Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2026-09-22ZBA 2026-09-22 (Filed 10/8 ) Pg. 1 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS September 22, 2026 MINUTES Present: Connor Terry, Chair; Kim Ritter, Larry Sallinger, Stuart Friedman and Barry Segal Marty Moseley, Director of Codes; Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk; CJ Randall, Director of Planning and Nate Van Why, Attorney for the Town Mr. Terry opened the meeting at 6:00 p.m. and noted that one appeal had been withdrawn. ZBSA-26-1 Special Approval - Appeal of Greg and Matoula Halkiopoulos, owners, 155 Westview Ln., Medium Density Residential Zone, TP 58.-2-39.541; seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section 270-223 (Fences and walls; retaining walls) which allows a maximum retaining wall height of 3' when the retaining wall is within 5' of the property boundary line, where the applicant is seeking special approval to allow an existing retaining wall to exceed 3' in height. Mr. Terry noted that this item is a continuance of a previous appearance with a new public hearing. Mr. Spiros Halkiopoulos stated that he had added photos and submitted a stamped structural letter from Tatum Engineering. Based on site inspections and contractor consultations, the engineer certified that the wall is structurally sound and capable of sustaining the current backfill. Additionally, the applicant reported the installation of a new dry well on the uphill side of the wall intended to capture surface runoff and mitigate drainage impacts on the adjacent property. Mr. Moseley asked if a drainage plan was submitted and Mr. Halkiopoulos said yes, he uploaded it. Mr. Moseley looked began looking for the document in the Open Gov system. Mr. Terry stated that the concern was proof that this was built properly and there is an engineer stamped letter stating that it is structurally capable of handling the current backfill, based on the sketch, conversations with the applicant and personal inspection. Mr. Terry said the other item of concern was drainage, and he asked if the dry well was also inspected by the engineer. Mr. Halkiopoulos said there were pictures and the design of the dry well and said it is between the properties but not inspected by an engineer to his knowledge. Mr. Terry shared screen to show the submitted documents associated with the dry well and to ZBA 2026-09-22 (Filed 10/8 ) Pg. 2 determine where it is on the property. Mr. Halkiopoulos explained using the shared screen where the drywell is, noting there was another one existing and they added another. The dry wells are collecting water before it gets to the retaining wall. Public Hearing Mr. Terry opened the public hearing, stating that each had 3 minutes to speak. Mr. Andrew Spansick spoke on behalf of his mother, who is the adjacent property owner. (During the comments, the Board Chair exercised procedural control, muting the speaker’s audio after nine minutes of commentary (extending beyond the standard three-minute limit) to maintain the meeting schedule.) Key concerns raised included:  Persistent Drainage and Lack of Transparency: Claimed water continues to pool on the neighbor’s property and noted that engineering reports had not been shared with the affected family.  Nuisance Odor: The reported emergence of a "sewage-like odor" emanating from the wall and drainage area.  Winter Safety Hazards: Significant concern regarding water discharge freezing into thick ice sheets on the neighbor's driveway and garage entrance.  Notice Procedural Issues: Claims that public notice was obscured, having been placed 200 feet from the road on a neighbor’s garage, necessitating trespass to view. Commentary from Mr. Spanswick (detailed from ZOOM transcript): At the previous hearing, we agreed in good faith to give our neighbors an opportunity to obtain the engineering evaluations requested by this Board and develop a reasonable solution to the drainage problems affecting my mother's property. We hoped that cooperation would resolve this matter without further conflict. Unfortunately, since that hearing, conditions have actually deteriorated. The drainage problem remains unresolved. We have not received engineering reports. There was no consideration of us in any work that's been done, and in fact, not only have they claimed now to have done that in the back, but they've built a fence on the property and the backfill, which is in dispute under the zoning ordinance, so they're already acting as if they're already going to get, relief. Now we're experiencing additional concerns involving a sewage-like odor coming from the wall and drainage area. Today, we're asking the board to establish what corrective measures are necessary and ensure the appropriate action is taken before winter. ZBA 2026-09-22 (Filed 10/8 ) Pg. 3 When construction began, we specifically asked our neighbors whether they had obtained the necessary permits. They assured us they had. We subsequently learned that the required approvals apparently had not been obtained. The completed wall exceeds 6 feet in places, substantially exceeding the 3-foot limit we understand applies to this location, and it's at the property line, not set back 5 feet. However, our primary concern is not simply the wall's height. It is the excessive backfill, the apparent alteration of the property's natural drainage, and the resulting water accumulation on my mother's property, which is still occurring despite the strain that he claims to have been placed, which looks like in his backyard, not near and down the wall. Before construction, water