site of our proposed garden and divide the property in a way that would make it much less functional. 3.Is the requested variance substantial?* Yes Reasons: The last time we spoke to the ZBA,our request was considered substantial,but, as our supporting documents show,our proposed building is the minimum size needed. 4.Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood?* No https://ithacany.workflow.opengov.eom/#/explore/records/29092/details 4/9 3/17/25,11:32 AM ZBAA-25-9 Reasons: The new proposed location of the building is further from the stream than our original approved application. 5.Is the alleged difficulty self-created?" Yes Reasons: We are chosing to make this building because the cost of commercial rentals make it impossible to be a professional artist long term in Ithaca.We are seeking this variance to make Ithaca our long term home. Affidavit The UNDERSIGNED respectfully submit this application requesting an appearance before the Zoning Board of Appeals.By filing this application,I grant permission for members of The Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals or Town staff to enter my property for any inspection(s)necessary that are in connection with my application.I acknowledge,that completed applications are scheduled on a first-come first-serve basis and that all documents ideally be submitted forty-five (45)days advance of the proposed meeting date,together with the required application fee.Failure to do so may result in a delay in my hearing. Digital Signature*Meeting Date O Matthew L Bollinger 03/25/2025 Jan 27,2025 https://ithacany.workflow.opengov.eom/#/explore/records/29092/details 5/9 3/17/25,11:32 AM ZBAA-25-9 PAYMENT INFORMATION After submission,Code Department Administration will review the application and materials provided.After review,and email with instructions for paying the fee online with credit card or E-check will be sent to the applicant. If it is preferred to pay by check,cash or money order: *Mail to Code Enforcement,Town Hall 215 N.Tioga St,Ithaca,NY 14850 *Drop off during business hours to Town Hall M-F 8-4 *Place in locked box next to the door on the Buffalo St side of Town Hall Attachments Determination/Denial Letter Denial Outbuilding Project.png Uploaded by Matthew Bollinger on Jan 27,2025 at 10:28 AM Narrative Bollinger Variance Narrative.pdf Uploaded by Matthew Bollinger on Jan 27,2025 at 10:28 AM Survey and/or Plans TOPO.pdf Uploaded by Matthew Bollinger on Jan 27,2025 at 10:30 AM Environmental Assessment Form EAF_Signed.pdf Uploaded by Matthew Bollinger on Jan 27,2025 at 10:30 AM Bollinger Studio _Variance Application _Revised Location.pdf Bollinger Studio _Variance Application _Revised Location.pdf Uploaded by Matthew Bollinger on Jan 27,2025 at 10:31 AM Addendum 2024 Bollinger Studio Variance Application.pdf Bollinger Studio _Variance Application.pdf Uploaded by Matthew Bollinger on Jan 27,2025 at 10:32 AM https://ithacany.workflow.opengov.eom/#/explore/records/29092/details 6/9 3/17/25,11:32 AM ZBAA-25-9 BollingerBuckler232TroyVar_240712.pdf BollingerBuckler232TroyVar_240712.pdf Uploaded by Matthew Bollinger on Jan 27,2025 at 10:32 AM BZA_Letter.pdf BZA_Letter.pdf Uploaded by Matthew Bollinger on Jan 27,2025 at 10:32 AM matt_bollinger_letter.pdf matt_bollinger_letter.pdf Uploaded by Matthew Bollinger on Jan 27,2025 at 10:32 AM Ostendarp Letter of Support.pdf Ostendarp Letter of Support.pdf Uploaded by Matthew Bollinger on Jan 27,2025 at 10:33 AM Sperling_Bollinger_Studio_Letter.pdf Sperling_Bollinger_Studio_Letter.pdf Uploaded by Matthew Bollinger on Jan 27,2025 at 10:33 AM Bollinger Studio Building Revised GML239 Letter 03.07.2025.pdf Bollinger Studio Building Revised GML 239 Letter 03.07.2025.pdf Uploaded by Lori Kofoid on Mar 7,2025 at 11:38 AM Record Activity Matthew Bollinger started a draft Record 05/16/2023 at 8:58 am Matthew Bollinger added file Denial Outbuilding Project.png 01/27/2025 at 10:28 am Matthew Bollinger added file Bollinger Variance Narrative.pdf 01/27/2025 at 10:28 am Matthew Bollinger added file TOPO.pdf 01/27/2025 at 10:30 am Matthew Bollinger added file EAF_Signed.pdf 01/27/2025 at 10:30 am Matthew Bollinger added file Bollinger Studio _Variance Application _ Revised Location.pdf 01/27/2025 at 10:31 am https://ithacany.workflow.opengov.eom/#/explore/records/29092/details 7/9 3/17/25,11:32 AM ZBAA-25-9 Matthew Bollinger added file BollingerBuckler232TroyVar_2A0712.pdf 01/27/2025 at 10:32 am Matthew Bollinger added file BZA_Letter.pdf 01/27/2025 at 10:32 am Matthew Bollinger added file Bollinger Studio _Variance Application.pdf 01/27/2025 at 10:32 am Matthew Bollinger added file matt_bollinger_letter.pdf 01/27/2025 at 10:32 am Matthew Bollinger added file Ostendarp Letter of Support.pdf 01/27/2025 at 10:33 am Matthew Bollinger added file Sperling_Bollinger_Studio_Letter.pdf 01/27/2025 at 10:33 am Matthew Bollinger submitted Record ZBAA-25-9 01/27/2025 at 10:33 am OpenGov system altered inspection step Review -Code Enforcement/Zoning changed status from Inactive to Active on Record ZBAA-25-9 01/27/2025 at 10:33 am OpenGov system altered payment step Payment,changed status from Inactive to Active on Record ZBAA-25-9 01/27/2025 at 10:33 am OpenGov system altered inspection step Application In-take Review, changed status from Inactive to Active on Record ZBAA-25-9 01/27/2025 at 10:33 am OpenGov system assigned inspection step Application In-take Review to Lori Kofoid on Record ZBAA-25-9 01/27/2025 at 10:33 am OpenGov system assigned inspection step Review -Code Enforcement/Zoning Dept,to Marty Moseley on Record ZBAA-25-9 01/27/2025 at 10:33 am OpenGov system changed the deadline to Jan 29,2025 on inspection step Application In-take Review on Record ZBAA-25-9 01/27/2025 at 10:33 am OpenGov system completed payment step Payment on Record ZBAA-25-9 01/27/2025 at 10:34 am Lori Kofoid changed form field entry GML-239 Reason for Review from ""to "The right of way of any existing or proposed county or state road"on Record ZBAA-25-9 01/27/2025 at 10:36 am Lori Kofoid changed form field entry Is a GML-239 Review Required?from "" to "Yes"on Record ZBAA-25-9 01/27/2025 at 10:36 am OpenGov system altered inspection step GML-239 County Review ,changed status from Inactive to Active on Record ZBAA-25-9 01/27/2025 at 10:36 am OpenGov system assigned inspection step GML-239 County Review to Lori Kofoid on Record ZBAA-25-9 01/27/2025 at 10:36 am https://ithacany.workflow.opengov.eom/#/explore/records/29092/details 8/9 3/17/25,11:32 AM ZBAA-25-9 Lori Kofoid changed form field entry Type of Variance from ""to "Area Variance"on Record ZBAA-25-9 01/27/2025 at 10:37 am Lori Kofoid changed form field entry Appearance Date for Variance from ""to "3/18/25"on Record ZBAA-25-9 01/27/2025 at 10:37 am Lori Kofoid changed form field entry Tax Parcel No.from ""to "45.-2-11"on Record ZBAA-25-9 01/27/2025 at 10:37 am Lori Kofoid changed form field entry Meeting Bate from "02/25/2025"to "03/25/2025"on Record ZBAA-25-9 01/27/2025 at 10:37 am Lori Kofoid altered inspection step Application In-take Review,changed status from Active to Complete on Record ZBAA-25-9 02/04/2025 at 10:28 am Lori Kofoid changed form field entry Appearance Date for Variance from "3/18/25"to "3/25/25"on Record ZBAA-25-9 02/04/2025 at 11:01 am Lori Kofoid added Deadline for Hearing Notice to Journal to Record ZBAA- 25-9 02/21/2025 at 11:57 am Lori Kofoid changed form field entry Material Packets Sent to ZBA Members from ""to "03/17/2025"on Record ZBAA-25-9 02/21/2025 at 11:57 am Lori Kofoid changed form field entry Neighbor Notification Letters Were Sent from ""to "02/17/2025"on Record ZBAA-25-9 02/21/2025 at 11:57 am Lori Kofoid changed form field entry Public Hearing Notice Was Sent from "" to "03/13/2025"on Record ZBAA-25-9 02/21/2025 at 11:57 am Lori Kofoid changed form field entry Neighbor Notification Letters Were Sent from "02/17/2025"to "03/17/2025"on Record ZBAA-25-9 03/03/2025 at 10:07 am Lori Kofoid removed attachment Agricultural Data Statement from Record ZBAA-25-9 03/03/2025 at 10:19 am Lori Kofoid altered inspection step GML-239 County Review ,changed status from Active to Complete on Record ZBAA-25-9 03/03/2025 at 10:51 am Lori Kofoid added file Bollinger Studio Building Revised GML 239 Letter 03.07.2025.pdf to Record ZBAA-25-9 03/07/2025 at 11:38 am Marty Moseley changed form field entry Variance Code Language from ""to " <p style-'margin:Gin Gin 8pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif; box-sizing:bor..."on Record ZBAA-25-9 03/11/2025 at 4:39 pm Marty Moseley changed form field entry Variance Code Section from ""to "270-56C "on Record ZBAA-25-9 03/11/2025 at 4:39 pm Lori Kofoid altered approval step Notice Pick-up (You will be emailed again when ready),changed status from Inactive to Active on Record ZBAA-25-9 03/14/2025 at 10:44 am Lori Kofoid assigned approval step Notice Pick-up (You will be emailed again when ready)to Lori Kofoid on Record ZBAA-25-9 03/14/2025 at 10:44 am https://ithacany.workflow.opengov.eom/#/explore/records/29092/details 9/9 Zoning Board of Appeals Application 1/27/2025 In the summer of 2024, I was granted a variance to build an artist studio (1000 sq/ft, 20 x 50 feet, 20 feet high) behind our home at 232 Troy Road. Currently there is a small shed (155 sq/ft) on the property. We were granted two variances, one for home occupation and one for outbuilding size. After planting a test garden and doing a lighting study, we realized our original proposed site for the studio would block sun for our garden and the afternoon sun for part of the house, and cut oﬀ connection to the north side of the property. We are applying for a new variance to allow us to erect the same-sized studio further back in the property instead of directly behind the house as originally proposed. This new location is further from the road and stream and would not signiﬁcantly alter our original, approved application. COMMISSIONER Katherine Borgella DEPUTY COMMISSIONER M. Megan McDonald 121 E. Court St, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 | Phone: (607) 274-5560 | tompkinscountyny.gov/planning Creating and implementing plans that position Tompkins County communities to thrive. March 7, 2025 Lori Kofoid, Administrative Assistant IV Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga St. Ithaca, NY 14850 Re: Review Pursuant to §239 -l, -m and -n of New York State General Municipal Law Proposed Action: Area Variance for proposed Bollinger Studio Building located at 232 Troy Road, Tax Parcel #45.-2-11, Matthew Bollinger & Anne Weber, Owners; Matthew Bollinger, Applicant. Dear Ms. Kofoid: This letter acknowledges your referral of the proposed action identified above for review by the Tompkins County Department of Planning and Sustainability pursuant to §239 -l, -m and -n of the New York State General Municipal Law. We have determined the proposed action will have no significant county-wide or inter-community impact. We look forward to receiving notification on the final action taken by your municipality within 30 days of decision, as required by State law. Sincerely, Katherine Borgella, AICP Commissioner of Planning and Sustainability Page 1 of 3 Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1 - Project Information Instructions for Completing Part 1 – Project Information. The applicant or project sponsor is responsible for the completion of Part 1. Responses become part of the application for approval or funding, are subject to public review, and may be subject to further verification. Complete Part 1 based on information currently available. If additional research or investigation would be needed to fully respond to any item, please answer as thoroughly as possible based on current information. Complete all items in Part 1. You may also provide any additional information which you believe will be needed by or useful to the lead agency; attach additional pages as necessary to supplement any item. Part 1 – Project and Sponsor Information Name of Action or Project: Project Location (describe, and attach a location map): Brief Description of Proposed Action: Name of Applicant or Sponsor: Telephone: E-Mail: Address: City/PO: State: Zip Code: 1.Does the proposed action only involve the legislative adoption of a plan, local law, ordinance, administrative rule, or regulation? If Yes, attach a narrative description of the intent of the proposed action and the environmental resources that may be affected in the municipality and proceed to Part 2. If no, continue to question 2. NO YES 2.Does the proposed action require a permit, approval or funding from any other government Agency? If Yes, list agency(s) name and permit or approval:NO YES 3.a. Total acreage of the site of the proposed action? __________ acres b. Total acreage to be physically disturbed? __________ acres c. Total acreage (project site and any contiguous properties) owned or controlled by the applicant or project sponsor? __________ acres 4.Check all land uses that occur on, are adjoining or near the proposed action: 5. Urban Rural (non-agriculture) Industrial Commercial Residential (suburban) Aquatic Other(Specify):□ Forest Agriculture □ Parkland Page 2 of 3 5.Is the proposed action, a.A permitted use under the zoning regulations? b.Consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan? NO YES N/A 6.Is the proposed action consistent with the predominant character of the existing built or natural landscape?NO YES 7.Is the site of the proposed action located in, or does it adjoin, a state listed Critical Environmental Area? If Yes, identify: ________________________________________________________________________________ NO YES 8.a. Will the