HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2021-05-17Town of Ithaca
Zoning Board of Appeals
Monday 17, 2021@ 6:00pm
215 N. Tioga St.
Due to public health and safety concerns relating to COVID-19, the Zoning Board of Appeals will not be
meeting in-person. In accordance with the Governor’s Executive Order 202.1, this meeting will be held
by video conferencing through the Zoom app. The public will have an opportunity to see and hear the
meeting live and provide comments.
Agenda
0006-2021 Appeal of Jamie and Joe Slater, owners of 285 Burns Road, Tax Parcel No. 48.-1-14.62
0007-2021 Appeal of David Mountin, owner of Tax Parcel No. 29.-7-12.42
0008-2021 Appeal of David Mountin, owner of Tax Parcel No. 29.-7-12.42
0009-2021 Appeal of David Mountin, owner of Tax Parcel No. 29.-7-12.42
INSTRUCTIONS TO ACCESS THE VIRTUAL MEETING: If you have a computer, tablet, or
smartphone, you can access the Zoom meeting by going to www.zoom.us and clicking on “JOIN
Meeting”, and entering 944-393-1973 into the Meeting ID. You can also call in to the Zoom meeting at
+1 (929) 436-2866. To join the meeting directly, go to https://zoom.us/j/9443931973.
On the evening of, 05/17/2021, at 5 minutes before 6:00pm, join in with your computer, smartphone, or
telephone. You will be placed on hold until the meeting starts. Questions about accessing the Zoom vide
conference should be emailed to ctorres@town.ithaca.ny.us or (607) 273-1783 ext.2.
ZBA 2021-05-17 (Filed 7/30) Pg. 1
Town of Ithaca
Zoning Board of Appeals
Tuesday, May 17, 2021
Meeting held via ZOOM platform due to COVID -19 Executive Orders for Health & Safety
MINUTES
Present: Rob Rosen, Chair; Members Christine Jung, George Vignaux, Bill King, David
Squires; Alternate David Williams; Marty Mosely, Codes; Becky Jordan, Deputy Town Clerk;
Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town
Mr. Rosen called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
0006-2021 Appeal of Jamie and Joe Slater, owners, 285 Burns Rd, Low Density Residential,
TP 48.-1-14.62, are seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section, 270-56 (C) (Accessory
Buildings and Uses), section 270-60 (E)(2) (Accessory buildings), and section 270-59 (Height
limitations) for a proposal to construct a 26 foot tall (two-story) 56’x42’ (3,024 square foot)
agricultural accessory building, while also maintaining an existing 200 square foot accessory
building (10’x20’) on the property.
Town of Ithaca Code section 270-56 (C) allows up to three accessory buildings, other than a
garage or a building occupied by a detached accessory dwelling unit (in aggregate), not to exceed
2,000 square feet when the lot is three acres or larger, where the current proposal is requesting to
allow for a two-story agricultural accessory building to be constructed (approximately, 3,024
square feet) and allow for an existing accessory building (approximately 200 Square feet) to
exist, totaling an approximate 3,224 square feet in area for all accessory buildings on the lot.
Town of Ithaca Code section 270-60 (E)(2) requires that accessory buildings (except for garages
and woodsheds meeting the requirements of 270-60G) to be placed in the rear yard, where the
current proposal is proposing to construct an agricultural accessory building in the front and side
yard of the property. Town Code Section 270-59 allows for accessory buildings to be a
maximum of 15 feet in height, where the proposal is to construct a two-story accessory building
of approximately 26 feet in height.
Mr. Rosen explained this is a continuation from a previous meeting and the applicants have
submitted revised plans.
Mr. Slater gave a brief overview, saying that they are requesting a barn rather than a garage as
last time, and they have scaled down the length and width of the proposed barn for a total
requested square footage of 3,024 sqft.
Mr. Slater explained that the need for a height variance is due to wanting to have a pitch of roof
to match existing residence and to some of the neighboring barns.
He added that the side yard variance is due to our geothermal loop which restricts placement
behind the house showing hardship as to why the structure cannot be erected behind their house.
ZBA 2021-05-17 (Filed 7/30) Pg. 2
Mr. Rosen opened the public hearing at 6:05 p.m.
The Stauffer’s, 275 Burns Rd spoke in favor of the project.
The Biecheles, Coddington Rd, spoke and stated that their concerns voiced at the last meeting
regarding location have been satisfied with the map provided.