followed a gradual slope towards a French drain installed by the previous owner of my mother's home. Today, we observe water emerging from drainage outlets at the bottom of the wall, leaking around its plastic lining, which you can see in my exhibits, and cascading down a steeply graded slope at the far end of the structure toward my mother's driveway and garage. I have submitted photographs again, this past week with these continuing conditions. We are concerned that the construction may have obstructed the existing French drain redirected runoff in a manner that is damaging my mother's property. We believe these issues require comprehensive engineering investigation from a mutually picked engineer. At the previous hearing, we understood that two engineers would assess the wall and surrounding conditions. We understand at least one engineer letter may have been submitted to a board member. However, no report has been provided to our family, and I was understanding at the last meeting that our review was supposed to be taken into consideration in any resolution and before anything was done. I certainly didn't expect them to go and put some sink drain in, whether we know that works or not, and I can tell you it doesn't, because it's rained, and now we have sewage smell seeping out, so I'm concerned now even more damage may have been caused, and we do not know whether both evaluations have really been completed. We haven't seen the second one, even in this meeting. This raises an important question. Did the engineers examine the drainage conditions on my mother's property, or did they limit their assessment to the structural integrity of the wall? That's what seems to have occurred so far. Those are two fundamentally different issues. A structurally sound wall can still have an inadequate drainage system that adversely affects neighborhood property. We request copies of both engineering reports, including any associated plans, and an opportunity to review and respond to their findings before the board makes any final decision. We also wish to raise concerns about the public notice process. ZBA 2026-09-22 (Filed 10/8 ) Pg. 4 At the first hearing, the required notice was not posted until the day before the meeting, according to our observations and the conclusions of the board at the last meeting. For today's hearing, the notice was placed high on another neighbor's garage, their neighbor on the other side's garage, approximately 200 feet from the roadway, where it was not readily visible without having to trespass onto their other neighbor's residence property. I'm also kind of disgusted that they would put the notice on the neighbor's garage, which implies that they don't have an issue, which the neighborhood is aware of. And now, the other neighbor is almost being accused of having a problem by having it posted on their garage. Just really disingenuous and shady. We asked the board to determine whether the town's public notice requirements were satisfied, and to document our concerns in the official record. Our neighbors have also suggested that the wall and substantial backfill were necessary to provide emergency vehicle access to the rear of their property. If that is the justification for the construction, we ask whether the local fire department or other city officials have independently confirmed that need, and whether less disruptive alternatives were even considered. We were never notified of any such concern, and I think as the direct neighbor, we would have to be consulted and involved in such a consideration. It might affect those vehicles approaching my mother's property, which it has now with the excessive ice that has formed all of last winter, and we're concerned about it forming again this winter. So as winter approaches, the continuing water accumulation presents a serious and foreseeable safety concern. My mother's driveway is already affected. When temperatures fall, runoff, and melting snow can freeze into substantial ice sheets, making access to her home potentially hazardous. She employs contractors to remove snow, but ordinary snow removal is very different from repeatedly removing thick ice caused by continuing water discharge from snow melting and refreezing, which is a long-term resident of Ithaca, I'm sure we all know is something that occurs throughout the season. Compounding these concerns, we are now detecting a sewage-like odor from the wall and drainage area. We've requested an inspection by the appropriate city authorities, which we believe is the Sewage and Water Authority, but the sources have not yet visited or established where the sewage smell is coming from. We ask that this concern be investigated promptly, and that temporary drainage measures be considered before freezing weather arrives to ensure my mother's safety. I would also like to address the town's role in continuing damage to my mother's property. I recognize… ZBA 2026-09-22 (Filed 10/8 ) Pg. 5 Mr. Terry asked Mr. Spanswick to wrap up his comments, to which he replied he had 1 more minute. (timestamp shows this was about 7 minutes into his comments) Andrew Spanswick: I got one minute more. We recognize that the Town did not construct this wall, and that the Board is not responsible for adjudicating civil damages. However, the Town has now been formally informed of the apparent permitting issues, significant changes in grading, continued drainage problems, potential property damage, and foreseeable winter safety hazards. We ask the board to consider these documented conditions. when evaluating the application, and to refer any potential