HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2021-10-12Town of Ithaca
Zoning Board of Appeals
Tuesday, October 12, 2021@ 6:00pm
215 N. Tioga St.
Due to public health and safety concerns related to COVID-19 and NYS Legislation allowing
virtual meetings. The Public Hearing meeting for the Zoning Board of Appeals will be held by
video conferencing through the Zoom App with no in-person attendance permitted. The public
will have an opportunity to see and hear the meeting live and provide comments.
Agenda
0020-2021 Appeal David Mooney, owner of 1128 East Shore Drive, Tax Parcel No. 19.-2-4
0021-2021 Appeal of Barbara Alden and Ellen Baer, owners of 235 Dubois Road, Tax Parcel
No. 22.-2-1.313
0022-2021 Appeal of Matthieu Colle, owner of 121 Hillcrest Drive, Tax Parcel No. 26.-4-15
INSTRUCTIONS TO ACCESS THE MEETING VIRTUALLY: 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 852-5587-1576 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://us06web.zoom.us/j/85255871576
On the evening of, 10/12/2021, 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 video conference should be emailed to ctorres@town.ithaca.ny.us or (607)
273-1783 ext.2.
pg. 1
ZBA Minutes 2021-10-12 (Filed 2/11/2022)
Town of Ithaca
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
October 12, 2021
Draft Minutes
Present: David Squires, Acting Chair; Members Bill King, George Vignaux, Chris Jung
Alternates David Williams and David Filiberto. Absent: Rob Rosen
Staff: Marty Moseley, Director of Codes; Becky Jordan, Deputy Town Clerk and Susan Brock,
Attorney for the Town
Mr. Squires called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
0020-2021 Appeal of David Mooney, owner of 1128 East Shore Drive, Tax Parcel 19.-2-4, LF,
seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section, 270-43 (K) (7) and 270-43 (K) (9) (Permitted
accessory structures and uses) for a proposal to extend an existing dock by adding an 8’x 8’
extension/addition.
Mr. Squires read the legal notice.
Mr. Mosely stated a correction to the legal notice that Town Code section 270-43 (K) (7)
indicates 8’ in one direction so the application would comply with one direction being 8’, the
other direction being 15’ and a variance would not be needed for that specific request. The
applicant will still need a square foot variance.
Mr. Squires stated that the remaining variances would be the total area.
Applicant overview
Mr. Mooney stated his existing dock is 7’x40’ for a total of 280’ square feet and 7’ feet is too
narrow for a picnic table and chairs to entertain company without fear of falling off the dock.
The 8’x8” addition would add 64’ square feet for a total of 334’ square feet.
He stated that he has support from his neighbors, and the existing narrow length was a pre-
existing, non-conforming dock.
Discussion
Mr. Williams asked if it is common to have picnic tables on docks in the area and Mr. Mooney
replied that his neighbors have tables and chairs including Adirondack chairs on their docks.
Mr. Filiberto asked for confirmation that the applicant is building the extension to the south not
further west into the lake.
Mr. Mooney confirmed. There will be no extension to the west.
pg. 2
ZBA Minutes 2021-10-12 (Filed 2/11/2022)
Mr. Squires asked if there are many docks exceeding square footage over time.
Mr. Mosely replied that he doesn’t have the answer as to how many dock variance applications
have been received nor how many have been approved or denied at this time.
Ms. Brock stated that the Town revised its dock law 10 or 15 years ago. As a result, they
recognized that a number of docks then in existence would be allowed as prior nonconforming
uses that do exceed the numbers that the Town ended up with in its law. The Town wanted to
stop future docks or extensions from exceeding the limits of maximum square footage and no
more than 8’ in one direction and blocking views of the lake. Since then, there have been maybe
a handful of variance applications.
Mr. Filiberto asked if the plan was to build up and Mr. Mooney confirmed he was not, he just
wanted space to put a table and chairs.
Mr. Vignaux stated that any esthetics or character of the surroundings of the site are negligible,
and he has no problem with it.
