HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2026-10-13ZBA 2026-10-13 (Filed 10/29) Pg. 1
TOWN OF ITHACA
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
October 13, 2026
Present: Connor Terry Chair; Kim Ritter, Larry Sallinger and Stuart Friedman
Absent: 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.
ZBAA-26-11 Appeal of Ithaca College, owner of 953 Danby Rd., TP 41.-1-30.2MDR; Jared
Lusk, Applicant/Agent; is seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section 270-219L(b)[9](e)
due to personal wireless service facilities being located closer than 300 feet to a dwelling unit.
Mr. Lusk gave an overview of the projects ZBAA-26-11 & 12 which are on two parcels, but
considered one project consisting of the placement of personal wireless facilities on campus to
improve service which is not dependable and the placements of the services were done in such a
way as to blend in with the buildings as much as possible, but of necessity, are withing 300’ feet
of some dormitories in the campus setting.
The Director of Campus Facilities added that they have resorted to hand-held radios because they
cannot count on cellular service in the case of an emergency and to communicate with each
other.
The Board went through the presentation materials in detail, focused on the locations of the
installations and felt they were as unobtrusive as possible.
Public Necessity Standard:
1. Is the proposed facility needed to render safe and adequate service?
Yes, this is needed to provide safe and adequate service, as shown by the applicant's
dropped call studies and the fact that it's known that there's poor service in the area.
2. What is the extent of intrusion or burden on the community?
There is limited, if not any, burden on the community given that these small cells are not
going to be near private properties or the public; they have very limited view from the public
roads, if any and this is a campus environment where the service is needed and all
attempts have been made to minimize visual impacts.
3. Are there compelling reasons, economic or otherwise, making it more feasible to
grant the variance than to use alternatives to provide the services?
ZBA 2026-10-13 (Filed 10/29) Pg. 2
The applicant has identified that there are not feasible alternatives as a macro-tower would
be more impactful in size and aesthetics than these small-cell installations and needed to
penetrate the buildings. This is the least intrusive design to bring coverage to the entire
campus.
The Board unanimously agreed that there was a public necessity present.
SEQR Determination (combined for both locations)
The Board went through the SEQR Parts 1&2 and completed Part 3, determining that there is no
significant environmental impact.
ZBAA-26-11 & 12 SEQR Determination – Area
Personal Wireless Service Facilities – Bundled
952 Danby Rd & 30 College Cir
Resolved that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the
appeals of Ithaca College, owner of 953 Danby Rd., TP 41.-1-30.2 MDR, and 30 College Cir., TP
43.-1-2.2, MR, seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section 270-219L(b)[9](e) to be
permitted to place personal wireless service facilities closer than 300’ feet to a dwelling unit
based on the information if SEQR Parts 1 & 2 and for the reasons stated in Part 3.
Moved: Connor Terry Seconded: Larry Sallinger
Vote: Terry, Sallinger, Freidman, and Ritter
Public Hearing
Pauline Layton spoke, stating that she sent comments in, but her concern was whether they were
close to her home and that the “jury is still out” on the health effects of these poles.
Mr. Moseley and Mr. Lusk responded by showing her the locations by sharing screens and noted
that no installation would be close to her home.
Mr. Terry also responded that health effects, whether proven or not, are not something the Zoning
Board can consider under NYS law.
There was no one else wishing to speak and the public hearing was closed.
The Board went through the criteria for both locations and drafted the approval resolutions.
ZBAA-26-11 Determination – Area
Personal Wireless Service Facilities – Bundled
953 Danby Rd.
TP 41.-1-30.2 MDR
ZBA 2026-10-13 (Filed 10/29) Pg. 3
Resolved that this Board grants the appeal of Ithaca College, owner of 953 Danby Rd., TP 41.-1-
30.2 MDR, seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section 270-219L(b)[9](e) to be permitted
to place personal wireless service facilities closer than 300’ feet to a dwelling unit under the
Public Necessity Standard, with the following
Conditions:
1.That the installations are done substantially as shown in the application materials, and with
the following
Findings:
1. That the proposed facility is needed to render safe and adequate service given that this is
needed to provide services based upon the dropped call studies and it is a well known
poor service area, and
2. That the intrusion or burden on the community is limited if any based upon the placement
of the facilities will mean there is no or very limited view of them from the public
roadway and there are no private residences affected as this is a college campus setting,
and
3. That there are compelling reasons, economic and otherwise, making it more feasible to
grant the variance than to use alternatives in that a mono-pole would be intrusive in an
aesthetics viewpoint and using small nodes will bring coverage to the full area and to the
extent possible, the applicant has made them appear as part of light poles and/or a part of
the building.