code violations to the appropriate enforcement authorities. We believe any decision should be supported by a complete technical record that addresses the effects of this construction on both properties, rather than relying solely on the assessment of the wall's structural integrity. I also want to state clearly for the record that damage to my mother's property is ongoing, and associated expenses and potential damages continue to accrue. These may include damage to the driveway and garage, the cost of maintaining the accumulating water, access, draining repairs. additional winter maintenance that might further damage identified… that may be identified through our investigations. Our agreement to cooperate at the previous hearing did not constitute acceptance of these losses or a waiver of our legal rights. We expressly reserve all applicable rights to pursue civil litigation and recover damages from our neighbors or any other parties determined to be legally responsible. : We also reserve the right to seek judicial review of any decision made by this Board, and to pursue any legal, substantiated claims against the town, should the facts in APCO law warrant such action. We understand that municipal liability is subject… Mr. Terry, after 10 minutes (based upon time stamps) of Mr. Spanswick’s speaking, stated that he was going to mute him, saying that it has been over 9 minutes, and we said 3 minutes per person, so I appreciate everything that you said, but we're just going to have to stop you here. Thank you for your time. There was no one else wishing to speak and the public hearing was closed and asked the applicant’s representatives to return to the speaker’s table for any Board questions. Board Discussion Mr. Mosely shared documents from the applicant showing conditions in June showing water pooling in the neighbor’s driveway but the origin is unknown. Mr. Halkiopoulos said they capped the drains in the walls and Mr. Moseley came out an saw that and there are pictures in August and September showing no water pooling in the neighbor’s ZBA 2026-09-22 (Filed 10/8 ) Pg. 6 driveway. Mr. Moseley shared photos from his inspection, showing the location and type of the perforated pipe at the retaining wall and different angles of the retaining wall and property. Mr. Terry noted that the drywell may address surface water but the main concern that the Board had was drainage issues from the point of discharges at the bottom of the wall because of the footer drains, and you capped them, but the pipe is perforated, so the water is still going to come out the sides and so that remains the point of discharge. Ground water is still moving through the ground and hitting the backside of the retaining wall. At the last meeting we discussed a possible solution of attaching the footer drains to a drain to and running it down the hill in the front yard to a dich. Mr. Halkiopoulos said that he was told if they capped the pipes, they did not have to do the drainage pipe, but if the Board insisted, they could do that. A video taken by Mrs. Halkiopoulos during some rain was shown. It was noted that the video was taken after the additional dry well was installed and that from online data, the date of the video had light rain recorded. Mr. Terry said the problem is it is a “he said she said” where you are saying there was not water and the neighbor is saying there was and in fact it is worse. He said he has to lean towards protecting the neighbor and if the drainage at the bottom of the wall was going to out to the road, I could say for certain you don’t have a discharge point on to your neighbor’s property, but you don’t so I can’t say that for certain. The contractor for Mrs. Halkiopoulos spoke, saying that water runs downhill and if anything, the water has been directed further away, and he couldn’t see how more water could be coming downhill to the neighbors than before. Mr. Terry said, by way of his background, that he is a licensed civil engineer and although he hasn’t been to the site to analyze it, water does run downhill, but it does it on the surface of the ground, and it does it below ground. When there was no retaining wall, the below ground water flowed below ground but now there is a barrier so that ground water hits the retaining wall, goes down to a footer drain, and then it's spitting out from the bottom of the wall. That could be a trickle, a lot or nothing at all. We haven’t seen definitive proof either way. Now, it could be a trickle, it could be nothing, or it could be a lot, and I can't say. Unless there is video evidence during heavy rain, and long enough into that rain for the ground water to be flowing, we don’t know. Sheet flow that turns into a point discharge can cause erosion and overload areas with water. Again, surface water is not the same as ground water. There is a distinction between "sheet flow" (natural surface water) and "point discharge" (concentrated flow via pipes). While the dry well ZBA 2026-09-22 (Filed 10/8 ) Pg. 7 addresses surface sheet flow, footer drains within the wall may still be creating point discharges of groundwater that exacerbate the neighbor's icing and pooling issues. This Board needs you to either need you to solve the drainage or to prove to us that you aren't point discharging onto the neighbor's property, adding that maybe drain tiles to the road would work, but that is a question for a professional evaluation. Mr. Halkiopoulos stated that they did have a licensed professional look at it who said it would not work. Action Taken The Board voted unanimously to adjourn the application to the November 10th meeting, requiring the following for further consideration of a variance: 1. Provide video evidence of the full length of the wall during a heavy rain event to demonstrate the presence or absence of significant point discharge; and if discharge is shown - 2. Submit an engineered design solution (such as a level spreader or piping to the municipal ditch) to redirect point discharges away from the neighbor’s property. ZBAA-26-8 Appeal of Troy Road Heights LLC, Owner; Ryan McCune, Agent; TP 49.