Public Hearing
Mr. Squires opened the public hearing. There was no one wishing to address the Board and the
public hearing was closed.
SEQR Determination
Ms. Brock state that no SEQR is required as this is Type 2 “construction, expansion or placement
of a minor accessory or pertinent residential structure.”
ZBA Resolution 0020-2021 Area Variance
1128 East Shore Dr
TP 19.-2-4 LRZ
Resolved that this board grants the appeal of David Mooney, owner, seeking relief from Town of
Ithaca Code 270-43 (K) (9) (Permitted accessory structures and uses) for a proposal to modify an
existing dock by adding an 8’x8’ extension/addition, with the following
Conditions
1. The proposed extension shall be built substantially as shown in the application, and with
the following:
Findings
The benefit to the applicant does outweighs any detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of
the community, specifically:
pg. 3
ZBA Minutes 2021-10-12 (Filed 2/11/2022)
1. There will be no undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood, given that
there are similar docks of this size in the neighborhood and immediate neighbors and the
proposed extension runs parallel with the lake shore and will not obstruct the view of the
neighbors and no second story is proposed, and
2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by any other means feasible,
given the dock is a pre-existing non-conforming of with 280’ sqft of surface as it stands
and is only 7’ feet wide versus the 8’ feet allowed, which creates too narrow of a width to
safely accommodate seating, and
3. That the request is not substantial, given that the increase of 64’ sqft in surface area is
approximately 13% (24’sqft) over the maximum allowed of 320’ sqft , and
4. There will not be any adverse environmental impacts as evidenced by SEQR not being
required, and
5. That the alleged difficulty is self-created in that the applicant wishes to extend his deck,
but, nevertheless, the benefits outweigh any detriments for the reasons stated.
Moved by David Squires, seconded by George Vignaux
Vote: ayes – Squires, Vignaux, Jung, Filiberto Recused: Williams and King
0021-2021 Appeal of Barbara Alden and Ellen Baer, owners of 235 Dubois Road, Tax Parcel
No. 22.-2-1.313, are seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code Section, 270-62 (A) (Size and
Area of Lot), 270-62 (D) (Size and Area of Lot), 270-60 (B) (Yard regulations), 270-60 (C)
(Yard regulations), and 270-60 (E)(2) (Yard regulations) for a proposal to modify a lot line
between 235 Dubois Road and 239 Dubois Road.
Town of Ithaca Code section 270-62 (A) requires a minimum lot size of 30,000 square feet,
where the proposed lot size is approximately 24,925 square feet. Town of Ithaca Code section
270-62 (D) requires the minimum lot depth of 200’ (measured from the highway right of way),
where approximately169’is being proposed. Town of Ithaca Code section 270-60 (B) requires a
rear yard setback be a minimum of 50’, where the current rear yard setback is a approximately
26.3’. Town of Ithaca Code section 270-60 (C) requires side yards to be a minimum of 40 feet in
width, where the current building is located approximately 39.6’from the side yard property
Boundary line. Town Code section 270-60 (E) (2) requires that accessory buildings be placed in
the rear yard, where the current accessory building is located in the front yard.
Applicant overview
Ms. Alden stated that they own both lots and they are asking to reconfigure the lots to reduce the
size of the lot of 235 Dubois Road to a little over a half an acre as part of selling the property.
The property is basically a flag lot which also provides access to their home now due to water
pg. 4
ZBA Minutes 2021-10-12 (Filed 2/11/2022)
damage to their property directly adjacent to the flag portion of the lot where they used to access
their property from.
She stated that when the plan and survey was submitted, it was noticed that there would be
setback variances needed and a shed encroaching on setbacks.
Discussion
Mr. Vignaux asked why the applicant didn’t simply deed themselves permanent easement to
allow lot C entry over lot B and leave the existing lot lines where they are, where no variances
would be needed.