Moved: Connor Terry Seconded: Stewart Friedman
Vote: ayes – Terry, Sallinger, Friedman and Ritter
Item 2 ZBAA-26-12 Appeal of Ithaca College, owner of 30 College Circle, Ithaca, NY, 14850;
Jared Lusk, Applicant/Agent; is seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section 270-
219L(b)[9](e) due to personal wireless service facilities being located closer than 300 feet to a
dwelling unit. The property is currently located in the Multiple Residence Zone Tax Parcel No.
43.-1-2.2
Discussion, questions, SEQR and a public hearing were conducted with ZBAA-26-11 above.
ZBAA-26-12 Determination – Area
Personal Wireless Service Facilities – Bundled
30 College Cir
TP 43.-1-2.2 MR
Resolved that this Board grants the appeal of Ithaca College, owner of 30 College Circle, TP 43.-
1-2.2 MR, seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section 270-219L(b)[9](e) to be permitted to
place personal wireless service facilities closer than 300’ feet to a dwelling unit under the Public
ZBA 2026-10-13 (Filed 10/29) Pg. 4
Necessity Standard, with the following
Conditions:
1. That the installations are done substantially as shown in the application materials, and
with the following
Findings:
1. That the proposed facility is needed to render safe and adequate service given that this is
needed to provide services based upon the dropped call studies and it is a well-known
poor service area, and
2. That the intrusion or burden on the community is limited if any based upon the placement
of the facilities will mean there is no or very limited view of them from the public
roadway and there are no private residences affected as this is a college campus setting,
and
3. That there are compelling reasons, economic and otherwise, making it more feasible to
grant the variance than to use alternatives in that a monopole would be intrusive in an
aesthetics viewpoint and using small nodes will bring coverage to the full area and to the
extent possible, the applicant has made them appear as part of light poles and/or a part of
the building.
Moved: Connor Terry Seconded: Larry Sallinger
Vote: ayes – Terry, Sallinger, Friedman and Ritter
Item 3 ZBAA-26-14 Appeal of 210 Eldridge Cir., LDR, TP 46.-1-15.48, Owners, Ana Maria &
Michael Riehlmann; Colin Smith, Agent; seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section 270-
60A (Yard regulations) which requires at least a 30’ front yard setback, measured from the facade
of the structure to the front yard boundary line, where the proposal is less than 30’ feet.
Colin Smith gave an overview, saying that he was not aware of the 15’ foot front yard ROW
when he was doing the measuring and he was more focused and concerned about the stream
setback, adding that they downsized the plans and pushed the home forward on purpose to make
sure they met that setback, not realizing the ROW impacted the measuring point.
Mr. Moseley shared the survey on the screen. The lot is fairly small with the stream setback
restrictions and a buffer requirement for King Road. This is not out of character for the
neighborhood as other homes have been granted variances for front yard setbacks and this is the
last parcel to be built on in this larger subdivision, which predated the stream setback legislation.
Public Hearing
Mr. Terry opened the public hearing; there was no one wishing to speak and the hearing was
ZBA 2026-10-13 (Filed 10/29) Pg. 5
closed.
Determination
ZBAA-26-14 Area Variance
210 Eldridge Cir.,
LDR, TP 46.-1-15.48
Resolved that this Board grants the appeal of Ana Maria & Michael Riehlmann, seeking relief
from Town of Ithaca Code section 270-60A (Yard regulations) which requires a minimum of a
30’ front yard setback, measured from the facade of the structure to the front yard boundary line,
where the proposal is less than 30’ feet, with the following
Condition –
1. That the home be located substantially as shown in the application materials, and 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 there is not a feasible alternative given the stream setback requirements which
predate the subdivision plat and they built the home smaller to reduce the requested
encroachment, and
2. That there will not be an undesirable impact to the neighborhood given that at least one
other home nearby received a similar variance and most of the other homes are tight to
the road, and
3. That the request is substantial, and
4. That there will not be an environmental impact as this is Type 2 under NYS SEQR, and
5. That the hardship is self-created in that the applicants wish to build a home but is not
self-created in that the subdivision plat was approved prior to the passage of the stream
setback requirements, significantly reducing the buildable area.