-1-26.2, Low-Density Residential Zone; seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section 270-219.1 G(2)(c)[5][b][i], which establishes a maximum limit for the removal of trees and other vegetation, where the applicant is proposing to exceed the limits identified. This project a Type 1 Action under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, in which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, as the lead agency, issued a negative determination of environmental significance on September 1, 2026. Ryan McCune presented an overview of the proposal for a 4.5 MW AC solar facility on a 62- acre parcel within the Solar Overlay District. The project includes a single-axis tracker system, four Tesla mega packs, and a 300’ foot setback from Troy Road to preserve future development potential and minimize visual impact. The request is for an area variance to clear 23.16 acres of woodland, significantly exceeding the 6.2 acres permitted under the Town’s clear-cutting calculations (based on 50% removal of trees 6" DBH or greater) and he went through the 5 criteria answers as submitted. Board Questions Mr. Terry asked why the project couldn’t be moved closer to Troy Rd to avoid some clear cutting. Mr. McCune responded that it would make the installation more visible and would still require a significant variance request. The top half is 40% wooded with the bottom half of the property 60% wooded so the clearcutting would still be necessary, and the solar installation requires a 300’ foot setback. This is not a square lot and there are other restrictions on the lot such as easements, utilities and ZBA 2026-09-22 (Filed 10/8 ) Pg. 8 stream setbacks. There is a lot of dead Birch trees and a fair amount of Red Maple and so forth but because there are some wetlands, the quality of the woodlands in not particularly Mr. Friedman stated that the Town has designated this an area good for large installations and the substation is already there, so this is a good trade of trees for solar power. Ms. Randall gave an overview of the Planning Board’s review and determinations on this project, saying that a vegetation plan has been required and in consultation with the Conservation Board and the Planning Department, it has been determined that this project will help us remove a lot of invasive species. The Planning Dept has toured the site many times over the years as different proposals have come in, including this one, and the Planning Board made a NegDec on SEQR and granted preliminary site plan approval conditioned on any variance needed by this Board. Public Hearing Mr. Terry opened the public hearing. There was no one wishing to speak and the hearing was closed. Determination ZBAA-26-8 Area Variance – Clear Cutting Troy Road Heights LLC TP 49.-1-26.2, LDR Resolved that this Board grants the appeal of Troy Road Heights LLC, seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section 270-219.1 G(2)(c)[5][b][i], which establishes a maximum limit for the removal of trees and other vegetation, to exceed the limits as identified in the application materials, with the following Condition 1. That all clear cutting will be restricted to the area defined and depicted in the application materials, and with the following Findings That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community, specifically 1. That the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve cannot be achieved by any other means feasible given that there are no sites in the area that are suitable for this size solar farm without equal or greater tree cutting and it is not financially feasible to reduce the size of the installation; and ZBA 2026-09-22 (Filed 10/8 ) Pg. 9 2. That there will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that there will be significant screening planted between the public roadway and the installation and the site is set back from the road for equipment is 300’ feet and clearing is limited to the indicated area; and 3. That the request is substantial; and 4. The request will not have adverse physical or environmental effects as evidenced by the negative determination on SEQR made by the Planning Board as Lead Agency; and 5. That the alleged difficulty is not self-created in that there are limited options for solar farms and this property is in the Towns Solar Overlay District and it has other restrictions limiting options for placement, with no option that would preclude significant clearing. Moved: Connor Terry Seconded: Larry Sallinger Vote: ayes – Terry, Sallinger, Ritter, Segal and Friedman ZBAA-26-10 Appeal of Shift Chainworks I LLC (SouthWorks redevelopment project), Owners, 810 Danby Rd., Planned Development Zone 16., TP 40.