The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZBA Minutes 2024-07-23Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of,Appeals, Tuesday, July,23, 2024,, at 6:00pm 215 N., Tloga St. F1xd4M1-M1 ZBAA-24-15 Appeal, of Kelly Cobb,,, owner of 260 Seven Mile Dr., Ithaca, NY, 14,850 "is seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code sectlion 270-60E,(2),(Yard regulations),to allow for an accessory building to be placed' in the front yard�, where an accessory building i's only allowed to occupy a rea,r yard. The property Tax Parcel No. 32.-21-114. is located in the Lowl-Den'sity Residential Zone, A A A A da Ak M1 1 tQ 1164 INSTRUCTIONS TO ACCESS THE, MEETING VIRTUALLY ON ZOOM: If you have a. com�puter, taWet, or smartphone, you can access, theZoom meeting by going to www-zoom.us and clicking on "JOIN Meeting"', and entering 852-55817-15,716 into the -2866., To join the Meeting ID. You can also, call in to the Zoorn meeting at +1 436 meeting directly, go to If joining through the Zlooim A,pp, you will be placed on hold until' the meet,ing starts. INSTRUCTIONS TO ACCESS THE, MEETING VIRTUALLY ON YOUTUBEI: If you have a compulter, tablet,1 or smartphone,, you can access the meeting by going to'The Town's YouTube channel.'To join the meeting directlY, go to j, v 16k1V I i �hC TNQ/1ive Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals July 23, 2024 M 6, inutes Present: Board Members David, Squires, Chair; Chris Jung, Stuart Friedman, Connor Terry, KII'M "Rilter, and Matthew M�tnmg Dana Magnuson, Senior Code Officer; Paulette Rosa,, Town Clerk; and Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town Mr. Su tree opened the nleetjig at, 6.-00 p.m. ZBAA-24-15 Ap P eal of Kelly Cobb, owner, 260 Seven N11 1 ., TP 32.-2-14, LDR; seeking relteffrorn Town. o��lf Ithaca Code section 270-60E (2) (Yard regulations) to be perrmtted to',gave an accessory building in the fi-on't yard.,where they are only 'Perm, itted in a rear yard. Ms,. Kelly gave an overview, saying that although she considers, the shed a garage, she does not meet the Code's definition because she will be storing her lawnmower, snowblower,,, and ,landscaping tools in 'it. She cannot put it'in the rear due to the slope and grade of'h,er rear yard, and the only place that is lu vel. enough to place I , 1� the side yard, would sti.11, req,wre a vartance and she prefers the front yard as proposed because it is already cleared of vegetation and will be set back from the road about 30' fect and 50' feet from the side yard lot line, and is similar to other sheds in the area. She added that she will be running electricity to the shed, but nothing else. Questions Mr. Friedman. asked why she did "t put it next to her existing garage in the other side yard. Ms. Kelly responded that her preferred spot is closer to the driveway. Mr. Stuart responded that the proposed location. seems to be right out there, close to the road and obvious. Ms. Jung said there is a grassy area where the shed is proposed an some vegetationbetween there and, the road and she asked,. 'if that would, stay there as a buffer., Ms. Kelly responded that the grassy area where she wants it and she may have to remove a small shrub near her house, but nothing significant. Public Hearing Mr., Squires opened, the pubtic hearing. ZBA 2024-07-23 (Filed 8/19) Pg. 1 If% Maxine', her immediate neighbor across the street, spoke saying she has no issue with the proposed shed or location and, she did, norfeel it would harm the neighborhood. .Mr. Squires closed the public hearing. Determination I for Mr., Squires began, saying the Board, gets many variance requests, ior shed, placement,,. and he could only recall one shed being granted a, variance in the front yard and that was a pre-exis,ting one. He said he was, hesitant to grant a variance for the front yard. Ms. Jung said she thought this one was unusual in that the shape of the lot is, triangular, there is very little side yard, and, the rear yard, slope is significant, so this is