►
From YouTube: Board of Zoning Appeals - September 12, 2023
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
I
hereby
call
to
order
the
city
of
Ithaca
Board
of
zoning
appeals
meeting
for
September
12
2023.
The
board
operates
under
the
provisions
of
the
Ithaca
City
Charter
Ithaca
zoning
ordinance,
Ithaca
sign
ordinance
and
the
board's
own
rules
of
procedure.
The
board
comprises
five
members
nominated
by
the
mayor
and
approved
by
Common
Council
board.
A
Members
present
tonight
are
Joseph
Kirby,
Marshall
McCormick,
as
well
as
planner
Sam
Quinn
Jacobs
and
deputy
director
of
planning,
Megan
Wilson
Staff
to
the
board
I
Andre
Gardner
Vice,
chair
of
the
board
board
board
member
Mike
Cannon,
will
be
joining
us
after
the
first
appeal,
so
Mike.
If
you
want
to
recuse
yourself.
A
The
secretary
to
the
board,
Megan
Wilson,
will
call
each
case
in
the
order
listed
on
the
agenda.
Helens
will
then
have
a
maximum
of
five
minutes
to
present
new
material
or
light
or
highlight
aspects
of
their
appeal
board.
Members,
May
question
appellants
or
any
on
any
areas
requiring
clarification.
A
Full
consideration
of
appeals
requires
a
public
hearing
deliberation
and
then
voting
by
the
board.
These
actions
occur
only
after
the
appellant
has
filed
appropriate
documents
with
the
zoning
Division
and
planning
and
development
board
public
hearings,
including
testimony
from
interested
parties.
The
board
considers
interested
parties,
persons
who
live
work
or
own
property
within
750
key
to
the
property
who
are
authorized,
representatives
of
recognized
adjacent
neighborhood,
Civics
associations
or
who
are
elected.
A
City
officials
board
members,
May
question
intensifying
interested
parties
on
any
areas
requiring
verification
persons
who
do
not
meet
the
board's
interested
party
definition
will
not
be
heard.
Comments
are
limited
to
three
minutes.
Appellants
will
then
be
allowed
to
rebut
opposing
testimony,
but
appellants
comments
must
be
limited
to
strict
medal
of
the
issues
raised
by
those
opposed
and
will
be
limited
to
five
minutes.
A
A
timer
will
sound
at
the
end
of
each
speaker's
a
lot
of
times,
while
we
do
not
hear
to
a
strict
rules
of
evidence,
we
do
consider
this
a
quasi-judicial
procedure
and
we'll
base
our
decisions.
On
the
official
record,
the
official
record
can
consists
of
application
materials
filed
with
the
zoning,
Division
and
correspondence
related
to
cases
received
by
the
zoning
division.
The
planning
and
development
board's
own
findings
and
recommendations.
If
any
and
the
record
of
tonight's
meetings,
an
audio
recording,
is
being
made
of
this
meeting.
A
Therefore
it
is
essential
anyone
wanting
to
be
heard
comes
forward
and
speaks
directly
into
a
microphone.
So
they're
comments
are
recorded
and
heard
by
all
presence.
Extraneous
comments
from
the
audience
will
neither
be
recorded
nor
considered
by
the
board.
We
ask
everyone
to
limit
their
comments
to
the
zoning
issues
of
each
appeal
and
not
comment
on
matters
beyond
the
board's
purview
following
the
appellants
rebuttal,
the
appeal
here
and
will
be
closed
and
the
board
will
begin
deliberation.
The
board
is
required
to
render
a
decision
within
62
days
of
the
public
hearing
enclosure.
A
Once
the
hearing
is
closed
and
further
testimony
will
be
taken.
It
takes
three
votes
to
approve
a
motion
or
to
Grant.
Favorable
interpretation
in
the
event
of
a
tie.
Appeal
is
denied.
Tonight's
appeals
are
available
for
public
review
on
the
table
in
the
back,
as
well
as
on
the
city
website.
There
please
be
advised
there
are
two
exits
from
common
Council
chamber
there
and
there
the
one
you're
used
to
enter
at
the
rear
of
the
room
and
at
the
one
of
the
chambers
Megan.
Will
you
call
the
first
case.