-3-3, James Gensel, Agent; seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section 270-219.5 (Stream setback) which requires building and construction activities to occur outside of the Stream Setback area, where the proposal is the construction of a road system, building, and related activities in the Stream Setback area. The entirety of the SouthWorks project underwent a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) process between 2014 and 2019, with the City of Ithaca as Lead Agency in the environmental review. A GEIS was prepared to address impacts of multiple actions within this specific, defined geographic area. On May 21, 2019, the Town of Ithaca, as an Involved Agency in the environmental review, issued a Findings Statement for the GEIS that included threshold conditions for future site-specific projects associated with the overall development. On August 18, 2026, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, as the Lead Agency in The Woods project review, determined that The Woods project did not exceed the threshold conditions outlined in the GEIS Findings Statement, and therefore, did not require additional or supplemental environmental review. Overview Mr. Gensel gave a presentation and slides on "The Woods" phase of the Southworks (formerly Emerson Power Transmission) redevelopment. This phase includes 130 units of affordable housing and is part of a broader 450-unit master plan addressed in the 2019 Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS). The request is to facilitate two road crossings (Road A and Road C) over a stream that largely functions as a roadside drainage channel. ZBA 2026-09-22 (Filed 10/8 ) Pg. 10  Crossing 1 (Road A): Designed as an open-bottom box culvert to maintain the natural stream bed and ecological connectivity.  Crossing 2 (Road C): Involves an HDPE pipe installation over an existing man-made concrete flume, designed to allow a 75,000lb point load for fire apparatus access over the flume, which protects an underlying municipal sewer line. Mr. Gensel went through the criteria questions and answers given for the project. Board Questions In response to questions, Mr. Gensel explained that the stream has a concrete bottom right now and the road placement is absolutely necessary for access and accessibility to the site. Mr. Moseley noted that the Planning Board required a planting plan to mitigate any impact. Public Hearing Mr. Terry opened the public hearing; there was no one wishing to speak and the hearing was closed. Determination ZBAA-26-10 Area Variance – Stream Setback Shift Chainworks I LLC (SouthWorks redevelopment project) 810 Danby Rd., Planned Development Zone 16., TP 40.-3-3 James Gensel, Agent; seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section 270-219.5 (Stream setback) which requires building and construction activities to occur outside of the Stream Setback area, where the proposal is the construction of a road system, building, and related activities in the Stream Setback area. Conditions 1. That the roads be built substantially as shown on the application materials, and 2. That the condition imposed by the Planning Board is satisfied prior to the issuance of any building permits, and with the following Findings That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community, specifically ZBA 2026-09-22 (Filed 10/8 ) Pg. 11 1. That the benefit that the applicant wishes to achieve cannot be achieved by any other means feasible given that the road construction in the stream setback is required for emergency access and to build a neighborhood of this size. Alternatives were evaluated and the environmental impacts involved would be more severe; and 2. That there will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that this is the vision of the town as evidenced in the establishment of the Planned Development Zone; and 3. That the request is substantial, but the encroachment has been minimized to the greatest extent practicable through the site design process; and 4. The request will not have adverse physical or environmental effects as evidence by the fact that a General Impact Statement process has been adopted and approved by the Planning Board; and 5. That while the alleged difficulty is self-created in that the applicant wants this placement of the roads, it is not self-created in that emergency access is needed and the placement is the only feasible one given the topography of the site. Moved: Connor Terry Seconded: Kim Ritter Vote: ayes – Terry, Ritter, Friedman, Segal and Sallinger ZBAI-26-1 Appeal of Stanley Hiller, seeking an interpretation and determination regarding activities and a potential project located on a parcel of land along Elmira Road, tax parcel number 35.-1-10.2, located in the Inlet Valley Overlay Transition District with an underlying zoning of Low Density Residential. The Director of Code Enforcement's determination that a proposed project consisting of an approximately 23,700 sqft building, and outside amenities, would serve as a private club/lodge and place of assembly, as identified by Town of Ithaca Code section 270-171.5G. The applicant is seeking an interpretation and determination that the project is not considered to be a private club/lodge or place of assembly and is therefore not an allowed use in Town of Ithaca Code, Article XXA, Inlet Valley Overlay Transition District Mr. Hiller gave an overview of his opposition to the interpretation by the Town: 1. Primary vs. Accessory Use: 91% of the square footage is dedicated to industrial training (welding labs, excavation pits), while only 9% serves union administration. 