There was no one else wishing to speak, and the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Rosen noted that SEQR is not required as this is Type 2 – accessory structure for a single-
family residence.
Mr. King commented that in viewing the building coverage map on Tompkins County
Assessment, and in looking at other buildings in the area, this proposed barn would be the
biggest accessory building in the area.
Mr. Rosen responded that there is a larger barn located at 915 Coddington and the proposed barn
is under 3,500 sq ft and still fits the character of the rural area.
Mr. Squires stated that his concerns about the square footage are alleviated by the fact that it is
two story, so the footprint is less than the number might imply.
Mr. Rosen added that it should be noted the applicants scaled back their request from 3,800 to
3,024 sq ft and characterized it as an agricultural utility building in response to the Boards
concerns about size.
Mr. Mosely stated for the record the advertised 3,224 sq ft includes the existing shed in the rear
yard and that the proposed new building is 3,024 sq ft.
ZBA 0006-2021 Area & Height Variance
285 Burns Rd, TP 48.-1-14.62
Resolved that this Board grants the appeal of Jamie and Joe Slater of 285 Burns Rd, seeking
variance from Town of Ithaca Code sections 270-56 (C) (Accessory Buildings and Uses), section
270-60 (E)(2) (Accessory buildings), and section 270-59 (Height limitations) to construct a 26
foot tall (two-story) 56’x42’ (3,024 square foot) agricultural accessory building, while also
maintaining an existing 200 square foot accessory building (10’x20’) on the property as
described in the public hearing notice, with the following
Conditions
1. That the barn be built substantially as shown on the submitted plans
and with the following
ZBA 2021-05-17 (Filed 7/30) Pg. 3
Findings:
That the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and well-being of
the neighborhood, specifically:
1. That there will not be an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to
nearby properties given that there are similar utility/agricultural/storage buildings in the
area, and
2. That there will not be any adverse environmental affects given that SEQR is not required,
and
3. That the request is substantial, given that the proposed building is 60% higher than the
maximum allowed, but, this is mitigated by the fact that the placement is constrained by
the geothermal field, and the visibility from the public roadway is limited due to the steep
elevation and existing vegetation, and the lot coverage, at 1.45%, is significantly below
the 10% maximum allowed, and that the proposed size, while large, is reasonable for the
maintenance of a slightly under 7 acre parcel, and that the increased height of the barn is
desirable to keep within the existing aesthetics of the residence and other barns in the
area, and
4. That the alleged difficulty is self-created, in that the applicant wishes to build a barn of
this size and design, but nevertheless, this Board finds that the benefit does outweigh any
detriment to the health, safety and well-being of the neighborhood.
Motion made by Rob Rosen, seconded by David Squires
Votes: ayes – Rosen, King, Squires, Vignaux and Williams. Unanimous
0007-2021, 0008-2021 and 0009-2021 Appeal of David Mountin, owner of Medium Density
Residential, TP 29.-7-12.42, seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section 270-73 (B) and (C)
Size and area of lot, for a proposed creation of Parcel A-1, that would have a 20’ ft width at the
street line where 60’ feet is required and a 20’ft setback at the required front yard setback line of
where 20 feet.
Town of Ithaca Code section 270-73 (B) requires that a parcel of land have a minimum width at
the street line of 60 feet, where the applicant is proposing to have a minimum width of 20’ feet at
the street line and Code section 270-73 (C) requires a minimum width at the maximum required
front yard setback line (50 feet from the street line) of 100 feet, where the applicant is proposing
to have a minimum width of 20’ feet.
Discussion:
Mr. Mountin summarized his proposal of subdividing ten acres into five lots, two of which are
existing now and are one acre each. The subdivision of the remaining eight acres into three lots
is awaiting review by the Planning Board.
ZBA 2021-05-17 (Filed 7/30) Pg. 4
Mr. Mountin explained that they are envisioning a shared road, at 450 feet long, ending in a cul-
de-sac, and one driveway would go directly to Elm St. Ext.
He said he is working with STREAM Collaborative on four prototypes for zero energy homes
for each lot.
Board Discussion
Mr. Rosen stated he was not aware that this was part of a zero-energy home development.
Mr. Squires inquired, in relation to a neighbor’s alternate proposal, is it a factual statement that if
a road extended in longer there would not be need for a variance because there would be enough
road frontage for a development?