Ms. Brock responded that owners cannot grant to themselves an easement between two lots they
own in fee title because under NYS law, they would merge into one fee title. There is an option
to have as a condition of the sale that upon closing and conveyance of lot B to a different owner
the different owner can convey the easement to lot C.
Mr. Squires asked about the 2009 variance the applicants received on these parcels which stated
that Lot C would not be subdivided.
Ms. Brock stated that in 2009 the applicants proposed that lot B be deficient in area which was
push back against by the then ZBA and they returned with a revised plan adding the flag lot
configuration to lot B so it would comply.
Ms. Alden commented that that restriction was suggested by her back then because she
understood subdivision to mean breaking off a piece of land, not this type of adjustment and
during that process, they suggested we do what we did. The intent was not to ever do this, but
after spending $5,000 on a French drain that still hasn’t solved the access issue, this seemed the
best way.
Ms. Alden responded that they tossed around the idea of an easement but decided it creates
complexity in neighborly relations, adding that she had a shared easement with a past property
and it seemed restrictive and confusing on who is responsible for maintenance and similar issues
and the current buyer would rather just have ownership. The net gain is about a 6’ foot addition
to their property, with the driveway ownership retained by them and the existing permanent
ROW easement for access to 235 and 243 Dubois Rd.
Public Hearing
Mr. Squires opened the public hearing at 6:42 p.m. There was no one wishing to address the
Board and the public hearing was closed.
SEQR Determination
Ms. Brock advised that SEQRA is needed for minimum lot size for lot B while all other
variances are type 2 actions and not subject to SEQRA review.
pg. 5
ZBA Minutes 2021-10-12 (Filed 2/11/2022)
The Board decided to group the resolutions by the area variances for the house and shed setbacks
and the lot line adjustments and associated area variances for lot depth and coverage.
ZBA Resolution 0021-2021a SEQR and Area Variances
235 Dubois Rd, TP 22.-2-1.313
Motion made by Mr. Squires, seconded by Mr. Vignaux, to make a negative declaration of
environmental significance for the minimum lot size variance, based upon the information in
Parts 1 & 2 and for the reasons stated in Part 3 noting that the other variances are not subject to
SEQR.
Vote: ayes – Squires, Vignaux, King, Jung and Williams
ZBA Resolution 0021-2021b Area Variances (Setbacks)
235 Dubois Rd, TP 22.-2-1.313
Resolved that this board grants the request of Barbara Alden and Ellen Baer, owners of 235
Dubois Road, Tax Parcel No. 22.-2-1.313, seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code Section,
270-62 (A) (Size and Area of Lot), 270-62 (D) (Size and Area of Lot), 270-60 (B) (Yard
regulations), 270-60 (C) (Yard regulations), and 270-60 (E)(2) (Yard regulations) for the
proposed lot line modification between 235 Dubois Road and 239 Dubois Road, specifically
regarding the side yard and rear yard setbacks and the shed placement, with the following
Findings:
That the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the
community in that
1. The benefit the applicant wishes to achieve cannot be achieved by any other means
feasible, given the house was constructed approximately 6 years ago under building
permits issued and inspections made by the Town of Ithaca; the rear yard has a slight
terrace limiting placement of shed in the rear yard as well as placement there resulting in
a possible minor obstruction of access for 239 Dubois Rd., and
2. a. The rear yard setback request is substantial given that the existing is approximately
26’.3” feet where a minimum of 50’ feet is required; and
b. the side yard is not substantial in that the side yard setback is approximately 39’.6” feet
where 40’ feet is required; and
c. the shed placement is substantial given that sheds are not permitted in the front year,
but this is mitigated by trees screening it from the adjacent property and the layout of the
driveway is such that the shed appears to be behind the house, and
pg. 6
ZBA Minutes 2021-10-12 (Filed 2/11/2022)
3. There will not be any adverse physical or environmental affects for the reasons stated in
Part 3 of the environmental assessment form, and
4. There will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or detriment to
nearby properties given that the house has been on the property for approximately 6 years
and shed for approximately 5 years and the shed is screened from adjacent property and
from the road as stated above, and
5. The difficulty is self-created in that the applicant is presumed to know the zoning
requirements for placement of the house and setback requirements and shed regulations,
and with the following
Conditions:
1. That the house and shed not be modified in any way that would increase the
encroachment into the setbacks, or the shed moved or replaced other than in accordance
with the Town Code of the time, and
2. That the applicants execute an encroachment license with the Town of Ithaca, acceptable
to the Attorney for the Town, permitting the shed to remain over the Town’s sewer
line/sewer easement.