B
This
is
appeal
of
property,
owner
Ithaca,
Neighborhood,
Housing
Services
for
an
area
variance
from
section
325,
8
column,
seven,
lat
width
in
column,
12,
side
yard,
requirements
of
the
zoning
ordinance.
The
applicant
proposes
to
demolish
an
existing
single-family
home
and
construct
a
new
three-bedroom
single-family
residence
located
at
215
Cleveland
Avenue.
The
r2b
zoning
regulations
require
a
minimum
lot
width
of
35
feet
and
the
existing
property
is
33
feet
wide
at
the
street.
In
addition,
the
proposed
project
will
provide
an
eight-foot
side
yard
where
a
minimum
of
10
feet
is
required.
B
A
Leslie,
if
you
want
to
start
with
your
presentation,
you've
got
five
minutes
and
we've
got
your
information.
Sure.
C
Great,
thank
you.
Everyone
I
know
you
do
have
my
information
and
I
assume
that
you've
all
had
a
chance
to
look
at
the
background
materials
on
the
project.
C
I
can
pull
up
the
visuals
if
you
would
like
or
if
it's
easier
Megan
and
you
want
to
pull
them
up
on
the
screen
there.
Basically
I
I
think
things
are
fairly
straightforward
with
what
I
was
going
to
show
you.
If
I
have
the
name,
do
I
have
the
ability
to
share.
B
You
can,
if
you'd
like
or
okay
I,
can
pull
it
up,
whichever
you
prefer.
C
I'm
gonna
go
ahead,
I
did
make
a
I
did
make
a
that
might
not
be
the
right
one
nope.
That
is
not
the
right.
One
new
share.
B
While
Leslie's
finding
that
file
I
did
just
want
to
let
board
members
know
that
the
audio
system
for
the
meeting
in
the
zoom
has
been
changed,
so
it's
pulling
through
the
microphones
now,
so
you
need
to
make
sure
to
speak
into
it
and
turn
it
on
which
I
just
forgot.
C
There
we
go
all
right
if
you
see
in
front
of
you.
Hopefully
you
see
I've
put
together
the
two
images
of
the
site
as
it
stands
right
now
and
with
our
proposed
new
construction.
Very
sadly,
the
existing
house
is
not
structurally
sound
because,
as
you
know,
we
did
want
to
rehabilitate
it.
C
The
the
proposed
new
house
is
going
to
be
deeper,
but
it's
going
to
be
narrower,
and
so
we
will
actually
have
a
much
more
compliant
building
with
the
proposed
layout.
The
lot
itself,
as
you
know,
is
only
33
feet
wide,
so
it's
two
feet
wide
two
feet
shorter
than
the
required
depth
and
obviously
there's
nothing
that
we
can
do
to
magically
make
the
lot
wide
enough
to
fit
the
35
foot
minimum.
C
But
as
far
as
the
the
other
issues,
the
side,
one
of
the
side,
setbacks
is
going
to
be
non-compliant.
At
present,
we've
got
about
a
foot
on
one
side
in
about
eight
feet
on
the
other,
and
the
proposed
new
layout
is
going
to
have
five
feet
on
one
side.
That's
on
the
west
side
over
here,
and
you
can
see
that,
because
the
house
has
one
section
that
is
a
little
bit
wider.
This
area
here
is
only
going
to
be
eight
feet,
so
that
would
be
deficient
short
of
the
two,
the
ten
feet.
C
This
section
will
be
compliant,
but
obviously
this
this
is
the
minimum
here,
the
the
house
is
is
quite
narrow,
and
so
if
we
were
to
try
to
do
something
to
to
redesign
this
house,
this
is
a
a
section
with
their
where
their
stairs
and
the
alternative
to
the
design
that
we
have
would
be
the
stairs
being
inside
the
living
area.
The
body
of
the
the
rest
of
that
shape
there
and
it's
already
a
pretty
a
pretty
narrow,
layout
and
a
pretty
modestly
sized
house.
C
So
we
thought
that
that
would
really
compromise
the
usable
space
of
the
the
house.
So
this
was
the
layout
we
ended
up
with.