Mr. Rosen explained that typically a subdivision has a public road which has to be built to Town
of Ithaca specifications and conveyed to the town as a public right of way. This proposal is to
have a privately owned, shared road down the middle with individual driveways off of it, with all
three having shared ownership and rights of access. Given that, even if the private road were
longer, there would not be road frontage because it is not a public street.
Mr. Squires inquired if the Town has a position on private roads versus public roads usual in
subdivision development?
Mr. Mosely responded that the Town does not have a position on private roads but added that the
applicant will still have to meet minimum emergency access requirements under NYS Fire and
Building Codes and he has been working with him and Chief Parsons on components of that.
Mr. Rosen asked if it isn’t required then to have a standard 40 ft wide road for ladder truck to
access in the winter and an ambulance to get by in another lane?
Mr. Mosely replied that NYS Fire Code does not require that because there are only four
structures proposed, at roughly 13’ ft wide of 12’ ft 6” height, so a ladder truck is not needed and
a fire engine truck could access the property, and Chief Parsons is requiring a turn around at the
base.
Mr. Mountin clarified that the driveway will be 15’ ft wide with a 120’ ft long hammerhead at
the neck of the cul-de-sac for a turn around.
Mr. Vignaux inquired who will maintain the triple driveway?
Mr. Mountin replied that the easements will state shared costs of the road
Mr. Vignaux stated that he recently sold a property that had six driveways on it and plenty of
restrictions on who would pay for what and when and one of the reasons he sold, was that he
ZBA 2021-05-17 (Filed 7/30) Pg. 5
never saw a cent from the two people further than his house and he didn’t maintain it as best it
could have been because of that.
He suggested if it were a public road deeded to the Town the Town would make sure it was
properly maintained and, in his opinion, it would be beneficial to all to have the road publicly
owned as opposed to privately owned by the four landowners.
Mr. Rosen said he was confused because the hammerhead configuration is not shown on the
drawing submitted, and, although it makes sense geometrically, he didn’t understand why the
lots were not set up traditionally in a rectangle which would give each lot the 100’ ft frontage
and negate the need for a variance.
Mr. Mountin responded that the first lot is underneath the NYSEG ROW so he can’t put a
driveway there. He went on to say that it is set up like this because our philosophy to not put in a
public road and to build out 30 houses, which we could do, if we put in a public road. This is a
way to limit build out.
Mr. Mountin said his philosophy is to do minimal development and to stay in character of the
neighborhood and have less environmental impact by having one driveway instead of 4 or 5.
He said it could have been designed that way, but the current plan is the lowest impact design
and gives every lot about 2 to 2 ½ acres while keeping down impervious surfaces. Our most
important concern is what the final result will look like and to keep it environmentally and
aesthetically low impact. That is more important to us than how many houses we end up with.
Mr. Rosen asked Mr. Mosely what the minimum lot size in medium residential?
Mr. Mosely confirmed it is 15,000 sq ft or 1/3 of an acre.
Mr. King stated that he likes that there’s only one road and that it is low density. He would like
to hear Mr. Mountin’s response to Jesse Young’s letter regarding public versus private road.
Mr. Mountin stated that he hadn’t seen it and Mr. Mosely provided it to him to read and respond
to.
Mr. Rosen commented on Mr. Mountin’s statement regarding building only a few houses. He
asked what was stopping someone from subdividing and building whatever number of houses is
allowed in the zone.
Mr. Mountin responded that restrictions will be in the deeds. It will be a restricted covenant as a
single-family home and the town would require a public road.
Ms. Brock clarified that there would be ways around it if all the owners agreed. Public and
private road designation does not matter in road frontage.
ZBA 2021-05-17 (Filed 7/30) Pg. 6
She asked Mr. Mountin about this lot, as it was subdivided in 2019, so this is a further
subdivision, correct?
Mr. Mountin responded that it was, and due to the NYSEG ROW which restricts where a
driveway and utilities would need to go.
Ms. Brock responded that at the earlier subdivision approval, other ways were discussed such as
moving the utility poles, so there are some other options.
Mr. Rosen added that building a private road is also less expensive than building a public road.
Mr. King asked for details on the differences between public and private roads.
Ms. Brock responded that the Town has standards for public roads, and she can’t speak to those,
but private roads also have standards, probably less stringent, and then driveways have even
lower standards, and this is proposed as a shared driveway.
Mr. Moseley stated that a private road would require additional standards than the proposed
shared driveway.