Moved: David Squires Seconded: Christine Jung
Vote: ayes – Squires, Jung, Williams, King and Vignaux
Discussion on the lot size and depth associated with shifting the lot lines followed, and the
Board was not in favor of doing the line adjustments or subdivision because there is the feasible
alternative of executing an easement for access which would keep within the conditions set in the
previous variance granted by the Zoning Board at that time.
ZBA Resolution 0021-2021c Area Variances (Lot Size/Lot Depth)
235 Dubois Rd, TP 22.-2-1.313
Resolved that this Board denies the request of Barbara Alden and Ellen Baer, owners, 235
Dubois Road, TP 22.-2-1.313, seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code Section, 270-62 (A)
(Size and Area of Lot), 270-62 (D) (Size and Area of Lot), 270-60 (B) (Yard regulations), 270-
60 (C) (Yard regulations), and 270-60 (E)(2) (Yard regulations) for the proposed lot line
modification between 235 Dubois Road and 239 Dubois Road, specifically, the variances
associated with minimum lot size and minimum lot depth with the following:
Findings:
That the detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community outweighs the benefit to
the applicant, specifically
pg. 7
ZBA Minutes 2021-10-12 (Filed 2/11/2022)
1. That the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve to access the rear part of 239 Dubois Rd
property can be achieved by other means feasible, namely an easement upon conveyance
of 235 Dubois Rd to owners other than the current owners of 239 Dubois Rd, to use the
parcel of land that was proposed to be subdivided off to 239 Dubois Rd., and
2. That there would not be an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to
nearby properties as there are no visible changes to the structures or their placement, and
3. That the request is substantial in that 30,000 square feet is the minimum required lot size
and the proposed lot size as proposed is approximately 24,925 square feet and the
minimum required lot depth is 200’ feet and the proposed lot depth is approximately 169’
feet, and
4. That the request will not have adverse physical or environmental effects for the reasons
stated in the environmental assessment form part 3, and
5. That the alleged difficulty is self-created in that the applicant wishes to adjust the lot lines
in the manner described, and this Board finds that there are feasible alternatives as stated
above.
Moved: David Williams Seconded: George Vignaux
Vote: ayes – Squires, Jung, Vignaux, Williams, King
0022-2021 Appeal of Matthieu Colle, owner of 121 Hillcrest Drive, Tax Parcel No. 26.-4-15, is
seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section, 270-71 (A) and 270-71 (F) (yard regulations)
for a proposal to construct a single-family dwelling.
Applicant overview
Applicants shared a short presentation stating that the lot is situated on a quiet dead-end, single-
track dirt road with lots of trees lining the road. The property line is not along the road as there
is a little strip of land between lot and road believed to be owned by the Town then a quick drop
from the road then a downhill slope with a lot of brush and old growth trees.
The 25’ setback would mean the house would need to be further down the hill about 50’ from the
road meaning and would have to be raised up requiring a longer driveway, more concrete and
fill, more truck trips on the single-track dirt road and the cutting of mature trees and brush.
Being permitted to build within the setback would put the house at 17’ to property line and 31’ –
38’ to the road with the strip of land between our lot and the road. This would make the
driveway parallel to the road and less impact on the existing natural landscape.