proposed action result in a substantial increase in traffic above present levels? b.Are public transportation services available at or near the site of the proposed action? c.Are any pedestrian accommodations or bicycle routes available on or near the site of the proposed action? NO YES 9.Does the proposed action meet or exceed the state energy code requirements? If the proposed action will exceed requirements, describe design features and technologies: _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ NO YES 10.Will the proposed action connect to an existing public/private water supply? If No, describe method for providing potable water: _________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ NO YES 11.Will the proposed action connect to existing wastewater utilities? If No, describe method for providing wastewater treatment: ______________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ NO YES 12. a. Does the project site contain, or is it substantially contiguous to, a building, archaeological site, or district which is listed on the National or State Register of Historic Places, or that has been determined by the Commissioner of the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation to be eligible for listing on the State Register of Historic Places? archaeological sites on the NY State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) archaeological site inventory? NO YES 13. a. Does any portion of the site of the proposed action, or lands adjoining the proposed action, contain wetlands or other waterbodies regulated by a federal, state or local ag ency? b.Would the proposed action physically alter, or encroach into, any existing wetland or waterbody? If Yes, identify the wetland or waterbody and extent of alterations in square feet or acres: _____________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ NO YES b. Is the project site, or any portion of it, located in or adjacent to an area designated as sensitive for Page 3 of 3 14.Identify the typical habitat types that occur on, or are likely to be found on the project site. Check all that apply: □Shoreline □ Forest Agricultural/grasslands Early mid-successional Wetland □ Urban Suburban 15.Does the site of the proposed action contain any species of animal, or associated habitats, listed by the State or Federal government as threatened or endangered?NO YES 16.Is the project site located in the 100-year flood plan?NO YES 17.Will the proposed action create storm water discharge, either from point or non-point sources? If Yes, a.Will storm water discharges flow to adjacent properties? b.Will storm water discharges be directed to established conveyance systems (runoff and storm drains)? If Yes, briefly describe: _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ NO YES 18.Does the proposed action include construction or other activities that would result in the impoundment of water or other liquids (e.g., retention pond, waste lagoon, dam)? If Yes, explain the purpose and size of the impoundment:______________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ _ NO YES 19.Has the site of the proposed action or an adjoining property been the location of an active or closed solid waste management facility? If Yes, describe: _______________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ NO YES 20.Has the site of the proposed action or an adjoining property been the subject of remediation (ongoing or completed) for hazardous waste? If Yes, describe: _______________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ NO YES I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Date: _____________________ Applicant/sponsor/name: ____________________________________________________ __________________________ Signature: _____________________________________________________Title:__________________________________ EAF Mapper Summary Report Tuesday, August 27, 2024 9:07 AM Disclaimer: The EAF Mapper is a screening tool intended to assist project sponsors and reviewing agencies in preparing an environmental assessment form (EAF). Not all questions asked in the EAF are answered by the EAF Mapper. Additional information on any EAF question can be obtained by consulting the EAF Workbooks. Although the EAF Mapper provides the most up-to-date digital data available to DEC, you may also need to contact local or other data sources in order to obtain data not provided by the Mapper. Digital data is not a substitute for agency determinations. Part 1 / Question 7 [Critical Environmental Area] No Part 1 / Question 12a [National or State Register of Historic Places or State Eligible Sites] No Part 1 / Question 12b [Archeological Sites]No Part 1 / Question 13a [Wetlands or Other Regulated Waterbodies] No Part 1 / Question 15 [Threatened or Endangered Animal] No Part 1 / Question 16 [100 Year Flood Plain]Digital mapping data are not available or are incomplete. Refer to EAF Workbook. Part 1 / Question 20 [Remediation Site]No 1Short Environmental Assessment Form - EAF Mapper Summary Report Bollinger Studio Barn 232 Troy Road Introduction + Overview I am applying for a variance to build an artist studio (1000 sq/ft, 20 x 50 feet, 20 feet high) behind our home at 232 Troy Road. Currently there is a small shed (155 sq/ft) on the property. To build the studio, I am requesting a variance for the 555 sq/ft this structure will need beyond the 600 allowed by code. The barn will have wooden board and batten siding and a simple but elegant design appropriate to compliment the age and character of our 1840s farmhouse. It would not encroach on any of the edges of the property and would be suﬃciently far from the small creek on our land to satisfy the existing code. The building will not have drive-up access and will be minimally visible from the road. It will not have a garage door and will not be accessible to vehicles nor will it be used as a garage. The barn will be used as an artist studio. Because I am a professional artist, I am applying for a home occupation variance for 500 sq/ft beyond the 500 permitted by code in order to total the same amount of square footage as my proposed workspace, 1000 sq/ft. My occupation makes little noise, has no storefront or regularly incoming customers, and utilizes water-based materials. It will have no sign and little impact on the neighborhood. All neighboring property owners have written letters of support for this project. Our Property Our property relative to the City of Ithaca EAC Montessori Troy Park Eldridge Preserve South Hill Rec’ Trail Ithaca Waldorf School King Rd Nelson Road Town of Ithaca Line Landmarks near our home Approximate Town of Ithaca / Danby Town Line Eldridge Preserve King Road Our property is surrounded by natural lands Survey of 232 Troy Rd Showing grade change behind house The house is an 1840s farmhouse Our narrow gravel driveway will remain as is. The barn will be only minimally visible from this point of view. From the right (north) side of the property, dense vegetation would obscure the barn. The rear of our property is wooded and surrounded by many acres of forest maintained as hunting grounds by our neighbor, Jack Little. The space between the existing garage and the site of the proposed barn is sloped. The rear of our property slopes, making a connection between the barn and the existing garage prohibitively costly due to a grade change of 3.5’. An attached breezeway would not serve a purpose besides avoiding the size restriction in the zoning code. Studio needs to be set back from the house for ﬂat building site, making a breezeway long, large, expensive, and purposeless, as it could not connect directly to any existing doors to the house. Historic farmhouses in upstate New York typically have detached barns. Adding a connected breezeway would diminish the historic accuracy, charm, and character of the neighborhood. Studio Barn Proposal STUDIO HOUSE SITE PLAN STUDIO TROY ROAD HOUSE WOODS SHRUB BORDER PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE WOODS The studio will be insulated for year round use. The insulation will reduce the minimal noises of stretching canvases (using a staple gun). Drawings from Kurtz Builders and Premier Metal Supply Premier Metal Supply fabricates the components and Kurtz Builders constructs the structure. Studio Rendering View from Driveway The barn will have wooden board and batten siding and a thoughtful design to enhance rather than detract from the character of the property, existing 1840s farmhouse, and neighborhood. Studio Rendering View from Side The doors will not allow for vehicles to enter or large-scale industrial work to take place. Existing driveway Driveway with proposed building. The studio will be only minimally visible from the road. The studio will be only minimally visible from the road. The proposed project is located outside of the stream setback area. Character of the Neighborhood View to the right from our drivewayView to the left from our driveway Troy Road between Coddington and Nelson is unique on South Hill. Because it moves into Danby, our stretch of the road has a much more rural character. Our property is bordered on three sides by Jack Little’s land, which he maintains as forest. The Eldridge Wilderness Preserve is across the road: an 87-acre forest. Map of examples of outbuildings on Troy Rd, King Rd., Ridgecrest Rd, Coddington Rd (Note: many more examples not shown on Nelson Rd. in Danby and on Coddington Rd. between Troy Rd. and Burns Rd. in Town of Ithaca) Large outbuilding on Troy Road (between Coddington and King) Large Barn on Troy Road (corner of Troy and King) Troy Road (between King and Nelson) Barn-like detached garage with second level (stairs on side) Troy Road (between King and Nelson) Barn-like detached garage with second level (stairs toward rear) Troy Road (between King and Nelson) - Large, detached outbuilding Large, detached garage on Ridgecrest Rd Design build ﬁrm on King Rd - Detached outbuilding behind residence Design build ﬁrm on King Rd - Detached outbuilding behind residence Coddington Rd between Troy and King. A home with several outbuildings 509 Coddington Rd - 1840s historic home from similar period with a detached barn and outbuildings with wooden siding. Home at the corner of Coddington Rd and Rich Rd. Multiple outbuildings including the large detached garage at the end of the driveway. Historic home from similar period with detached outbuildings with wooden siding to enhance historic charm. Professional Work Matt Bollinger Visual Artist Over the last 16 years, I have had 24 solo exhibitions domestically and internationally and my work has been reviewed in Artforum, The New York Times, Le Monde, Art in America, The New Yorker, Hyperallergic, and elsewhere. From 2012 - 2023, I taught full time at SUNY Purchase. For 3 of the last 4 years I was in my position, I was department chair for Painting and Drawing. I have been a visiting artist at New York University, Rhode Island School of Design, Boston University, University of Washington, Seattle, and elsewhere. My work is represented by mother’s tankstation limited and François Ghebaly Gallery. These galleries have spaces in Los Angeles, New York, Dublin, and London. My CV can be viewed here: https://mattbollinger.com/pagecv Work obligations from 2023 to the present: Solo Exhibitions & Art Fair Presentations 2024 halftime, mother’s tankstation limited, London, England (6 paintings: 1 @ 96 x 78”, 3 @ 60 x 48”, 1 @ 30 x 24”, 1@ 24 x 20”) 2023 Station, François Ghebaly, New York, NY (7 paintings; 1 animation: 1 @ 96 x 78”, 1 @ 78 x 60”, 1 @ 48 x 38”, 1 @ 32 x 22”, 2 @ 24 x 20”, 1 @ 20 x 16”) Matt Bollinger, Art Basel Miami Beach, Miami, FL (8 paintings: 2 @ 78 x 60”, 1 @ 60 x 48”, 2 @ 48 x 38”, 2 @ 30 x 24”, 1 @ 20 x 16”) Group Exhibitions & Art Fairs 2024 The Chicken and the Egg, Centre for the Arts Gallery, Towson University, Baltimore (1 animation) Art Basel, mother’s tankstation limited, Basel, Switzerland (2 paintings: 1 @ 96 x 78”, 1 @ 32 x 22”) Frieze, François Ghebaly Gallery, New York, NY (4 paintings: 3 @ 60 x 48”, 1 @ 24 x 20”) Art Basel, mother’s tankstation limited, Hong Kong, China (2 paintings: 1 @ 78 x 60”, 1 @ 48 x 38”) 2023 Art Basel, mother’s tankstation limited, Basel, Switzerland (4 paintings: 1 @ 96 x 78”, 2 @ 60 x 48”, 1 @ 32 x 22”) Disegno-in-Motion, Hewitt Gallery of Art, Marymount Manhattan College, New York (1 animation) Einstein on the Beach, Super Dakota, Brussels (1 painting @ 48 x 38”) Felix Art Fair, mother’s tankstation limited, Los Angeles, CA (2 paintings @ 20 x 16”) Hello Animation Festival, Tulsa, Oklahoma (1 animation) Heaven is a Diﬀerent Thing, Unclebrother, Hancock, New York (1 painting @ 48 x 38”) Total Paintings Exhibited: 37 paintings My gallery representation, mother’s tankstation limited, has gallery spaces in Dublin and London. They also bring my work to two to three art fairs a year. Above is an installation view of my 2022 exhibition, Oﬀ Peak, in Dublin. Oﬀ Peak, mother’s tankstation limited, Dublin, Ireland, 2022. My studio space needs enough room to develop a body of work big enough to occupy a large gallery space. Not only do I need to paint the number of works in the exhibition, I need a clean area to display them to develop the exhibition design. Oﬀ Peak, mother’s tankstation limited, Dublin, Ireland, 2022. Shown are two 60 x 48” paintings and one 78 x 96” painting. This exhibition featured 9 paintings and three animations. For every exhibition, I need to make more than the number of works shown. An edit is then made. This means the studio needs to accommodate works that don’t make the cut or are held back for future exhibitions. Station, François