Mr. King reiterated his question on the differences between a private and public road and get a
sense of the differences and the associated costs.
Mr. Rosen responded that a public road will have to be wider than 15’ feet and there are more
stringent drainage and stormwater engineering designs.
Mr. King asked if stormwater will be worse than a private or public road than what is proposed.
Mr. Mountin responded that he doesn’t know what a public or private road would require, but he
has been working with the Town Engineer.
Ms. Brock stated that one SEQR is good for the three appeals and she suggested that if the Board
wanted to hear any comments from the public specific to environmental issues, that could
happen now, outside of the public hearing for the appeals.
Mr. Rosen stated that was a good idea and he asked any members of the public for their
comments. There was no one indicating they wished to speak at this time, and Mr. Rosen turned
to the Board discussion of the SEQR form.
Mr. Rosen noted that this is a further subdivision of a granted subdivision, that contains an
existing non-conforming lot and the appeal is to further subdivide that into three non-conforming
lots.
He said on the face of it, there will be an impact because it increases the population but normally,
they would be allowed to build 10 houses without a variance on the existing lot. The question is
would it be a significant impact, which is the threshold.
ZBA 2021-05-17 (Filed 7/30) Pg. 7
The largest parcel in the previous subdivision is now under consideration to be subdivided
further into a total of 3 parcels. The impact is less than what could be built.
Mr. Rosen noted that the Planning Board also considered SEQR and determined that no or a
small impact would occur, and he agreed with the many of their comments except this is a large
variance where in the Planning determination that was not a consideration.
Mr. King asked about item 10, about stormwater and wanted to hear a response to the letter
regarding stormwater issues.
Mr. Mountin responded that the letter writer would like to see a public road there, but from a
stormwater design, the proposal meets all State requirements and as said, we are working with
the Town Engineer. Our goal is limited impact and least amount of impervious surface and a
private or public road is not necessary for 3 houses.
He added that the letter writer did not want the original subdivision to be approved because he
has property below mine and would like to see a bigger development there that would help his
property. That isn’t what I wanted to do or see someone else do on my property. They stated I
“should think big, not small” because that is what the Young family does. He wants to keep it
small and minimal impact.
Mr. Mountin said at this time, he lives on a shared driveway and hasn’t had issues as described
by Mr. Vignaux, but he is planning on keeping one of the lots, and there will be deed restrictions,
but he isn’t naïve enough to believe problems can’t happen, but he hopes to protect as much as
possible against them.
Mr. Moseley noted that some enlarging of the turnaround probably will happen.
Mr. Rosen agreed with the Planning Board assessment of no or small impact.
Ms. Brock and the Board went through changes to the SEQR form to incorporate the Planning
Board’s comments and specific response associated with the Zoning Board actions for the three
lots.
ZBA Resolution 007- 008- 009-2021 SEQR Determination
Mountain 3-lot Subdivision
Elm St Ext.
TP 29.-7-12.42
Resolved that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance based on
the information in parts 1 and 2 and for the reasons stated in part 3 as amended on the SEQR
form.
Moved: Rob Rosen Seconded: George Vignaux
ZBA 2021-05-17 (Filed 7/30) Pg. 8
Vote: ayes – Rosen, Vignaux, Williams, Squires and Jung
Public Hearing for the three lots, A1 A2 and A3
Mr. Rosen opened the public hearing on the three appeals, noting that the Board did receive one
written comment.
Mick LoPinto spoke, saying he is an adjoining neighbor, and he was so happy this project is a
low impact because a deep pockets developer could have come in and built 20-30 houses on this
property and he believes his neighbors agree.
He added that he is the neighbor that the proposed driveway will abut, and he has looked at the
zoning and what could be allowed here and he is in support of the project.
Jesse Young spoke, saying he thinks the letter speaks for itself, and we believe there is a better
option.
Mr. Rosen closed the public hearing 7:21 p.m.
Discussion
Mr. Squires began, saying that based on the packet information, it looks like this is a sincere
attempt to design a low-impact, low-density project that benefits the public and the
neighborhood.
Mr. King asked if a condition could be added that no further subdivision is permitted. Is that
appropriate?
Ms. Brock responded that if it could be tied to something that has been discussed, it would be
acceptable.
Mr. King responded that the decision is relying on the low impact.
Discussion followed on the limitations such a condition could legally hold and the status of
current zoning maximums. There are hurdles that a bigger development would need to
overcome, but there is a housing shortage, and some members thought that is a consideration
while others felt that the lower density is preferable. Others thought the variance is large enough
that putting a condition on further subdivision is appropriate.