unique., The driveway, is I I, I 'th t ie existi retatio'n, helpin to buffer the view. curved, and, t wd be tuckea in wi' I i i,ng veg 9 She added that she is usually reluctant to grant variances for shed placement, but this one is unique, and the applicant has worked to mitigate the effects. Mr., Friedman responded, that he does not, agree and even wIth our ongo,,,ing debate about shed placement, there would be no hardships if it was placed next to the garage and that would be the least variance necessary to achieve the stated purpose. Ms. Ritter said she agreed, with MS. Jung. She said she pulled up, photos online and there is not much room, in, the side yard, and, it would more visible thereteal l the proposed spot. She said she would like to seesome additional vegetation anda. color that is tike the house. Mr. Terry significant grading would be needed to put it in. the rear yard and there isn"t much room near the garage and he was fine with the proposed spot. # 0, - 0 n m'j n r I am'lly re&Idence. Thiis i's a Type 2 acti'.0 .1, , I lo, accessory, structure on a s, ngle f Z.B.A.A-24-115 Area Variance — Accessory RuildingLocation 2610 Seven Mile Dro, TP 3 2""'2441 LDR Resolved that, this, Board grants the a,,P peal of Kelly Cobb seeking relied. froni Town, ofIthacaCode sectl,270-60E (2) (Yard regulat�ions) to be pem�ltted to have an accessory buildi'ng 'in the fro�nt yard, were they are only pen-nitted in a rear yard, with .. the follow�I,n.g [ Conditions 1. That the accessory buil"JAIng be placed substantially as showy gin. the appticafionl, an,,-,L 2. That additional evergreen screening be added parallel. to the road to further screen the shed from view, and 3. That the initial color of the shed be of a taro -isle color to initially complement the existing homcolor, and with the following Findings That the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community, specifically.- L That the benefit, the applicant wishes cannot be ach.ieved by any other m.an. fea.&Ible given that the lot is triangular is shape, and the rear yard is significantly sloped, and 2. That there will not be any undesirable change in neighborhood character or to nearby properties as the building is setback and screened by existing foliage and conditioned under additional foliage being added,, and 3. That the request is substantial as accessory buildings, are not permitted in the front yar., and That there will not be any physical or env.ironi-nental impacts as evidenced, by no SEQRlow eing I eed,ed and ,n 5. That the alleged difficulty is, self-created inthat the applicant wishes to place the shed in the front yard where they are prohibited, but this is mitigated for the reasons stated above. Moved: David, Squires Seconded: Connor Terry Vote: ayes — Squires, T. erry, Jung, and Ritter nays —Friedman ZBA.A-23-14,ZBAA.-24-19, and ZBAA-24-20 Appeal, of Cornell University, Omer, TP 61-2-4. LDR; seeking refief frm Town of Ithaca Code section 270-254 (Residential. and Conservation Zones to, be pen-nitted to install. signs that would exceed 100 square feet in aggregate size and the individual sign(s) would exceed 510 square feet per sign.. Leslie Schfll, , Dtrector ofcampus 'Planning and Ji, m. Kazuk i etas. Campus Grounds gave a, short presentation de icting the placement, u rp �oses, and sizes of the &'ig'ns un.si nder coderation. p , P Mr. Squires opened the public, hearing, there was no one wishing to speak and the hearing was, closed. SEQR. Deter minafiin Changes, were made to the SEQR fon-n. with extensive discussion on. the total, number of square feet as listed. in the form and in the application. The discrepancy came ftom, some s'j,g'ns that meet the Code and should not be fistedin, the aggregate cal. culatiotis. ZBA 2024-07-23 (Filed 8/19) Pg. 3 It was determined that there were I've ' (5) signs under consideration are located approximately 4,70-640 feet from Elfin Hollow Road and the revised list'ling of'square footage from the presentatioti. would be added to, the form. when ecei,ved. ZBAA-23-14, ZBAA-24-1.9, and ZB,AA-24-20 SEQR - S�i gn I v ariance Cornell University, Owner Resolved that this, Board makes, a negative determination of environmental significance based upon the information in the revise Parts I & 2 and for the reasons stated in Part 3 of the'SEQR Form. Moved: David Squires Seconded: Connor Terry Y- Vote- ayes, — Squires, Terry, Jung, P I rieurnan and Ritter Determination variance ZBA.A.