Ghebaly Gallery, New York, NY, 2023. The 96” tall painting on the far wall pushed my studio to the limits since the ceiling in my workspace was only 99”. I had to lie on the ﬂoor to paint the details at the bottom of the canvas. Large walls are essential to make my work. Station, François Ghebaly Gallery, New York, NY, 2023. This exhibition featured seven paintings and one, 18-minute animation. Station, François Ghebaly Gallery, New York, NY, 2023. View from the video screening area. A short clip of my most recent animation project, which will debut at François Ghebaly Gallery in 2025 in Los Angeles, can be viewed here: https://vimeo.com/9819 33495/ea0434b2bd?sha re=copy More of my animations can be viewed here: https://mattbollinger.co m/animation In addition to personal projects, I sometimes do commercial work such as the animated illustrations I created for the California Sunday Magazine in 2020. https://story.californiasunda y.com/covid-life-care-center -kirkland-washington/ halftime, mother’s tankstation limited, London England, 2024. Both of the galleries that represent me have two brick and mortar spaces, one large and one smaller. This is mother’s tankstation’s smaller space which is still substantial. halftime, mother’s tankstation limited, London England, 2024. This exhibition featured six paintings, most of which were very large. The painting on the left is 8 feet wide. Art Basel, Miami Beach, mother’s tankstation limited, Miami, FL, 2023. My galleries each do several art fairs a year. In the last 12 months, mother’s tankstation did three art fairs, while François Ghebaly participated in seven fairs. Pictured is a solo presentation of my work at Art Basel Miami Beach. For a given fair, I will ship between 1 and 12 works. Often only a few of the works that ship will be exhibited, although all may be made available to collectors. Throughout the year my work is exhibited domestically and internationally at art fairs. Pictured are my works at Art Basel in Basel, Switzerland in 2024 and 2023. In the last few years I have participated in fairs in New York City, London, Los Angeles, Miami, Hong Kong and Basel. My forthcoming, 2025 exhibition will be in François Ghebaly Gallery’s 12,000 sq/ft Los Angeles space pictured here with the work of Gabriel Mills. The painting on the back wall is 120 x 192”. My 2025 exhibition at François Ghebaly Gallery will utilize their entire main exhibition space and feature numerous paintings, including a 12-foot canvas, and a video installation, the product of 5 years of work. Renting a studio in Ithaca is not a long-term solution. Both my current studio and my previous studio were rented to me at below market rates. I kept the spaces in good working order and occupied until my landlord could rent to a tenant who could pay full commercial rent. I made improvements to the spaces, painting, redoing ﬂooring, replacing lighting and cleaning. My spaces have been temporary. I moved into my current studio on W Green St on the same day I was given notice I needed to leave my S Fulton studio. Rental Market Challenges 203 N. Aurora St. Ithaca, NY 14850 $2900/mo | 3030 sq ft 930 Danby Road, Ithaca, NY 14850 $20 SF/YR | approx 5000 sq ft 531 Etsy St, Ithaca NY 14850 $19 SF/YR | 5000 sq ft 704 W Buﬀalo St, Ithaca, NY 14850 $15 SF/YR | 2192 sq ft 208-212 W Buﬀalo St, Ithaca, NY 14850 $3500/mo | 1265 sq ft (medical oﬃces, subdivided space) 116 N Cayuga St, Ithaca, NY 14850 $345/mo | 175 sq ft 1301 Trumansburg Rd, Ithaca, NY 14850 $2363/mo | 1250 sq ft (medical oﬃces) Artist Alley | South Hill Business Campus 950 Danby Road, Ithaca, NY 14850 $250 - $455/mo | 200-405 sq ft (Currently unavailable; spaces only semi-private with chain link doors) Rental Comps (Sourced from Century 21, Loopnet, Warren Real Estate, Keller Williams Realty, PropertyShark) The current rental market includes almost no spaces that would be appropriate for an artist studio. Many are storefronts and many others are subdivided medical oﬃces. Most are much too large or too small. Most do not have the large wall space and ceiling height required. All these spaces are very expensive. Studio Requirements Current studio at 726 W Green St Requirements - a space for making large works. Pictured is an 8 x 12 foot canvas. Requirements - space for stretching and preparing canvases. Requirements - light controlled space for shooting animation and editing videos. Requirements - space for shooting large-scale animated works and models (Note: space pictured is a previous studio). Shooting large canvas Space set up for animating 3D models A fraction of the paintings and most of the models used to create my animated short Three Rooms (18 min, 30 sec; 2018) Requirements - room to work on several paintings at a time to prepare for exhibitions (note: the paintings pictured range from 24 to 144”). Long, tall wall to make larger paintings Space to make smaller paintings Requirements - slop sink needed to wash large brushes and ﬁll gallon buckets with water.Large brushes (24” brush at bottom) Requirements - bathroom. I need a small, half bath for daily use. Returning to my house to use the restroom during the day creates unwanted distractions, can make a mess (tracking in paint), and takes time away from the studio. I also have studio visits from gallerists, collectors, curators, and arts professionals who will need access to bathroom facilities without entering our domestic space. The sink in my current studio is much too small for washing brushes as can be seen here. (Note: the proposed studio will not have a kitchen or shower, making it not useable as a domestic space, rental unit, or AirBnB). Requirements - space to store blank canvases and works in progress. Because of the expense of having stretcher frames fabricated and canvases stretched, I purchase at least one year’s worth of canvases at one time. These must be stored at the studio until used. Requirements - storage for completed works, either those that are waiting to be exhibited or those that have been returned Requirements - storage for completed works, either those that are waiting to be exhibited or those that have been returned Requirements - storage for raw materials - 8-foot rolls of canvas, 22 x 30” sheets of paper, packing materials including large 6-foot foam rolls, 8-foot cardboard sheets, and rolls of 3 mil plastic. Requirements - paint-free space to wrap and pack canvases for shipping. Current wrapping space Shipment ready to leave Requirements - accessible storage for paint. Because of the cost of paint and the scale of my work, I purchase large volumes (quarts and gallons) that must be stored. Requirements - clean space to photograph the work Requirements - space to store photo equipment Requirements - space for visitors. I receive studio visits from artists, curators, collectors, art professors, students, gallerists, critics, actors (for work in my animations), and other arts professionals. These visits require a clean place for guests to sit. Visits can lead to exhibitions, sales, curatorial opportunities, teaching opportunities, constructive feedback, and collaborations. Requirements - clean space to view art works and display for visitors. Requirements - tall walls for large works. The painting above is 8 feet tall. My old studio’s ceiling was about 8’ 3”. In the proposed studio, the work-wall is much taller so I can raise up the painting when working. To make this piece, I had to lie on the ground to paint the detailed plants along the bottom edge. 8 foot tall painting with little clearance Detail of painting Requirements - a small oﬃce area. I need space to have my computer, to take calls, to do Zoom visits with art schools, to take virtual meetings with galleries, curators, and colleagues. I use this space for drawing and I also have a printer (not pictured here) to print copies of drawn studies I use when making my paintings. This is the studio of artist Danica Lundy. It is on her property in Connecticut and is similar in many ways to the barn that I am proposing although it is slightly larger at 24 x 48’. It is easy to see how the space requested is not excessive. The works pictured were in her London exhibition which you can view at the link below. https://www.whitecube.com/gallery-exhibitions/danica-lundy-masons-yard-2024 First Floor Second Floor Proposed Studio Barn Use Reduced SF due to increased eﬃciencies in ﬂoor plan that maximize usable wall and ﬂoor space, and minimizes circulation. Reduced storage due to being able to construct custom storage solutions. First Floor Storage Loft Minimum Variance The proposed plan is the minimum variance required to meet needs. Studio barn proposed is less than half the square footage of utilized space in current studio. Size Variance Home Occupation Variance ●Will not alter character of neighborhood ●Many houses near ours have outbuildings ●Minimal visibility from road ●Considerate design to to ﬁt with historic character ●Will not have drive up access or garage door ●Industrial work will not be possible ●Supported by neighbors ●Purchase of additional land was not possible ●Attaching to existing home was cost prohibitive due to the sloping site and out of keeping with historic character ●Visual artist working in painting and animation ●Work makes little noise ●The studio will be insulated which will minimize any sound ●Slop sink needed to clean large brushes and ﬁll large buckets for water-based painting ●Water-based paints will not have environmental impact ●½ bath needed for daily use to avoid distraction, household mess, and making professional visitors use bathroom in the house ●No sign, storefront, or regularly visiting customers ●Space needed for large paintings, working on an entire exhibition at one time, storage for canvases, art supplies, and ﬁnished works. ●Space needed for oﬃce, light-controlled animation space, and small seating area for guests ●Rental market makes building the only sustainable option The barn studio that we have designed will be a lovely addition to our property and neighborhood. We have taken pains to be considerate with our design and to request only the minimum variance needed to achieve our goals. We have sought out other ways to satisfy our needs to avoid a variance but there are none that are feasible. This studio will enable me to make my work without the uncertainty of the rental market and allow us to make Ithaca our long-term home. We hope that you will grant us these two variances in light of these considerations and the full support of our neighbors. Conclusion Bollinger Studio Barn 232 Troy Road Introduction + Overview In the summer of 2024, I was granted a variance to build an artist studio (1000 sq/ft, 20 x 50 feet, 20 feet high) behind our home at 232 Troy Road. Currently there is a small shed (155 sq/ft) on the property. We were granted two variances, one for home occupation and one for outbuilding size. After planting a test garden and doing a lighting study, we realized our original proposed site for the studio would block sun for our garden and the afternoon sun for part of the house, and cut oﬀ connection to the north side of the property. We are applying for a new variance to allow us to erect the same-sized studio further back in the property instead of directly behind the house as originally proposed. This new location is further from the road and stream and would not signiﬁcantly alter our original, approved application. Our Property Our property relative to the City of Ithaca EAC Montessori Troy Park Eldridge Preserve South Hill Rec’ Trail Ithaca Waldorf School King Rd Nelson Road Town of Ithaca Line Landmarks near our home Approximate Town of Ithaca / Danby Town Line Eldridge Preserve King Road Our property is surrounded by natural lands Survey of 232 Troy Rd Showing grade change behind house The house is an 1840s farmhouse Our narrow gravel driveway will remain as is. The barn will be not be visible from this point of view. From the right (north) side of the property, dense vegetation would obscure the barn. The rear of our property is wooded and surrounded by many acres of forest maintained as hunting grounds by our neighbor, Jack Little. The backyard is at a higher grade than the house, making a direct connection to the barn cost prohibitive. Historic farmhouses in upstate New York typically have detached barns. Adding a connected breezeway would diminish the historic accuracy, charm, and character of the neighborhood. Studio Barn Proposal | Revised Location STUDIO HOUSE PRIOR SITE PLAN STUDIO HOUSE SOLAR STUDY Morning to Evening Shadows May 15th SHADOWS FROM ORIGINAL STUDIO SITE SHADE OUT FUTURE GARDEN SITE LIMITED GARDEN SPACE ON STEEPER SLOPE STUDIO SITED IN SUNNIEST LOCATION TALL FIR TREES BLOCK MORNING SUN STUDIO HOUSE SHADOWS FROM ORIGINAL STUDIO SITE SHADE OUT FUTURE GARDEN SITE LIMITED GARDEN SPACE ON STEEPEST SLOPE STUDIO SITED IN SUNNIEST LOCATION TALL FIR TREES BLOCK MORNING SUN SOLAR STUDY Tall Fir Trees Block Morning Sun For Garden Site SEPTIC FIELD CANNOT PLANT GARDEN HERE MATURE TREES SHRUB BUFFER STUDIO HOUSE UPDATED SITE PLAN +Shifts studio to back of lawn +Garden in sunniest location +Improved connection to rest of property +Doesn’t block views/ western sunlight in the house +Existing trees buﬀer eastern sun in studio +Farther from neighbors GARDEN ON SUNNIEST SITE SHRUB BUFFER SHIELDS VIEW FROM ROAD INCREASED BUFFER FROM STREAM/DITCH PEDESTRIAN ONLY CONNECTION TO HOUSE + PATIO WOODS WOODS MATURE TREES SHIELD VIEW FROM ROAD STUDIO TROY ROAD HOUSE WOODS SHRUB BORDER PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE WOODS DITCH/STREAM GARDEN The studio will be insulated for year round use. The