He added that there are no neighbors in sight and so it would not be in anyone’s viewshed and it
seems there are existing houses within the setbacks identified in the Code from long ago.
pg. 8
ZBA Minutes 2021-10-12 (Filed 2/11/2022)
Ms. Brock asked about the stated ownership of the strip, saying that the line could be the “real”
width of the road. She added that she researched the deed, which shows the property abuts the
road.
Mr. Colle responded that the Bergrenn family stated that the town owns the strip and stated they
do not own to the road.
The architect, Kristin, added that she called the Town Clerk who assured her that the town
owned the strip.
A neighbor who was at the meeting said that there is a strip like that, but it is a ROW, not a
property line and the road is not a town road on top of that.
Ms. Brock responded that the deed shows the properties abut the road, and the Board should
consider the property line as the edge of the road rather than the distances the applicants stated
because the road is bigger than what may be “traveled” and it should be the road ROW. The odd
shape could also be due to the “OH” marking which means “overhead lines”.
Ms. Brock read from the deed.
Public Hearing
Mr. Squires opened the public hearing at 8:00 p.m.
A neighbor spoke, saying she has no problem with the request and that her property map shows
the same unusual strip in front of her property.
There was no one else wishing to address the Board and the hearing was closed.
Discussion
Ms. Jung asked if the dead-end drive would ever become linked to Rte 96 making it open and
Mr. Mosely replied that he is not aware of any such plan and it doesn’t seem possible to extend
the roadway beyond the cul-de-sac with Candlewyck apartments so close.
Mr. Moseley shared pictures of the site he took which showed other houses on that side of the
road very close to the road, one being 13’ feet from the edge of the road.
Mr. King added that it is a unique lot and is consistent with the other setbacks in the
neighborhood and pushing the house further down the hill would not make sense
environmentally as trees and shrubs would have to be removed, and the proposed house is
modest in size and the proposed position is good considering the topography.
Mr. Squires stated that he is familiar with the road because he lives a few blocks away and there
are many houses much less than 60’ feet from the road due to the slope and he is sympathetic to
the issues as his lot is also steep.
pg. 9
ZBA Minutes 2021-10-12 (Filed 2/11/2022)
Ms. Jung stated that the property lines make it look like a shorter setback, but effectively, it is
not a bad setback.
Ms. Brock stated that SEQR is not required as this is a Type II action area variance for a single-
family dwelling.
ZBA Resolution 0022-2021 Area Variance
121 Hillcrest Dr
TP 26.-4-15 MDR
Resolved that this Board grants the appeal of Matthieu Colle, owner, 121 Hillcrest Dr., TP 26.-4-
15, from Town of Ithaca Code section, 270-71 (A) and 270-71 (F) (yard regulations) to build a
single-family dwelling with the following
Findings:
That the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the
community, specifically
1. The benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible given the steep slope of the lot as
it falls from the road and the large trees which would have to be cut to meet the Code
requirements, and
2. That there will not be any undesirable change to the neighborhood character or detriment
to nearby properties given that the adjacent property to the south has similar setbacks and
other homes further south appear to also be within the required setbacks to the property
line, and
3. That the request is substantial in that the required front yard must be at least 25’ feet in
depth and the proposal is for 7’ feet for the house and 25’ feet is required for the attached
garage where 17’ feet is proposed, however, this is mitigated by the fact that the road is a
narrow single track private road with very little traffic with abundant vegetation between
the road and the proposed home shielding the home from travelers giving a sense of it
being further from the road, and
4. That the request will not have any adverse physical or environmental affects given that no
SEQR is required and the applicant is attempting to minimize the amount fill and number
of trees to be cut when building the home, and
5. That the difficulty is self-created in that the applicant wishes to build closer to the road,
but that is exacerbated by the constraints of the topography, and on balance, this Board
finds that the benefit to the applicant does outweigh detriment to the health, safety, and
welfare of the community, and with the following
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
Tuesday, October 12, 2021, at 6:00pm
215 N. Tioga St.
Due to the public health and safety concerns relating to COVID-19 and NYS Legislation
allowing virtual meetings, the Zoning Board of Appeals will not be meeting in-person. 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 MEETING VIRTUALLY: 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 851-5587-1576 into the Meeting ID. You can also call in to
the Zoom meeting at +1 (929 436 2866).