2. Legal Separation of Uses: Relying on Section 270-1.5A, the appellant argued that integrated uses must be treated as distinct. He cited the “Place of Worship vs. School” example in the Code to argue that a prohibited vocational school cannot be "backdoored" as an accessory to a permitted union hall. 3. Distinct Entities: The property is owned by a Training Committee, a legally and financially separate entity from the Labor Union. ZBA 2026-09-22 (Filed 10/8 ) Pg. 12 Public Hearing - Mr. Terry opened the public hearing. Mr. Terry cautioned and stopped speakers at different points to reiterate that the question before the Board and the subject of this public hearing is the interpretation by the Town, not the characteristics, historical nature or natural beauty of the property. Michael Turback spoke, saying that he is the former owner and operator of Turbacks and he was here in support of Mr. Hiller. Inlet Valley Resident spoke, saying that this doesn’t pass the laugh test and a Union Hall and a Training Facility are two different things and the interpretation was wrong. Christianne White spoke, saying she was excited about a Union Training Facility but it doesn’t fit in the Inlet Valley Overlay District. Meridyth McMillan spoke, saying that only 10% of the building will be used for Union Hall meetings and 90% as industrial uses, none of which fit the agricultural and agritourism vision of the Inlet Valley Overlay District. She said she didn’t see the relevance of the definition of what a “union” is in this district. A Union Member spoke, saying that there has been a lot of mischaracterizations of what is going to be happening here. Zoning allows private clubs and lodges. The Union has members, you have to be a member to go there, you can’t be a member without the required training that this facility would provide. You are accepted as an apprentice member and go through the training and then you are a full member. Mr. Terry closed the public hearing and invited Mr. Hiller back to the speakers’ table and stated that the Board would discuss the appeal. Discussion Arguments of the Code Enforcement - Marty Mosley noted that in the absence of a Town Code definition for "Labor Union," he relied on the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition: "an organization of workers formed for the purpose of advancing its members' interests." He argued that training is an inherent, "functionally integrated" activity of a union. Chaz Porter (Local 81) confirmed that the facility is a closed organization restricted to members and prospective members. Board Deliberation The Board's discussion highlighted a sharp divide in municipal interpretation:  Some members found Director Mosley’s reliance on the dictionary and the "integrated use" theory compelling, noting that training is essential to union membership. ZBA 2026-09-22 (Filed 10/8 ) Pg. 13  Some members felt that the Inlet Valley Overlay District was designed to preserve a "boutique scale" and "small-scale development" character (agritourism, arts). They argued that a 23,700-square-foot industrial training center—featuring welding, excavation, and heavy truck traffic—sets a precedent that contradicts the "Spirit of the Overlay." There was lengthy discussion about the question in front of the Board; the interpretation of the Director on the meaning of “labor union” and not the proposed building or use that was under review. Supporters felt that the integrated nature of union training fits the broad dictionary definition provided by Code Enforcement. Opponents felt that a facility where the vast majority of the square footage is dedicated to industry/trade training is categorized as a vocational school (prohibited in the IVT) rather than a private club, lodge or labor union (permitted) and the scale and nature of the training use to be the primary character of the facility. Determination ZBA Resolution: ZBAI-26-1 Interpretation – club/lodge Town of Ithaca Code Chapter 270-171-5G Inlet Valley Overlay Transition District TP 35.-1-10.2 Stanley Hiller, Applicant Whereas, the action is an interpretation by the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding the Director of Code Enforcement's determination that a proposed project consisting of an approximately 23,700 sqft building, and outside amenities, would serve as a private club/lodge and place of assembly, as identified by Town of Ithaca Code section 270-171.5G where the applicant is seeking an interpretation and determination that the project is not considered to be a private club/lodge or place of assembly and is therefore not an allowed use in Town of Ithaca Code, 270: 171, in the Inlet Valley Overlay Transition District, now therefore be it Resolved that this Board upholds the appeal of Stanley Hiller concerning the interpretation of whether the proposed uses at [insert tax map number]. are appropriately considered an allowed use under town code section 270-171.5G(7) concerning private club/lodges, because while training facilities are properly considered accessory uses for labor unions/private clubs/lodges, the proposed building has dedicated a majority of its square footage to training facilities, thereby rendering it principally a training facility which is not listed as an allowed use. Moved: Kim Ritter Seconded: Larry Sallinger Vote: ayes – Ritter, Sallinger and Segal Nays – Terry and Friedman Resolution passes 3:2 ZBA 2026-09-22 (Filed 10/8 ) Pg. 14 PULLED ZBAI-26-2 Appeal of Khuba International c/o Christa Nunez; Jacob Von Mechow, Agent; seeking an interpretation and determination of the key term “Bankfull” in Town of Ithaca Code Section 270-5, with respect to a project located at 272 Enfield Falls Rd., Agricultural Zone. The Director of Code Enforcement's determination is that the proposed "Bankfull” is incorrect as defined in Town Code 2750-5. The meeting was adjourned upon a motion by Mr. Terry, seconded by Mr. Friedman, unanimous. Submitted by Paulette Rosa Town Clerk