The need for future variances were discussed. The deficiencies will remain and further variances
would be needed which performs the same function as a condition.
The Board decided to not put a condition on this action and not focus on what may or may not
happen in the future.
ZBA 2021-05-17 (Filed 7/30) Pg. 9
Mr. Rosen spoke to the benefit outweighing the large dimensional variances and the members
agreed that it does and Ms. Brock added that there are a number of other flag lots in this
neighborhood, one just a bit further down the hill.
Mr. Moseley shared the GIS map and there were quite a few in the near vicinity, some not so
traditional, but a number of irregularly shaped lots.
ZBA Resolution 0007-2021, 0008-2021 and 0009-2021 Area Variance
TP 29.-7-12.42
3-Lot Subdivision
Resolved that this Board grants the appeal of David Mountin, owner TP 29.-7-12.42, MDR,
seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section 270-73 (B) and (C) Size and area of lot, for the
proposed creation of Parcels A-1, A-2 and A-3 as depicted in the submission details, that would
all have a 20’ ft width at the street line where 60’ feet is required and where a minimum width at
the maximum required front yard setback line (50 feet from the street line) is 100 feet and 20’
feet is proposed, with the following
Conditions:
1. That the subdivision be built substantially as depicted and described in the submission
materials, and with the following
Findings:
1. That the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve could be achieved by other means
feasible given that there is enough space for standard rectangular lots with a public road,
and
2. There will not be an undesirable change to neighborhood character or a detriment to
nearby properties because this proposal is lower impact of three houses on lots of 2+acres
each where at least 10 houses could be built under current zoning, and therefore the
change is minimal, and there are a number of other flag lots in the neighborhood and
these three flag lots will not be out of character and the proposal that lot 12.43 will be
able to use the proposed shared driveway as opposed to an additional curb cut further
down the road, which is desirable, and
3. The request is substantial given that 100’ feet is required at the street line and the setback
which is an 80% reduction, but that has happened before, and
4. That the request will not have any adverse environmental or physical effects for the
reasons stated in the SEQR form, and
5. That the difficulty is self-created in that the applicant wishes to subdivide the lot in this
formation, but, nevertheless, the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the
You are receiving this notice because you live within 500 feet of a property requesting a
variance from the Town Code. Comments can be made during the meeting, or in writing
via mail to 215 N. Tioga St., or via email to ctorres@town.ithaca.ny.us
All comments become part of the official record.
Town of Ithaca
Notice of Public Hearing
Zoning Board of Appeals
Monday, May 17, 2021 at 6:00pm
215 N. Tioga St.
Due to public health and safety concerns related to COVID-19, the Zoning Board of
Appeals will not be meeting in-person. In accordance with the Governor’s Executive Order
202.1, this meeting will be held by video conferencing through the Zoom App. The public
will have an opportunity to see and hear the meeting live and provide comments.
INSTRUCTIONS TO ACCESS THE VIRTUAL MEETING: If you have a computer, tablet
or smartphone, you can access the Zoom meeting by going to www.zoom.us and clicking on
“Join a Meeting”, and entering 944-393-1973 into the Meeting ID. You can also call in to the
Zoom meeting at +1 (929 436 2866).
0006-2021 Appeal of Jamie and Joe Slater, owners of 285 Burns Road, Tax Parcel No. 48.-1-14.62, are
seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section, 270-56 (C) (Accessory Buildings and Uses), section
270-60 (E)(2) (Accessory buildings), and section 270-59 (Height limitations) for a proposal to construct a
26 foot tall (two-story) 56’x42’ (3,024 square foot) agricultural accessory building, while also
maintaining an existing 200 square foot accessory building (10’x20’) on the property.
Town of Ithaca Code section 270-56 (C) allows up to three accessory buildings, other than a garage or a
building occupied by a detached accessory dwelling unit (in aggregate), not to exceed 2,000 square feet
when the lot is three acres or larger, where the current proposal is requesting to allow for a two-story
agricultural accessory building to be constructed (approximately, 3,024 square feet) and allow for an
existing accessory building (approximately 200 Square feet) to exist, totaling an approximate 3,224
square feet in area for all accessory buildings on the lot. Town of Ithaca Code section 270-60 (E)(2)
requires that accessory buildings (except for garages and woodsheds meeting the requirements of 270-
60G) to be placed in the rear yard, where the current proposal is proposing to construct an agricultural
accessory building in the front and side yard of the property. Town Code Section 270-59 allows for
accessory buildings to be a maximum of 15 feet in height, where the proposal is to construct a two-story
accessory building of approximately 26 feet in height.