-23-14,ZBA.A.-24-19, and ZAAA. -24-20 Sign variance J6 Cornell Uni , versity, Owner TP 61-2-4., LDR resolved that th-1s, Board grants the apl? , eal, of Cornell University, Owner, TP 62.-2-4. LDR; seeknreheffrom Town,, ` Ithaca Code sechon 270-254 (Re&1dejit1,a] and Conservation Z,70nes) to be permitted to install sign.s that would exceed 1. 00 square feet in aggregate size and the 0 j individual. sign(s would exceed 0square ieet per sign, with the following Conditions L That the sign.s, be installed substantially as, submitted to this Board, and with,. the foltowing F 0 indings I That the benefit, to the appitcant outweighs any detriment to the healthi, sa-tety, and, welfare of the coma lxiunity, specifically .1. That the benefit the applicant wishes to, achieve cannot be achieved by any other means feasible, as s,igns are an integral part of a baseball complex and must be visible, from. long distances", and,. 2. That there will not be am undestrable change in neighborhood character or to nearby properties in. that the signs are compatible with the surrounding athletic fields, they are a substantial. distance from the nearest residence, and the impact is, diminished by no illumination b�eing proposed, anthe elevation changes of the site and the surrounding area", and 04-IMMM 3. That the request is substantial in that the approximate aggregate is, 200' s,q fit where, 100' is, allowed, and That there wifl. not be any adverse Physical or envtronmental impacts as evidenced by the negati,ve determination under S. and 5. That the alleged, difficu,lty, is, setf-created in that the applicant wants additional signs, but this ,is mit'lgated, for the reasons stated above. Moved-. David Squires Seconded: Connor Terry Vote: ayes, — Squires, Terr'y, lung, Friedman and Ritter Coy. siderati"on of'SEQR Comments for Cornell University Mei"nig, Fteldhouse Project Ms., Brock. gave an overview of' the project and recent meetings of -'the Planning Board and public comments. Discussion followed on options such as a statement supporting the Planning Board's letter to the City Planning Committee or not commenting at all. 4 Some members felt, that although the B,oa�rd i,s an i , nvolved, agency, the Zonlng Board focuses on variances, 'and it has never made commis regard.tng the SEAR process in the fast. The Board discussed the Planning Board's letter. M.o',sLt felt their comments were ones they have wou'd agree and endorse, but there has been quite i nonof them a, process w h e em attendedl h'c' and as Board, members versus concerned citizens, they d:1d, runt heel they shou,ld comment and, 1* defer to the Plan. miig Board that has received numerous comments and pl .cant appearances on the topic. Ms. Ritter and'Mr. Squires felt, the Board could make a statement sup, Porttng the Planning Board"s letter. Mr. Squires moved that the /Zoning Board of Appeals make no comment on the SEAR process fior the Project, seconded, by Mr. Terry. Moved: Davi'.d Squires Seconded: Col nor Terry Vote: ayes, — Squires, T erry and Jung nays: Friedman and Ritter Other ftm*ness Mr., Friedman, stated that this would be his last meeting as he has fa,mily matters that w-1,11 take him out of the country for an. unknown length. of time and he resigned effective after this ZBA 2024-07-23 (Filed 8/19) Pg. 5 0, p 0 , Yed, histe� ur 1 11, " meetlng. He said he has, ei,,ij �o n e and, would fike to come back o� the Board when, he Ith returns to . aca- 'rii.e meeting was aqj�ourned u on of y ion b"M".r.Squires, second.i. ed, by'M',r,'I"',"�r�*,edma,,ii- p una,tunl,OLIS. Subm fe by Paulette' osa, T`own Clerk