insulation will reduce the minimal noises of stretching canvases (using a staple gun). Building Elevations Premier Metal Supply fabricates the components and Kurtz Builders constructs the structure. Materials The barn will have wooden board and batten or wood siding, metal roof, and a thoughtful design to enhance rather than detract from the character of the property, existing 1840s farmhouse, and neighborhood. Driveway with proposed building. The studio will not be visible from the road. The studio will be only minimally visible from the road. The proposed project is located outside of the stream setback area. New site is even further back, providing greater buﬀer. Character of the Neighborhood View to the right from our drivewayView to the left from our driveway Troy Road between Coddington and Nelson is unique on South Hill. Because it moves into Danby, our stretch of the road has a much more rural character. Our property is bordered on three sides by Jack Little’s land, which he maintains as forest. The Eldridge Wilderness Preserve is across the road: an 87-acre forest. Map of examples of outbuildings on Troy Rd, King Rd., Ridgecrest Rd, Coddington Rd (Note: many more examples not shown on Nelson Rd. in Danby and on Coddington Rd. between Troy Rd. and Burns Rd. in Town of Ithaca) Large outbuilding on Troy Road (between Coddington and King) Large Barn on Troy Road (corner of Troy and King) Troy Road (between King and Nelson) Barn-like detached garage with second level (stairs on side) Troy Road (between King and Nelson) Barn-like detached garage with second level (stairs toward rear) Troy Road (between King and Nelson) - Large, detached outbuilding Large, detached garage on Ridgecrest Rd Design build ﬁrm on King Rd - Detached outbuilding behind residence Design build ﬁrm on King Rd - Detached outbuilding behind residence Coddington Rd between Troy and King. A home with several outbuildings 509 Coddington Rd - 1840s historic home from similar period with a detached barn and outbuildings with wooden siding. Home at the corner of Coddington Rd and Rich Rd. Multiple outbuildings including the large detached garage at the end of the driveway. Historic home from similar period with detached outbuildings with wooden siding to enhance historic charm. Professional Work Matt Bollinger Visual Artist Over the last 16 years, I have had 24 solo exhibitions domestically and internationally and my work has been reviewed in Artforum, The New York Times, Le Monde, Art in America, The New Yorker, Hyperallergic, and elsewhere. From 2012 - 2023, I taught full time at SUNY Purchase. For 3 of the last 4 years I was in my position, I was department chair for Painting and Drawing. I have been a visiting artist at New York University, Rhode Island School of Design, Boston University, University of Washington, Seattle, and elsewhere. My work is represented by mother’s tankstation limited and François Ghebaly Gallery. These galleries have spaces in Los Angeles, New York, Dublin, and London. My CV can be viewed here: https://mattbollinger.com/pagecv Work obligations from 2023 to the present: Solo Exhibitions & Art Fair Presentations 2024 halftime, mother’s tankstation limited, London, England (6 paintings: 1 @ 96 x 78”, 3 @ 60 x 48”, 1 @ 30 x 24”, 1@ 24 x 20”) 2023 Station, François Ghebaly, New York, NY (7 paintings; 1 animation: 1 @ 96 x 78”, 1 @ 78 x 60”, 1 @ 48 x 38”, 1 @ 32 x 22”, 2 @ 24 x 20”, 1 @ 20 x 16”) Matt Bollinger, Art Basel Miami Beach, Miami, FL (8 paintings: 2 @ 78 x 60”, 1 @ 60 x 48”, 2 @ 48 x 38”, 2 @ 30 x 24”, 1 @ 20 x 16”) Group Exhibitions & Art Fairs 2024 The Chicken and the Egg, Centre for the Arts Gallery, Towson University, Baltimore (1 animation) Art Basel, mother’s tankstation limited, Basel, Switzerland (2 paintings: 1 @ 96 x 78”, 1 @ 32 x 22”) Frieze, François Ghebaly Gallery, New York, NY (4 paintings: 3 @ 60 x 48”, 1 @ 24 x 20”) Art Basel, mother’s tankstation limited, Hong Kong, China (2 paintings: 1 @ 78 x 60”, 1 @ 48 x 38”) 2023 Art Basel, mother’s tankstation limited, Basel, Switzerland (4 paintings: 1 @ 96 x 78”, 2 @ 60 x 48”, 1 @ 32 x 22”) Disegno-in-Motion, Hewitt Gallery of Art, Marymount Manhattan College, New York (1 animation) Einstein on the Beach, Super Dakota, Brussels (1 painting @ 48 x 38”) Felix Art Fair, mother’s tankstation limited, Los Angeles, CA (2 paintings @ 20 x 16”) Hello Animation Festival, Tulsa, Oklahoma (1 animation) Heaven is a Diﬀerent Thing, Unclebrother, Hancock, New York (1 painting @ 48 x 38”) Total Paintings Exhibited: 37 paintings My gallery representation, mother’s tankstation limited, has gallery spaces in Dublin and London. They also bring my work to two to three art fairs a year. Above is an installation view of my 2022 exhibition, Oﬀ Peak, in Dublin. Oﬀ Peak, mother’s tankstation limited, Dublin, Ireland, 2022. My studio space needs enough room to develop a body of work big enough to occupy a large gallery space. Not only do I need to paint the number of works in the exhibition, I need a clean area to display them to develop the exhibition design. Oﬀ Peak, mother’s tankstation limited, Dublin, Ireland, 2022. Shown are two 60 x 48” paintings and one 78 x 96” painting. This exhibition featured 9 paintings and three animations. For every exhibition, I need to make more than the number of works shown. An edit is then made. This means the studio needs to accommodate works that don’t make the cut or are held back for future exhibitions. Station, François Ghebaly Gallery, New York, NY, 2023. The 96” tall painting on the far wall pushed my studio to the limits since the ceiling in my workspace was only 99”. I had to lie on the ﬂoor to paint the details at the bottom of the canvas. Large walls are essential to make my work. Station, François Ghebaly Gallery, New York, NY, 2023. This exhibition featured seven paintings and one, 18-minute animation. Station, François Ghebaly Gallery, New York, NY, 2023. View from the video screening area. A short clip of my most recent animation project, which will debut at François Ghebaly Gallery in 2025 in Los Angeles, can be viewed here: https://vimeo.com/9819 33495/ea0434b2bd?sha re=copy More of my animations can be viewed here: https://mattbollinger.co m/animation In addition to personal projects, I sometimes do commercial work such as the animated illustrations I created for the California Sunday Magazine in 2020. https://story.californiasunda y.com/covid-life-care-center -kirkland-washington/ halftime, mother’s tankstation limited, London England, 2024. Both of the galleries that represent me have two brick and mortar spaces, one large and one smaller. This is mother’s tankstation’s smaller space which is still substantial. halftime, mother’s tankstation limited, London England, 2024. This exhibition featured six paintings, most of which were very large. The painting on the left is 8 feet wide. Art Basel, Miami Beach, mother’s tankstation limited, Miami, FL, 2023. My galleries each do several art fairs a year. In the last 12 months, mother’s tankstation did three art fairs, while François Ghebaly participated in seven fairs. Pictured is a solo presentation of my work at Art Basel Miami Beach. For a given fair, I will ship between 1 and 12 works. Often only a few of the works that ship will be exhibited, although all may be made available to collectors. Throughout the year my work is exhibited domestically and internationally at art fairs. Pictured are my works at Art Basel in Basel, Switzerland in 2024 and 2023. In the last few years I have participated in fairs in New York City, London, Los Angeles, Miami, Hong Kong and Basel. My forthcoming, 2025 exhibition will be in François Ghebaly Gallery’s 12,000 sq/ft Los Angeles space pictured here with the work of Gabriel Mills. The painting on the back wall is 120 x 192”. My 2025 exhibition at François Ghebaly Gallery will utilize their entire main exhibition space and feature numerous paintings, including a 12-foot canvas, and a video installation, the product of 5 years of work. Renting a studio in Ithaca is not a long-term solution. Both my current studio and my previous studio were rented to me at below market rates. I kept the spaces in good working order and occupied until my landlord could rent to a tenant who could pay full commercial rent. I made improvements to the spaces, painting, redoing ﬂooring, replacing lighting and cleaning. My spaces have been temporary. I moved into my current studio on W Green St on the same day I was given notice I needed to leave my S Fulton studio. Rental Market Challenges 203 N. Aurora St. Ithaca, NY 14850 $2900/mo | 3030 sq ft 930 Danby Road, Ithaca, NY 14850 $20 SF/YR | approx 5000 sq ft 531 Etsy St, Ithaca NY 14850 $19 SF/YR | 5000 sq ft 704 W Buﬀalo St, Ithaca, NY 14850 $15 SF/YR | 2192 sq ft 208-212 W Buﬀalo St, Ithaca, NY 14850 $3500/mo | 1265 sq ft (medical oﬃces, subdivided space) 116 N Cayuga St, Ithaca, NY 14850 $345/mo | 175 sq ft 1301 Trumansburg Rd, Ithaca, NY 14850 $2363/mo | 1250 sq ft (medical oﬃces) Artist Alley | South Hill Business Campus 950 Danby Road, Ithaca, NY 14850 $250 - $455/mo | 200-405 sq ft (Currently unavailable; spaces only semi-private with chain link doors) Rental Comps (Sourced from Century 21, Loopnet, Warren Real Estate, Keller Williams Realty, PropertyShark) The current rental market includes almost no spaces that would be appropriate for an artist studio. Many are storefronts and many others are subdivided medical oﬃces. Most are much too large or too small. Most do not have the large wall space and ceiling height required. All these spaces are very expensive. Studio Requirements Current studio at 726 W Green St Requirements - a space for making large works. Pictured is an 8 x 12 foot canvas. Requirements - space for stretching and preparing canvases. Requirements - light controlled space for shooting animation and editing videos. Requirements - space for shooting large-scale animated works and models (Note: space pictured is a previous studio). Shooting large canvas Space set up for animating 3D models A fraction of the paintings and most of the models used to create my animated short Three Rooms (18 min, 30 sec; 2018) Requirements - room to work on several paintings at a time to prepare for exhibitions (note: the paintings pictured range from 24 to 144”). Long, tall wall to make larger paintings Space to make smaller paintings Requirements - slop sink needed to wash large brushes and ﬁll gallon buckets with water.Large brushes (24” brush at bottom) Requirements - bathroom. I need a small, half bath for daily use. Returning to my house to use the restroom during the day creates unwanted distractions, can make a mess (tracking in paint), and takes time away from the studio. I also have studio visits from gallerists, collectors, curators, and arts professionals who will need access to bathroom facilities without entering our domestic space. The sink in my current studio is much too small for washing brushes as can be seen here. (Note: the proposed studio will not have a kitchen or shower, making it not useable as a domestic space, rental unit, or AirBnB). Requirements - space to store blank canvases and works in progress. Because of the expense of having stretcher frames fabricated and canvases stretched, I purchase at least one year’s worth of canvases at one time. These must be stored at the studio until used. Requirements - storage for completed works, either those that are waiting to be exhibited or those that have been returned Requirements - storage for completed works, either those that are waiting to be exhibited or those that have been returned Requirements - storage for raw materials - 8-foot rolls of canvas, 22 x 30” sheets of paper, packing materials including large 6-foot foam rolls, 8-foot cardboard sheets, and rolls of 3 mil plastic. Requirements - paint-free space to wrap and pack canvases for shipping. Current wrapping space Shipment ready to leave Requirements - accessible storage for paint. Because of the cost of paint and the scale of my work, I purchase large volumes (quarts and gallons) that must be stored. Requirements - clean space to photograph the work Requirements - space to store photo equipment Requirements - space for visitors. I receive studio visits from artists, curators, collectors, art professors, students, gallerists, critics, actors (for work in my animations), and other arts professionals. These visits require a clean place for guests to sit. Visits can lead to exhibitions, sales, curatorial opportunities, teaching opportunities, constructive feedback, and collaborations. Requirements - clean space to view art works and display for visitors. Requirements - tall walls for large works. The painting above is 8 feet tall. My old studio’s ceiling was about 8’ 3”. In the proposed studio, the work-wall is much taller so I can raise up the painting when working. To make this piece, I had to lie on the ground to paint the detailed plants along the bottom edge. 8 foot tall painting with little clearance Detail of painting Requirements - a small oﬃce area. I need space to have my computer, to take calls, to do Zoom visits with art schools, to take virtual meetings with galleries, curators, and colleagues. I use this space for drawing and I also have a printer (not pictured here) to print copies of drawn studies I use when making my paintings. This is the studio of artist Danica Lundy. It is on her property in Connecticut and is similar in many ways to the barn that I am proposing although it is slightly larger at 24 x 48’. It is easy to see how the space requested is not excessive. The works pictured were in her London exhibition which you can view