The current project is proposed to be located in the Low-Density Residential Zone area of the property.
Marty Moseley
Director of Code Enforcement
You are receiving this notice because you live within 500 feet of a property requesting a
variance from the Town Code. Comments can be made during the meeting, or in writing
via mail to 215 N. Tioga St., or via email to ctorres@town.ithaca.ny.us
All comments become part of the official record.
Town of Ithaca
Notice of Public Hearing
Zoning Board of Appeals
Monday, May 17, 2021 at 6:00pm
215 N. Tioga St.
Due to public health and safety concerns related to COVID-19, the Zoning Board of
Appeals will not be meeting in-person. In accordance with the Governor’s Executive Order
202.1, this meeting will be held by video conferencing through the Zoom App. The public
will have an opportunity to see and hear the meeting live and provide comments.
INSTRUCTIONS TO ACCESS THE VIRTUAL MEETING: If you have a computer, tablet
or smartphone, you can access the Zoom meeting by going to www.zoom.us and clicking on
“Join a Meeting”, and entering 944-393-1973 into the Meeting ID. You can also call in to the
Zoom meeting at +1 (929 436 2866).
0007-2021 Appeal of David Mountin, owner of Tax Parcel No. 29.-7-12.42, is seeking relief from
Town of Ithaca Code section 270-73 (B) (Size and area of lot) and section 270-73 (C) (size and area of
lot) for a proposal to create a parcel of land, known as parcel A-1 identified on a preliminary subdivision
map dated 03/04/2021, that would consist of a 20 foot width at the street line and have a minimum width,
at the required front yard setback line of 20 feet. Town of Ithaca Code section 270-73 (B) requires that a
parcel of land have a minimum width at the street line of 60 feet, where the applicant is proposing to have
a minimum width of 20 feet at the street line. Town of Ithaca Code section 270-73 (C) requires that
requires that a parcel of land have a minimum width at the maximum required front yard setback line (50
feet from the street line) of 100 feet, where the applicant is proposing to have a minimum width of 20 feet
at the required front yard setback. The current project is proposed to be located in the Medium-Density
Residential Zone.
0008-2021 Appeal of David Mountin, owner of Tax Parcel No. 29.-7-12.42, is seeking relief from
Town of Ithaca Code section 270-73 (B) (Size and area of lot) and section 270-73 (C) (size and area of
lot) for a proposal to create a parcel of land, known as parcel A-2 identified on a preliminary subdivision
map dated 03/04/2021, that would consist of a 20 foot width at the street line and have a minimum width,
at the required front yard setback line of 20 feet. Town of Ithaca Code section 270-73 (B) requires that a
parcel of land have a minimum width at the street line of 60 feet, where the applicant is proposing to have
a minimum width of 20 feet at the street line. Town of Ithaca Code section 270-73 (C) requires that
requires that a parcel of land have a minimum width at the maximum required front yard setback line (50
feet from the street line) of 100 feet, where the applicant is proposing to have a minimum width of 20 feet
at the required front yard setback. The current project is proposed to be located in the Medium-Density
Residential Zone.
0009-2021 Appeal of David Mountin, owner of Tax Parcel No. 29.-7-12.42, is seeking relief from
Town of Ithaca Code section 270-73 (B) (Size and area of lot) and section 270-73 (C) (size and area of
lot) for a proposal to create a parcel of land, known as parcel A-3 identified on a preliminary subdivision
map dated 03/04/2021, that would consist of a 20 foot width at the street line and have a minimum width,
at the required front yard setback line of 20 feet. Town of Ithaca Code section 270-73 (B) requires that a
parcel of land have a minimum width at the street line of 60 feet, where the applicant is proposing to have
a minimum width of 20 feet at the street line. Town of Ithaca Code section 270-73 (C) requires that
requires that a parcel of land have a minimum width at the maximum required front yard setback line (50
feet from the street line) of 100 feet, where the applicant is proposing to have a minimum width of 20 feet
at the required front yard setback. The current project is proposed to be located in the Medium-Density
Residential Zone.
Marty Moseley
Director of Code Enforcement