Moved: Connor Terry Seconded: Larry Sallinger
Vote: ayes – Terry, Sallinger, Ritter and Friedman
Item 4 ZBAA-26-15 Appeal of Timur Dogan and Katharina Kral, owners, 10 The Byway,
Medium Density Residential District Zone and the Forest Home Historic District, seeking relief
from Town of Ithaca Code sections 270- 68.L (Permitted accessory buildings and uses), 270-
ZBA 2026-10-13 (Filed 10/29) Pg. 6
71.E(1) (Yard regulations), and 270-219.6.0(2) (Additional requirements applicable to detached
accessory dwelling units), for a proposal to convert part of an existing barn to an accessory
dwelling unit. Town of Ithaca Code section 270-71 E(1) requires a building occupied by a
detached accessory dwelling unit to have a minimum 30’ foot side lot line setback and a 15’ foot
rear lot line setback, where the applicant is proposing a reduced side lot line setback (measured
to the new awning and stair area), and a reduced rear lot line setback as measured to the existing
deck and 270-219.6.0(2) requires at least 20% of a detached accessory dwelling unit of a
detached ADU facade that faces and is visible from the street must consist of window or door
openings where the request is approximately 5% of the street-facing facade (oriented toward
Forest Home Drive / The Byway).
The Dogans gave an overview, stating that they had received a variance for this project in 2019
but then COVID hit and that variance expired, so they needed to come in again.
He summarized the points as expressed previously, saying that the existing barn is in bad
condition but represents an essential architectural feature of the Forest Home Historic District.
Meeting current 30-foot side and 15-foot rear setback rules would necessitate complete
demolition of the historic barn and building a new structure, which contradicts historic district
preservation goals.
The physical entrance and natural primary facade experienced by occupants and passersby face
Old Mill Road, a small pathway running along the property. The wall designated under zoning
code as the "street-facing facade" (facing Forest Home Drive / The Byway) forms the structural
rear wall of the barn and cutting in new window and door openings would compromise the
historic structural timber frame and internal floor layout.
The ADU is intended solely for personal family use, specifically to house visiting grandparents
and extended family members during prolonged visits.
Board Discussion
The Board reviewed aerial GIS mapping, land survey documents, and historical photographs to
evaluate site context and potential neighborhood impacts:
Town GIS data indicated that the rear deck attached to the historic barn extends across the
property boundary onto adjoining land owned by Cornell University which was
thoroughly discussed and clarified during the 2019 variance proceedings with an
Encroachment Agreement executed in 2017 with Cornell University.
There are four on-site parking spaces and Mr. Dogan confirmed that the household owns
only one vehicle and does not require or seek a parking variance.
Public Hearing – Mr. Terry opened the public hearing.
ZBA 2026-10-13 (Filed 10/29) Pg. 7
Jeff Holden, an immediate neighbor directly across from the property, spoke strongly in favor of
the application, noting that he also has a historic barn on his property and emphasized that
preserving the historic structure benefits the neighborhood.
There was no other public wishing to speak and the hearing was closed.
Determination
ZBAA-26-15 Area Variance
10 The Byway
TP 66.-1-10
MDR & Forest Home Historic District
Resolved that this Board Chair grants the appeal to permit a side yard setback of 2’ 9”, a rear
yard setback of 0 feet, and a street-facing facade window/door opening ratio of approximately
5%, with the following
Conditions
1. That the exterior alterations and improvements associated with the project must be
constructed substantially in accordance with the site plans, elevation drawings, and
survey documents submitted with the application, and 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 method, given that
achieving strict code compliance would require the total demolition of a the historic barn,
which is neither desirable nor aligned with historic preservation principles, and
2. That there will not be any detriment to nearby properties or an undesirable change to
neighborhood character given that the project preserves an existing historic landmark
within the Forest Home Historic District without altering the established footprint or
increasing the building height, and
3. That while the requested numerical relief is substantial (rear setback reduced from 15' to
0', side setback reduced from 30' to 2'9", and facade openings reduced from 20% to 5%),
the impact is strongly mitigated by keeping the historic barn in the existing location with
a set back over 100 feet from the public roadway and preserving the existing façade,
thereby maintaining the historic aesthetic of the district.
4. There will not be any adverse physical or environmental impacts as this is TYPE 2 under
SEQR, and
ZBA 2026-10-13 (Filed 10/29) Pg. 8
5. That the alleged difficulty is self-created to the extent that the applicants propose an ADU
conversion within an existing non-conforming structure.
Moved: Connor Terry Seconded: Stuart Friedman
Vote: ayes – Terry, Friedman, Ritter and Sallinger.
The meeting was adjourned upon a motion and a second; unanimous.
Submitted by
Paulette Rosa
Town Clerk