at the link below. https://www.whitecube.com/gallery-exhibitions/danica-lundy-masons-yard-2024 First Floor Second Floor Proposed Studio Barn Use Reduced SF due to increased eﬃciencies in ﬂoor plan that maximize usable wall and ﬂoor space, and minimizes circulation. Reduced storage due to being able to construct custom storage solutions. First Floor Storage Loft Minimum Variance The proposed plan is the minimum variance required to meet needs. Studio barn proposed is less than half the square footage of utilized space in current studio. Original Size Variance New Location Proposal ●Will not alter character of neighborhood ●Many houses near ours have outbuildings ●Minimal visibility from road ●Considerate design to to ﬁt with historic character ●Will not have drive up access or garage door ●Industrial work will not be possible ●Supported by neighbors ●Purchase of additional land was not possible ●Attaching to existing home was cost prohibitive due to the sloping site and out of keeping with historic character ●Minimal alteration of the original proposed structure besides new site. Location of doors, windows, and stairs reoriented for circulation and solar aspect ●The new location is further back in the property and less visible from the road. Hedgerow will obscure view from Troy Rd ●New location will be further from the stream, creating a greater buﬀer ●Barn will not be visible from the end of the driveway ●New site maximizes solar aspect and area for future garden, and creates stronger connection between the north and south areas of the property ●New location does not block afternoon sun in house ●Pedestrian only path to barn (further from driveway), preventing industrial use. ●Retains historic character for historic farmhouse. Barn will add to the beauty and function to the property Our proposed location change will observe the intention of the granted variance while making our home even more beautiful and functional. The barn studio that we have designed will be a lovely addition to our property and neighborhood. We have taken pains to be considerate with our design and to request only the minimum variance needed to achieve our goals. We have sought out other ways to satisfy our needs to avoid a variance but there are none that are feasible. We hope that you will grant us this variance in light of these considerations and the full support of our neighbors. Conclusion Town of Ithaca Notice of Public Hearing Zoning Board of Appeals Tuesday, August 27, 2024 @ 6:00 p.m. 215 N. Tioga St. ZBAA-24-11 Appeal of Matthew Bollinger and Ann Weber, owners of 232 Troy Rd, Ithaca, NY, 14850; are seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code sections 270-56C (Permitted accessory buildings and uses) and 270-219.2A (limitations on home occupations) 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. Town Ithaca Code section 270-219.2A allows for a maximum area of 25% of the floor space of the dwelling or 500 sq.ft. to be used as a home occupation (whichever is less), where the applicant is proposing to use approximately 1,000 sq.ft for a home occupation. The current property is located in the Low-Density Residential Zone, Tax Parcel No. 45.-2-11. The meeting will be held in-person with the option for the public to also attend by video conferencing through the Zoom App. The meeting can be accessed, and you can provide comments during the public hearing by going to www.zoom.us - Join Meeting - Meeting ID 852-5587-1576. You can also call into the Zoom meeting by telephone at +1 (929 436 2866) to listen to the meeting and provide comments during the public hearing. You can also provide comments via email before and during the meeting to Town Clerk Paulette Rosa at townclerk@townithacany.gov. For more information on how to access the meeting and project application/meeting materials, or how to submit a comment before or during the meeting, please visit the Town of Ithaca’s website and click on Meeting Agendas. If there are any questions pertaining to this public hearing, contact Marty Moseley at mmoseley@townithacany.gov or 607-273-1783. Marty Moseley Director of Code Enforcement ZBA 2024-087-27 (Filed 9/17) Pg. 1 Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals August 27, 2024 Minutes Present: Board Members David Squires, Chair; Chris Jung, Connor Terry, Kim Ritter (via ZOOM), and Matthew Minnig Marty Moseley, Director of Code Enforcement; Ashley Colbert, Deputy Town Clerk; and Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town Mr. Squires opened the meeting at 6:00 p.m. • ZBAA-24-11 Appeal of Matthew Bollinger and Ann Weber, owners of 232 Troy Rd, LDR, TP 45.-2-11, seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code sections 270-56C (Permitted accessory buildings and uses) which allows for a maximum aggregate footprint of all accessory buildings not to exceed 600 sq.ft. where the lot is less than 3 acres, where the proposal is to exceed that by approximately 555 sq.ft. on a lot of 1.9 acres; and 270-219.2A (limitations on home occupations) which allows for a maximum area of 25% of the floor space of the dwelling or 500 sq.ft. (whichever is less), to be used as a home occupation, where the proposal is to use approximately 1,000 sq.ft for a home occupation. Mr. Squires complimented Mr. Bollinger on his application re-submission, saying it was one of the most thorough he has seen in his tenure. Mr. Bollinger thanked him, saying he learned a lot at the previous meeting, and he took pains to address all of the concerns raised. He said he added more drawings of the proposed building and there were concerns about future uses for industrial work and he hoped the additional drawings would show that that would be difficult. Public Hearing Mr. Squires opened the public hearing. There was no one present and the hearing was closed. Determination Mr. Squires noted the issue at the last meeting was regarding the home occupation and it not being listed in the legal ad as it was an unknown use until the meeting. He asked if any members had concerns with the area variance or the home occupation. There were none. Page 2 of 3 SEQR Determination It was noted that SEQR is required for the home occupation use. ZBAA-24-11 SEQR 232 Troy Rd, LDR, TP 45.-2-11 Resolved that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance based upon the information in Parts 1 & 2 and for the reasons stated in Part 3. Moved: David Squires Seconded: Connor Terry Vote: ayes – Squires, Terry, Jung, Mining, Ritter Determination ZBAA-24-11 Area Variance 232 Troy Rd, LDR, TP 45.-2-11 Resolved that this Board grants the appeal of Matthew Bollinger and Ann Weber, owners of 232 Troy Rd, LDR, TP 45.-2-11, seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code sections 270-56C (Permitted accessory buildings and uses) and 270-219.2A (limitations on home occupations), to be permitted to construct a 1,000 sqft accessory building to be used as an artist studio/workshop, with the following Conditions 1. That the building be constructed substantially as shown on the application materials submitted for the August 27, 2024 meeting, and 2. That the home occupation being granted is that of an artists studio/workshop only and with the following Findings That the benefit to the occupant outweighs any detriment to the health safety and welfare of the community, specifically 1. That the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve can be achieved by any other means feasible in that there are commercial spaces elsewhere, but, nevertheless, the applicant has provided evidence that the space needed is scarce in the area and prohibitively expensive, and sufficient space for the unique type of art practiced is not readily available, and Page 1 of 2 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Tuesday, June 25, 2024, at 6:00pm 215 N. Tioga St. AGENDA  Denied - ZBAA-24-10 Appeal David and Donna Wexler, Owners of 209 Roat St., Ithaca NY, 14850; are seeking relief from a condition that was established on a previously approved area variance, which allowed for a reduced side yard setback for a garage. The previously approved area variance condition requires the garage be moved in the event the Town of Ithaca widens Blackstone Ave. (in the direction of the garage) and the garage interferes with the widening of the roadway, where the applicants are requesting to remove or amend the condition. The property is located in the Medium Density Residential zone, Tax Parcel 71.-5-1.  Adjourned - ZBAA-24-11 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) to allow for a maximum aggregate footprint of all accessory buildings to exceed 600 sq.ft., due to the lot only being 1.9 acres. The property is located in the Low-Density Residential Zone, Tax Parcel 45.-2-11  Granted - ZBAA-24-13 Appeal of Roger and Susan Eslinger, owners of 20 Dove Dr., Ithaca, NY, 14850; are seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section 270- 71E(2)(Yard regulations) to allow for an accessory building to be placed in the side yard, where an accessory building is only allowed to occupy a rear yard. The current property is located in the Medium-Density Residential Zone, Tax Parcel No. 61.-1-8.42 ZBA 2024-06-25 (Filed 7/18) Pg. 1 Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals June 25, 2024 Minutes Present: Board Members David Squires, Chair; Chris Jung, Stuart Friedman, Connor Terry, and Kim Ritter Absent: Matthew Minnig Marty Moseley, Director of Codes; Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk; and Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town Mr. Squires opened the meeting at 6:00 p.m. ZBAA-24-10 Appeal Owners David & Donna Wexler, 209 Roat St., TP 71.-5-1, MDR, seeking relief from a condition on an existing area variance which allowed for a reduced side yard setback for a garage, with the condition that the garage be moved in the event the Town of Ithaca widened Blackstone Ave. (in the direction of the garage) and the request is to remove or amend the condition. Ed Kopko, Counsel for the Applicants, gave an overview of his view of the issue; saying that there is a paper trail showing a building permit was issued and they were erroneously told they needed an area variance which was not in fact true and having obtained the permit, he could have simply built the garage, but they were told they needed a variance, which they did not, and it was granted with a condition that is …. Now they want to pass on the property to their children, but in the infinitesimal chance that the town wishes to widen the road, they would have to remove the garage. The immediate relief is to ask that this board …. Mr. Kopko said he is asking the Board to correct the mistake that occurred back in 1981. There is an indisputable paper trail that in 1981 the Wexlers were granted a permit for their garage and they could have proceeded to build the garage because under well-established law, the issuance of the permit gave them a property right that they could take advantage. They didn't need to get a variance, but someone told them that they needed a variance, and because they're conscientious good citizens, they came in and they obtained the variance that we're complaining about tonight. That variance restricts the property because it creates the jeopardy that if the road is ever widened, they would have to remove the garage. That is the hardship that we're complaining about. He went on to say that he is respectfully explaining to you that he thinks it was an error of the previous Board and having obtained the permit, the Wexlers could have just built the garage, and nothing further needed to be done. Back in 1981, the Wexlers did not realize the hardship that this was and what a hardship this would create as they aged through their lives and want to pass on the property to their children and the jeopardy that connected to the variance and its condition, in the infinitesimal chance that the town would want to widen this road in the future and they would have to move the garage. ZBA 2024-06-25 (Filed 7/2) Pg. 2 Mr. Kopko stated that he did some research, and he could not find in any law or ordinance where a minimum width of the road is established. That is a very significant question. When did the town implement a 30’ foot right-of-way. If the Town knows of this establishment of measurement, he would like to have it. Nevertheless, the immediate relief the applicants are asking for is the removal of the condition requiring the garage be moved in the event the town wishes to widen the road. Mr. Kopko reiterated his stance that a legal building permit was issued and there was no need for a variance to build the garage as permitted. Mr. Wexler added that this impacts his family and he read from his statement to the Zoning Board of Appeals back in 1981: “Mr. Wexler stated that he just wanted it to be known that he has a clear conscience in this matter. He stated that he would want his family to be comfortable, also that his grandchildren would not have to tear down the garage down.” Now, 43 years later, my concerns are coming to fruition. He said some friends of his just went through something similar when selling their mother’s house and there was a small utility building her husband had built many years ago. It happened to be discovered that it was over the property line onto the Cortland High School lot. Three days before the closing, a lawyer noticed the discrepancy and the buyers, who had taken early possession, wanted to move out of the house or get a reduction in the price to compensate for any future costs to deal with the small building. They had to reduce the selling price by $10K. He said this has been on his mind a lot since then. He said he is now 75 years old and when he looks back on what occurred, he is frankly offended by how he and his wife were treated. Mr. Wexler said there are three things that are falsehoods that were not understood by the time by the town. 1. The record states that I did not have a permit; I did. 2. The building inspector said that he screwed up and didn’t measure properly and stake out the site. The foundation was going in, 150 cinder blocks and poured concrete and he says I have to come into the Town and get a variance. 