0020-2021 Appeal David Mooney, owner of 1128 East Shore Drive, Tax Parcel No. 19.-2-4, is
seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section, 270-43 (K)(7) and 270-43 (K)(9) (Permitted
accessory structures and uses) for a proposal modify an existing dock to by adding an 8’x8’
extension/addition.
Town of Ithaca Code section 270-43 (K)(7) requires waterfront structures and docks that include
a “L” "T" or "U" extension not to exceed eight feet in at least one dimension (length or width),
where the proposed dock extension/addition would provide for the “L” shape of the dock to be
approximately 15 feet. Town of Ithaca Code section 270-43 (K)(9) requires a maximum surface
area for docks (in aggregate) not to exceed 320 square feet, where the proposed dock
extension/addition would increase the total size of the deck to approximately 344 square feet.
The current property is located in the Lakefront Residential Zone.
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
Tuesday, October 12, 2021, at 6:00pm
215 N. Tioga St.
Due to the public health and safety concerns relating to COVID-19 and NYS Legislation
allowing virtual meetings, the Zoning Board of Appeals will not be meeting in-person. 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 MEETING VIRTUALLY: 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 851-5587-1576 into the Meeting ID. You can also call in to
the Zoom meeting at +1 (929 436 2866).
0021-2021 Appeal of Barbara Alden and Ellen Baer, owners of 235 Dubois Road, Tax Parcel
No. 22.-2-1.313, are seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section, 270-62 (A) (Size and area
of lot), 270-62 (D) (Size and area of lot), 270-60 (B) (Yard regulations), 270-60 (C) (Yard
regulations), and 270-60 (E)(2) (Yard regulations) for a proposal to modify a lot line between
235 Dubois Road and 293 Dubois Road.
Town of Ithaca Code section 270-62 (A) requires a minimum lot size of 30,000 square feet,
where the proposed lot size is approximately 24,925 square feet. Town of Ithaca Code section
270-62 (D) requires the minimum lot depth of 200’ (measured from the highway right of way),
where approximately 169’ is being proposed. Town of Ithaca Code section 270-60 (B) requires a
rear yard setback be a minimum of 50’, where the current rear yard setback is approximately
26.3’. Town of Ithaca Code section 270-60 (C) requires side yards to be a minimum of 40 feet in
width, where the current building is located approximately 39.6’ from the side yard property
boundary line. Town Code section 270-60 (E)(2) requires that accessory buildings be placed in
the rear yard, where the current accessory building is located in the front yard.
The current property is located in the Low-Density Residential Zone.
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
Tuesday, October 12, 2021, at 6:00pm
215 N. Tioga St.
Due to the public health and safety concerns relating to COVID-19 and NYS Legislation
allowing virtual meetings, the Zoning Board of Appeals will not be meeting in-person. 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 MEETING VIRTUALLY: 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 851-5587-1576 into the Meeting ID. You can also call in to
the Zoom meeting at +1 (929 436 2866).
0022-2021 Appeal of Matthieu Colle, owner of 121 Hillcrest Drive, Tax Parcel No. 26.-4-15, is
seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section, 270-71 (A) and 270-71 (F) (Yard Regulations)
for a proposal to construct -a single family dwelling.
Town of Ithaca Code section 270-71 (A) requires that the front yard be not less than 25 feet in
depth, where the building is proposed to be approximately 7’ as measured to the front yard
property boundary line. Town of Ithaca Code section 270-71 (F) requires an attached or
detached garage be no less than 25’ from the front property boundary line, where the attached
garage is proposed to be approximately 17 feet from the front property boundary line.
The current property is located in the Medium Density Residential Zone.
Marty Moseley
Director of Code Enforcement