3. Then they state in the meeting that there is a 50’ foot right-of-way for Blackstone Ave. The asphalt back then was 19’ feet wide at the dead end going into the Country Club. Mr. Wexler said he spent 8+ hours researching zoning ordinances and he could not find any references that set specifications on a right-of-way, although he did find an attorney brought up the confusion regarding what a right-of-way is for new construction of roads, where it was ZBA 2024-06-25 (Filed 7/18) Pg. 3 sometimes 60’ feet but at that time and meeting, a resolution was passed talking about it being 50’ feet, but nothing about what it was at time of accepting a road or on existing roads. d He said that means the comment about Blackstone Ave having a 50’ foot right-of-way is a complete lie, and it was misconstrued and misunderstood by the officials at the time. Mr. Wexler stated that the public hearing notice at the time, they state that I started construction without a permit and that I didn’t meet the side setbacks, but it is a corner lot, and the Inspector told me I was fine with the placement. Mr. Wexler concluded, saying that he just wanted the Board to understand that the house was built in 1932, pre-World War II with 100’ foot lots that would not meet the setbacks when they were established; 15’ feet off each lot line would leave you a 70’ foot buildable area and a garage would be impossible. My house is 24’ feet from the house to my property line and if you add the 15’ feet setback, it will leave a 9’ foot garage so the whole thing was a completely misunderstood and misguided approach by the Inspector. There is no way a 2-car garage could have been built to Code. He added that 5 homes in the area have a 2-car garage and they are either built within the house or under the house or they are also out of Code compliance. There is a house built in 1824 that is 6’ feet away from the road. He said he just wants to fix this hardship so he can pass this on to his kids without a choke hold on the property. Mr. Squires opened the public hearing; there was no one wishing to speak, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Wexler said that there were three letters sent to the Town; one from Mr. Slater that basically says no one can touch my roads because we don’t know the future; another one from Mickey Roof who lives across the street and she wants to put a single bay garage, fronting Blackstone and she can’t do that and will need a variance but is in favor of my request; and then one from another neighbor in favor of my request. Discussion Ms. Brock spoke about the assertions that were made by the Applicant and Agent; The letter from Superintendent Slater that Blackstone Ave is a town road and what that means is that the Town owns the road and Ms. Rosa found the resolution where the Town accepted the road and that is for all purposes, not just the paved areas; you have shoulders, stormwater, ditches, street signs etc. When someone says the road is 19’ feet wide, that is the pavement, not the entire road, there is the other road uses. Also, the legal issue, and what Mr. Kopko stated is incorrect. The law is extremely clear that when the town makes a mistake and issues a building permit when it should not, even if there is construction that has started, the town is not stopped or precluded from enforcing the law. In fact, the town must enforce its law. Code Officials’ mistaken issuance of a building permit ZBA 2024-06-25 (Filed 7/2) Pg. 4 cannot override the town's law and the law must be followed. There are a lot of cases on this starting with New York's highest court the Court of Appeals, and there are many, many cases on this. Ms. Brock stated that she wanted the Board to know that prior to beginning discussions. There is no right to continue building, and in fact the town, at the time, could have required removal of everything that was on the town's property. Mr. Squires began, saying that the Town Attorney is saying our task is not to use the balancing test of an Area variance, but rather, do we agree that we have the authority to allow someone else’s property to be on town property. Mr. Brock spoke up, saying that it is not a question of authority, the question in front of you is their request that you modify the condition the previous ZBA put on the variances. They want you to change it or remove it. Your choice is to either grant or deny the request and then back that up with your rationale supported by supported by substantial evidence in the record for your decision. Ms. Jung asked for clarification, saying wouldn’t that mean the Zoning Board would be giving away the rights of the town. The other part of the request is monetary reimbursement, and do we have that authority? Ms. Brock responded that the Board does not have the authority to spend money and you can either remove the condition or state that it needs to remain in place. You can remove the condition, and there would be consequences to that; it will affect the Town’s ability to widen the road in that location, and you have to think about that, but that may not be “giving up the town’s rights”, but it will be a consequence and will affect the ability of the town to widen the road in that spot. Mr. Squires asked if it would remove the Town’s right if the condition was removed because it would be an encroachment. Ms. Brock said it was unclear to her how much of an encroachment exists into the Town’s 50’ feet it is, but regardless of what it is, it is allowed to sit there at this point under this variance and its condition. Mr. Terry said it boils down to whether the Town would be allowed to make them move the garage in the event they needed their property. If we remove the condition, then the Town could not make them move the garage. There is the consequence that the Town would not be able to use this variance to make them move the garage. But, this is a dead-end road up to a country club that may be expanding and it is reasonable to assume that there may be changes to the road in the future. ZBA 2024-06-25 (Filed 7/18) Pg. 5 Mr. Moseley stated that there is a development proposal submitted, but that is on hold at this point and not withdrawn. Mr. Squires polled the room to see which way the board was leaning, saying that he is leaning to denying the request as there is little to no chance of this coming into play and there are many houses that are sold with easements in place, and they are asking us to indemnify them and we do not have that authority. Discussion followed on previous board actions where a building was mostly or partially in place where they did not have the variance to do that and although there is none exactly like this, there was one project where the building permit was issued and almost up and they didn’t have the proper setback from the road…. Mr. Moseley stated that they did have a variance to encroach into the setback, but then mistakes were made by the contractor and the encroachment increased and they came back for a further increase. Ms. Brock noted that this is different. That one a private road and the encroachment was still on the applicants’ property, not the Towns. This structure is on the town’s property not theirs and just closer than allowed by the Code. They had a permit and started building and then it was discovered that the permit was incorrect and should not have been issued. Mr. Terry spoke, saying this is different in that the Building department told him he was compliant, based upon the permit he was given, and he moved forward and started the project and invested those funds. He wasn’t doing something that wasn’t allowed. Then the Town comes along and says “oh, we shouldn’t have let you do this” and if he had been told that upfront, he probably would have made changes prior to beginning and then at that point it was more practical to get the variance and he has to live with this through no fault of his own. He said he is not sure the Town deserves that type of protection; the town issued the permit and then made a mistake that they don’t have to take responsibility for. He said he is in favor of granting this request because the road is a regular road and will most likely never be widened and there are other options if that even came about, and he felt the town or the eventual developer should bear the cost of any moving or value of the garage; a monetary exchange for the town’s mistake. The cost to rectify this should be borne by the Town. Mr. Terry said the mistake wasn’t in telling him to get a variance, the mistake was in issuing the building permit. Discussion followed on the probability of the need to widen the road and the stage of the building of the garage and what hardship the garage represents to both the town and the applicant. Ms. Ritter commented that although her heart agrees with Mr. Terry that it is probably never going to be widened, at the time in 1981, they had the choice to remove the foundation and rectify the mistake and they chose to do the variance and they made their choice. The Town ZBA 2024-06-25 (Filed 7/2) Pg. 6 shouldn’t have to pay the compounding interest of what a garage cost back then to what it costs now, when they made the choice to go this route. Mr. Terry asked Mr. Wexler how much of the building was done when he became aware of the mistake. Mr. Wexler responded that it is in the documentation of the variance appearance; the footers were 4 or 5 feet below the road level and the cinder blocks placed all the way up. He looked for the documentation and quoted that his response was “there were 15 yards of concrete, footers poured, and over 500 blocks were laid. The area is approximately 16” inches below the road and the blocks had to be brought up by three feet down.” It was below the frost line and back then the cost was about $10K and today I got an estimate and excluding taking down the existing garage, a new one is about $35K. Mr. Kopko spoke, saying that he thought Mr. Terry has the right analysis on this and Ms. Brock and he may disagree on the law, but what he is asking is for the Board to do the right thing here. It is easy for the Town to say we made a mistake and that’s too bad and we are not going to do anything to rectify that. But Mr. Wexler, in good faith, did everything he was supposed to do and through no fault of his own he finds himself in the position where this variance restricts the value of his property. Mr. Terry came up with a very good point that addresses the concern of Mr. Slater and that is that in the almost nonexistent chance that the town would widen this road, the town has the power of eminent domain and could come in for this section. He added that he has litigated these types of issues many times and you get an appraisal, and the other person gets an appraisal, and the Supreme Court usually splits the middle and that is the value. There is no harm to the town as the first contingency that would have to happen is that the town would want to widen the road, and everybody seems to agree that will never happen. Once you get over that rational analysis of this just is not going to happen, then by some fluke it does, the town still has the power to take that little sliver and pay the owner an equitable price for it, because the town caused the problem. Mr. Kopka again stated that he is asking the Board to do what is right and think about what the public perception is. “Yeah, we made a mistake and drop dead, we’re not doing anything about it.” Or “Yeah, we made a mistake, and we are going to work with you to make it right and we are sorry for the trouble.” He said it is a matter of respect for human beings, and a matter of courtesy, and for what type of town you want to run here, so please consider those aspects of it. Mr. Wexler added that he spent time looking around the northeast neighborhood and there are very few sidewalks, and it is improbable that Roat St would be used as a connector in future development. There aren’t even rules on how you widen an existing road, and 2 years ago, there ZBA 2024-06-25 (Filed 7/18) Pg. 7 was a case of a person selling a house on Forest home Drive, Pearl S Miller Estate vs the Town, and Forest Home Dr. is so tight… the Town concluded, paraphrasing here, that the house existed it is not intended that this grant of a lease shall convey to the lessee a permanent title to that portion of Forest Home Drive which may be occupied by or may lie under the building nor shall this resolution or the grant of the lease to the lessees be deemed to be abandonment by the town of such title as it may now have in such portion of that said highway, but it is intended that the lease shall be perpetual for as long as the present building stands.” So the town created a perpetual lease for the land underneath an out of code compliance. That lease probably still exists and has been passed down through numerous owners. He said it is interesting that the Town was not taking a good approach back then because they created this lease for this case and then they told me I had to move my garage for the next case that was two years later. And this was the same inspector and so forth on both cases. Mr. Wexler said this is a financial risk that I now have to hand down to my grandchildren and it is not a good situation to have to deal with. Mr. Terry commented for the record that he worked for the Town as an engineer and through capital projects they did have to use eminent domain or more commonly, easement negotiations… Ms. Brock broke in to say that she is not aware of any eminent domain occurrences, but, with an easement, that is a negotiation for access to private property and this is the town’s property, and those capital projects were for infrastructure. This would not be widening onto private property; it is the town’s property, and he doesn’t own that, he owns the structure on it. Mr. Terry said he rescinds what he said because it doesn’t apply. Mr. Squires asked for a sense of the Board. It was determined that, reluctantly in some cases, there is a small possibility of it happening and there are other avenues to rectify this. Some discussion followed on whether to offer the applicant the opportunity to withdraw his appeal or adjourn the appeal, but it was determined that although they could withdraw, that is their option, the Town Board is the board that has authority over dealing with this, not the Zoning Board, and it would be better to have the decision on the record. SEQR Ms. Brock noted that SEQR is not required as this is Type 2, placement of a minor accessory residential structure. ZBA Resolution ZBAA-24-10 Existing Area Variance Modification Request 209 Roat St., TP 71.-5-1, MDR ZBA 2024-06-25 (Filed 7/2) Pg. 8 Resolved that this Board denies the appeal of David & Donna Wexler, owners, 209 Roat St., seeking relief from a condition on an existing area variance which allowed for a reduced side yard setback for a garage, with the condition that the garage be moved in the event the Town of Ithaca widened Blackstone Ave. (in the direction of the garage) and the request was to remove or amend the condition. The rationale of this decision is based upon the information on the record that the original mistake was uncovered in 1981; at that time options were presented to rectifying the situation by either moving what had been done so far in the process of building the garage to the correct spot or going for a variance. The applicant chose to get a variance. Now, at this point in time, there is no pressing or impending real situation, there is just conjecture or imaginary situations of what could happen in the future. Therefore, there is no solid information necessitating moving forward with any action. Moved: David Squires Seconded: Kim Ritter Vote: ayes – Squires, Friedman, Ritter and Jung nays – Terry ZBAA-24-11 Appeal of Matthew Bollinger & Ann Weber, owners, 232 Troy Rd, TP 45.-2- 11, LDR; seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section 270-56C (Permitted accessory buildings and uses) to allow for a maximum aggregate footprint of all accessory buildings to exceed 600 sqft. Mr. Bollinger gave a presentation with depictions of the proposed building done by his wife, who is a landscape architect and urban planner. He said that he is a professional artist of large paintings and animated films and they have designed the building to complement the existing buildings on the lot and in the neighborhood and it is set directly behind his house and well clear of the seasonal creek near the property. The property has a 155 sqft shed on it and the property is just under 2 acres and so the proposed building, the variance is for approximately 555 sqft over what is permitted. Mr. Friedman asked if this would be for his personal use only and Mr. Bollinger responded that it would be. Ms. Ritter asked about the loft area in the drawings, saying that Air BNB requests come through quite often and asked if there was any intent to transform this into housing in the future. Mr. Bollinger responded, “absolutely not” and this is just for art and working with his daughter on art. Mr. Terry asked about the proposed utilities in the building. Mr. Bollinger responded that there would be electric, a heat pump and water for brushes hooked into the sewer system. ZBA 2024-06-25 (Filed 7/18) Pg. 9 Mr. Squires opened the public hearing. Jack Little spoke, saying that he is the owner of the properties on three sides of Mr. Bollinger’s property, and it is heavily wooded, and he would not see the new pole barn. He has no objections to the project and felt that if he didn’t object, he couldn’t see why anybody else would. Mr. Squires closed the public hearing. Discussion Mr. Squires said the application did not say anything about being an artist, but just a generic pole barn, and our duty is to grant the minimum variance necessary. He added that the reference to other out buildings in the area didn’t seem accurate from his site visit and the size of the lot is not the same as those in the areas. Mr. Moseley shared his screen depicting the County’s GIS map(s) and some Live Earth shots of the area and the pertinent lot. Mr. Bollinger stated that he currently rents space in downtown Ithaca and it has been his dream to build this studio. He shared pictures of the type of large-scale art he does to exemplify why the space is needed. In answer to some questions, he noted that there would not be any additional curb cut requests or driveway, nor would he be paving the existing driveway. Lengthy discussion followed with the Board talking through possible smaller structures and conditions to ensure the structure did not become housing in the future. As the discussion moved through, it became apparent that Staff and Board members were not aware of the intended use, which would qualify as a home occupation, with size limitations associated with that use and therefore additional variances would be needed and another appearance and associated public hearing to be held. Different options were briefly discussed and Mr. Bollinger asked for an adjournment of this appeal to be able to meet with Staff again and go through options and return with additional and/or revised plans and request(s). Motion made by Mr. Squires, seconded by Ms. Jung to adjourn the appeal for up to 90 days to give the applicant the opportunity to revise his application; unanimous. ZBAA-24-13 Appeal of Roger & Susan Eslinger, owners of 20 Dove Dr., TP 61.-1-8.42, MDR; seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section 270-71E(2)(Yard regulations) to allow for an accessory building to be placed in the side yard, where they are only permitted in the rear yard. ZBA 2024-06-25 (Filed 7/2) Pg. 10 Ms. Eslinger gave a summary, saying that the shed has been there since 2003 and was found to be in violation during a pre-roofing inspection. She stated that there have been numerous permits and inspections over the years, but this time she was told she needed a variance. She added that her neighborhood has a list serv and many people have stated their support on granting the variance. Mr. Squires opened the public hearing; there was no one wishing to speak, and the hearing was closed. Discussion Ms. Jung stated that she did a site visit, and what makes this different from other requests is that it doesn’t look like a shed. It has windows and it looks like it is part of the house with matching paint, and there is a lot of plantings around it. She said she thought it was attached to the house. It blends in very well, and there is a little pond in the backyard now. Mr. Squires said he agreed. Ms. Ritter said that looking at the application, it looks like it would be difficult to place in the backyard with the slope, trees and pond. ZBA Resolution ZBAA-24-13 Area Variance 20 Dove Dr., TP 61.-1-8.42, MDR Resolved that this Board grants the appeal of Roger & Susan Eslinger, seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section 270-71E (2) (Yard regulations) to permit an existing shed to remain in the side yard where not permitted, with the following Findings That the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community, specifically 1. That the benefit cannot be achieved by any other means feasible given the slope of the rear yard and the mature trees and ornamental pond in the rear yard, and 2. That there will not be any undesirable change in neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that the shed has been there for 20 years and is surrounded by mature landscaping and aesthetically looks like an addition of the residence in color, angles, windows and size, and info@ghebaly.comFrançois Ghebaly 391 Grand Street, New York, NY 10002 ghebaly.com To Whom It May Concern, I am writing to address the studio requirements of artist Matt Bollinger for his professional career. Matt has an upcoming solo exhibition at Ghebaly Los Angeles, which will be held in a 12,000 square foot warehouse space in Downtown Los Angeles. To successfully produce works for this exhibition, as well as for group shows and art fairs, Matt requires a studio space large enough to work on multiple paintings simultaneously. Based on my 22 years of experi-ence as an art dealer, I can attest that an artist with Matt ’s workload would need a studio of at least 1,000 square feet in size. Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have any questions regarding the information provided, please don’t hesitate to contact me at +1 917 328 4656 or blaize@ghebaly.com. Best, Blaize Lehane July 6, 2024 François Ghebaly, Los Angeles/New York Blaize Lehane Partner Date Members of the Ithaca Town Board 7/19/24 Members, I’m writing to you as a 24-year resident of Ithaca and an Associate Professor at Cornell where I’ve taught studio art/painting for over two decades. Recently having completed a ten-year term as Director of Graduate Studies for Cornell’s MFA program. I’m also a professional artist having participated in over 260 group exhibitions and 33 solo national and international gallery and museum shows since 1989. My paintings are represented in multiple private and public collections including the Whitney Museum of American Art, The Museum of Modern Art and the Museum für Moderne Kunst in Frankfurt among others. It is with this experience that I write to you in support of the zoning variance requested by Matt Bollinger who intends to construct a working studio for his creative practice. From both personal experience as well as my involvement with colleagues in the Department of Art, I can attest to the extraordinary difficulty of finding an affordable rental space for studios in the town/city limits of Ithaca. In my time in Ithaca, despite my best efforts I’ve not been able to locate an appropriate existing site for my work and have pursued my own practice, divided between the basement of my home and my office at Cornell. At a minimum, a professional studio needs to accommodate space sufficient for a range of activities including rack and flat file storage of completed and in-progress canvasses; storage of art materials; a stretcher assembly, stretching and priming area; office space for maintaining correspondence and archives; wall space that can accommodate more than one in-progress canvas and viewing space for documentation and studio visits with dealers, curators and collectors. 1000 square feet is a minimum amount of area for these endeavors. Mr. Bollinger is a highly respected, influential and accomplished figure in the professional field. He is also, increasingly an unusually productive and visible participant in national and international exhibition. His presence in Ithaca lends considerable credibility to the town’s profile as a community that values and supports creative work. I urge the Ithaca Town Board to demonstrate that ethic by granting the variance. Best regards, Carl Ostendarp Dear Town of Ithaca Zoning Board, This letter is in support of my friend and fellow colleague Matt Bollinger. My name is Joshua Sperling and like Matt I am a professional artist living in Ithaca. Matt and I both exhibit and sell our art around the world and understand what it takes to maintain this profession. I am writing in support of Matt’s request for a 1,000 sq ft studio. His request to build a studio of this scale is reasonable for an artist of his professional level. I know this from experience because I currently have a 1,200 sq ft art studio in my back yard in the City of Ithaca. It is important for an artist to have a reasonable amount of space to work in. An artist must have this amount of space for multiple reasons. One is that he can work on multiple projects at once. Working on multiple paintings at a time is commonplace for artists. Painting requires lengthy observation and to be able to do so with multiple paintings is essential for being productive. Another reason is the amount of space it takes to store materials and ﬁnished works. Also painting can be a messy endeavor and is best to be separated from your living environment. For this reason it is essential to have slop sinks in your work space to clean up your mess. Painting also requires intense concentration free from distraction. For this reason it is important to remain in your work environment and is essential to have a bathroom so you don't have to enter your house and ﬁght distraction. I believe Art is an important part of our society and I know Ithaca is a community that is supportive of the Arts. I also know that Ithaca is a town with high taxes and rent. This is another important reason for justifying Matt’s decision to build and own his own art studio. I hope you will grant Matt’s request for building his art studio. I believe it will only be a positive addition to the community. -Joshua Sperling Edward & Carlyn Buckler 233 Troy Rd, Ithaca, NY 14850 esb33@cornell.edu July 10, 2024 Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Ithaca Town Hall 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Members of the Zoning Board, We are writing to express our full support for our neighbor, Matt Bollinger and Anne Weber's, request for a building variance for their property at 232 Troy Rd. As residents of this neighborhood since 2003, we value the historical and natural character of our area and believe that Matt and Anne's proposed barn will enhance, rather than detract from, this aesthetic. Anne and Matt's house, built in the 1840s, is a treasured part of our community's architectural history but with many older houses it can be cramped. The planned workshop, with dimensions of 20x50 feet, will be used as a workshop and artist's studio. Importantly, it will be located such that it is only minimally visible from the end of their driveway, and even then, it will be well-integrated into the landscape. This careful placement ensures that the barn will not negatively impact the visual character of our neighborhood. Our own property includes a detached garage with a 30x30 foot footprint and two stories, which serves as a useful comparison to the proposed barn. Like our garage, the barn will utilize wood siding, to blend seamlessly with the existing structures in the neighborhood. This thoughtful design choice will ensure that the workshop ﬁts well with the old farmhouse charm that deﬁnes our community. Moreover, Matt and Anne's intended use of the barn as a workshop and artist's studio will not introduce substantial noise or tra[ic, maintaining the quiet and peaceful nature of our area. This aligns with the principles of preserving the historical and natural character of our neighborhood while allowing for modern, functional use of property. We believe that Matt and Anne's project is a thoughtful and respectful addition to our neighborhood and will contribute positively to its character. We appreciate your consideration of this variance request and strongly support its approval. Please feel free to contact us if you need any further information or clariﬁcation. Sincerely, Edward S. Buckler - 607-262-5274 Carlyn S. Buckler - 607-592-4108 1 | P a g e John E. Little, CPA 159 Ridgecrest Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 jack.littlecpa@gmail.com 607-227-6162 July 11, 2024 Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Ithaca 215 N Tioga St Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Members of the Town of Ithaca, Board of Zoning Appeals- I write to you today in support of Anne Weber and Matthew Bollinger’s application for zoning variances on their proposed studio project at 232 Troy Rd. I understand that two variances might be required for their project to proceed, one for the size of the structure relative to the lot size and another for the amount of square footage devoted to a home business. As I discussed during the public comment session of the last BZA meeting, I am the owner of the property surrounding 232 Troy Rd. on three sides. The area is heavily wooded, with thick undergrowth, so I do not expect that the proposed structure would be visible from any direction from my property. Furthermore, from my understanding of Matt’s work, there will be no activity- noise, smell, traffic- that would be disruptive to our generally peaceful neighborhood. Properties with large accessory structures are common on South Hill, including my residence at 159 Ridgecrest, where I have a 24’ x 40’ barn and adjacent 1,000 sq ft greenhouse. Marty Taylor at 250 Troy Rd also has a large accessory structure behind her house. As you work your way-out Troy Rd, granted quickly making your way into the Town of Danby, large accessory buildings abound. The size of the structure relative to the size of the lot is still an understandable zoning concern, but I believe the placement of the structure, nature of the surrounding woods/undergrowth and the intended use of the structure mitigate any potential negative impact to our neighborhood. Please do not hesitate to reach out to me should you have any questions. Sincerely, John E. Little, CPA 3/12/25,3:00 PM ZBAA-25-10 Town of Ithaca March 12,2025 ZBAA-25-10 Zoning Board of Appeals Area Variance Application Status:Active Submitted On:2/16/2025 Primary Location 135 Ridgecrest Rd Unit Jessica & Nicolas Romero Ithaca,NY 14850 Owner Jessica &Nicolas Romero 135 Ridgecrest Rd Ithaca,NY 14850 Applicant X Jessica Romero J 301-997-5521 @ jessicakromero6@gmail.com A 135 Ridgecrest Road ITHACA,NY 14850 Internal Only-Review A Tax Parcel No. 45.-2-23 A Is Planning Dept.Approval Required? Yes A Is Engineering Dept.Approval Required?A Is a GML-239 Review Required? Yes No A Type of Variance Area Variance A Appearance Date for Variance 3/25/25 A Variance Code Language 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. A Variance Code Section 270-71E https://ithacany.workflow.opengov.eom/#/explore/records/36128/162751 1/9 3/12/25,3:00 PM ZBAA-25-10 Internal Tasks to be Completed Meeting Result (First Appearance)Deadline for Hearing Notice to Journal 3/13/25 A Public Hearing Notice Was Sent 03/13/2025 A Neighbor Notification Letters Were Sent 03/17/2025 A Date Sign Was Picked-up Material Packets Sent to ZBA Members 03/17/2025 Historical Only Address affiliated with request A Status Applicant's Information Applicant is* Property Owner Is the primary point of contact for application different than the applicant?* No Description Brief Description of Variance Request* We are requesting a variance for an existing shed that was on the property when we purchased it in Aug.2024.We have since learned that the shed's location in the side yard is in violation of town ordinances,which is why we are requesting a variance.The shed measures 10’2”x 16’1.5 “x 7’10 “=approximately 164 square feet making it difficult to move.Additionally,the yard behind the shed has a significant slope,which would make a move further back challenging.We estimate that the shed is only a few feet too far forward putting it into the side yard rather than the back yard. https://ithacany.workflow.opengov.eom/#/explore/records/36128/162751 2/9 3/12/25,3:00 PM ZBAA-25-10 Area Variance Criteria Form 1.Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or be a detriment to nearby properties?* No Reasons: The shed in question is not new and has clearly been on the property for quite some time.It does not change the character of the neighborhood for it to remain in the location where it has been for years.Additionally,there are other side yard sheds that can been seen in neighboring properties along Ridgecrest Road. 2.Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by a feasible alternative to the variance?* No Reasons: The alternatives are to move the shed,which would be difficult given the downward sloping of the yard,or to take the shed down altogether.While these are alternatives, both will come at great cost to us.We are simply asking to allow the shed to remain where it is. 3.Is the requested variance substantial?* No Reasons: There would be no practical change to the neighborhood or any of its residents by granting this request.We are simply asking for consideration in rendering a long existing structure legal. https://ithacany.workflow.opengov.eom/#/explore/records/36128/162751 3/9 3/12/25,3:00 PM ZBAA-25-10 4.Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood?* No Reasons: The variance would change nothing in terms of the physical or environmental conditions.The only change would be to make legal allowance for a structure that has been in place for years. 5.Is the alleged difficulty self-created?* No Reasons: We did not build or locate the shed;it was already on the property when we purchased it a few months ago.We became aware when applying for a permit for another project. We are attempting to legally rectify the situation and take the appropriate actions. Affidavit The UNDERSIGNED respectfully submit this application requesting an appearance before the Zoning Board of Appeals.By filing this application,I grant permission for members of The Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals or Town staff to enter my property for any inspection(s)necessary that are in connection with my application.I acknowledge,that completed applications are scheduled on a first-come first-serve basis and that all documents ideally be submitted forty-five (45)days advance of the proposed meeting date,together with the required application fee.Failure to do so may result in a delay in my hearing. Digital Signature* O Jessica Romero Feb 16,2025 Meeting Date 04/22/2025 https://ithacany.workflow.opengov.eom/#/explore/records/36128/162751 4/9 3/12/25,3:00 PM ZBAA-25-10 PAYMENT INFORMATION After submission,Code Department Administration will review the application and materials provided.After review,and email with instructions for paying the fee online with credit card or E-check will be sent to the applicant. If it is preferred to pay by check,cash or money order: *Mail to Code Enforcement,Town Hall 215 N.Tioga St,Ithaca,NY 14850 *Drop off during business hours to Town Hall M-F 8-4 *Place in locked box next to the door on the Buffalo St side of Town Hall Attachments Determination/Denial Letter Gmail -Existing Shed_Zoning Board of Appeals Area Variance Required for 135 Ridgecrest Road.pdf Uploaded by Jessica Romero on Jan 12,2025 at 5:22 PM Survey and/or Plans 2023-05543.pdf Uploaded by Marty Moseley on Feb 24,2025 at 12:08 PM shed and garage 135 Ridgecrest.jpg shed and garage 135 Ridgecrest.jpg Uploaded by Jessica Romero on Feb 23,2025 at 1:59 PM Orientation of house and garage 135 Ridgecrest.jpg Orientation of house and garage 135 Ridgecrest.jpg Uploaded by Jessica Romero on Feb 23,2025 at 2:00 PM Position of shed in relation to house.jpg Position of shed in relation to house.jpg Uploaded by Jessica Romero on Feb 23,2025 at 2:00 PM Position of shed in relation to house 2.jpg Position of shed in relation to house 2.jpg Uploaded by Jessica Romero on Feb 23,2025 at 2:00 PM https://ithacany.workflow.opengov.eom/#/explore/records/36128/162751 5/9 Jessica Romero <jessicakromero6@gmail.com> Existing Shed/Zoning Board of Appeals Area Variance Required for 135 Ridgecrest Road Dana Magnuson <DMagnuson@townithacany.gov>Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 11:07 AM To: "jessicakromero6@gmail.com" <jessicakromero6@gmail.com> Cc: "romero.n.martin@gmail.com" <romero.n.martin@gmail.com> Hello Jessica, As discussed on site yesterday during Final Electrical Inspection/ Electrical Permit ELEC-24-122 an area variance is required from the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) for existing side yard shed. Below is the link for the ZBA area variance application: https://ithacany.portal.opengov.com/categories/1084/record-types/6461 135 Ridgecrest Road is located in a Medium Density Residential zone. Per Town Law Chapter 270 Zoning Article IX Medium Density Residential Zones 270-71 Yard Regulations. E. Accessory buildings. [Amended 8-13-2012 by L.L. No. 11-2012; 12-11-2017 by L.L. No. 20-2017] (1) Buildings occupied by a detached accessory dwelling unit. Such buildings must be located in a rear yard, be at least 30 feet from any side lot line, and be at least 15 feet from a rear lot line. (2) All other accessory buildings (except garages, and except woodsheds meeting the requirements of Subsection G below) may not occupy any open space other than a rear yard. (3) Accessory buildings (including garages, woodsheds, and buildings occupied by a detached accessory dwelling unit), in the aggregate, may occupy not more than 40% of the thirty-foot rear yard setback required by Subsection B above. (4) Accessory buildings (except for garages and buildings occupied by a detached accessory dwelling unit) shall be not less than three feet from any side or rear lot line. Any accessory building, other than a garage or a building occupied by a detached accessory dwelling unit, on a corner lot shall be not less than five feet from the rear lot line. Medium Density Residential Zone link below: https://ecode360.com/8661928 This email can be uploaded for the required denial letter for the ZBA application. Also, a General Building Permit Application is required for the existing shed (link below): 1/12/25, 5:21 PM Gmail - Existing Shed/Zoning Board of Appeals Area Variance Required for 135 Ridgecrest Road https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=d203322940&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:1815714650505746847&simpl=msg-f:1815714650505746847 1/2 Gmail https://ithacany.portal.opengov.com/categories/1071/record-types/6527 Per Town Law Part II: General Legislation Chapter 125-5 Building Permits A. (1) (c) a Building Permit is required for an accessory structure if the structure exceeds 144 square feet. I measured the shed during the Pre-site inspection 11/6/24. The shed measured 10’ 2” x 16’ 1.5 “ x 7’ 10 “ = approximately 164 square feet. There is no Town record of a Building Permit issued for the existing shed. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Dana Magnuson Senior Code Enforcement/Electrical Town of Ithaca 215 N.Tioga St. Ithaca, NY 607-273-1783 ext.131 dmagnuson@townithacany.gov www.town.ithaca.ny.us 1/12/25, 5:21 PM Gmail - Existing Shed/Zoning Board of Appeals Area Variance Required for 135 Ridgecrest Road https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=d203322940&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:1815714650505746847&simpl=msg-f:1815714650505746847 2/2 2023-05543 07/03/2023 08:32:43 AM REVISED i *\ ‘Te 4 "I ~. \r r'.& B/1/2D23-UPDA^D SUWLY, ALL CORNERS FOUND