C
C
The
rest
of
the
story
of
the
house
basically,
is
that
it's
going
to
be
lead
gold
certified
and
we
believe
we're
going
to
be
able
to
achieve
Net,
Zero
ready
and
it
will
become
part
of
the
Community
Housing
Trust,
which
is
our
affordable,
our
permanently
affordable
for
sale,
housing
program
and
we're
very
excited
to
turn
the
property
back
into
productive
homeownership
use.
So
that's
the
the
sort
of
quick
overview.
A
See
no
questions
from
the
board.
The
top
and
public
comments.
B
Okay,
so
for
this
appeal,
I,
don't
have
anyone
signed
up
to
speak
and
either
support
our
opposition,
but
we
did
read
or
we
did
receive
a
letter
of
support
which
I'll
read
into
the
record
now
Dear
honorable
members
of
the
city
of
Ithaca
Board
of
zoning
appeals.
We
are
writing
an
enthusiastic
support
of
appeal
number
3256
in
which
Ithaca
Neighborhood
Housing
Services
seeks
an
area
variance
to
build
a
new
house
at
215,
Cleveland
Avenue,
the
backyard
of
our
home
on
Clinton
Street
is
adjacent
to
the
backyard
of
the
property
in
question.
B
Inhs
would
replace
the
vacant
and
uninhabitable
structure
at
2,
15
Cleveland,
with
a
new
energy,
efficient
and
affordable
home,
something
very
much
needed
in
our
neighborhood
and
around
the
city.
We
are
very
much
looking
forward
to
new
neighbors
and
we
urge
you
to
Grant
this
variance,
sincerely
Kelly
and
Gary
Gates
618,
West,
Clinton
Street,
and
then
our
this
is
the
only
comment
I
have.
D
Sure
I
don't
see
any
issues
with
this
I
I
have
an
invested
interest,
I'll
say,
but
I
did
one
time
consider
buying
a
house
on
buying
a
property
on
Cleveland
Ave
to
build
a
house
and
it
it
looked
like
it
was
gonna,
be
very
difficult,
so
I
I
feel
for
the
for
the
property
owners
and
I
think
that
it's
a
a
completely
reasonable
variance
is
given
the
small
size
of
the
Lots
along
in
that
area.
E
Yeah
I
agree
with
Marshall
I.
Don't
have
any
real
problems
with
this.
It's
a
relatively
modest
ask
it's
a
tough
lot
to
deal
with
and
I
think
making
it
as
Slim
as
you
have
saving
for
that
build
out
for
the
stairs
is
a
good,
reasonable
plan
of
action.
So
yeah
I've
got
no
real
problems
here.
A
I
agree
with
the
feedback
of
the
other
members
of
the
board.
I
think
they've
developed
a
project
that
allows
them
to
come
to
the
board
and
make
the
smallest
possible
variance
request.
It's
also,
you
know
less
than
the
existing
building
on
structure.
So
you
know
any
neighborhood
impacts
or
you
know
minimized
relative
to
the
status
quo,
so
I
have
no
issues
moving
it
Forward.
Would
anyone
like
to
put
a
motion
to
Grant
or
I?
Guess
hypothetically
deny
an
emotional
thank
you.
D
I
moved
to
Grant
variants,
three
two:
five:
six
for
215
Cleveland
Avenue
when
we're
considering
an
undesirable
change
being
produced
in
the
character
of
the
neighborhood
and
or
a
detriment
to
nearby
properties.
D
D
Whether
the
benefits
sought
by
the
applicant
could
be
achieved
by
a
feasible
alternative
for
the
variants.
There
are
there's
one
such
variance
for
the
width
of
the
lot
that
cannot
given
that
that
is
the
size
of
the
lot.
There
are
others,
conceivably
where
a
more
narrow
house
or
a
longer
driveway
could
theoretically
be
constructed,
but,
as
has
been
noted
into
the
record,
would
not
be
as
habitable
of
a
property
as
what
they
have
as
what
they
have
planned
for
here.
D
Similarly,
we
do
not
find
that
the
variances
that
have
been
requested
are
substantial.
We
do
not
see
that
there
will
be
an
impact,
an
adverse
impact
on
the
physical
or
environmental
conditions
of
the
neighborhood.
If
anything,
they
may
be
improved
by
reducing
the
existing
variances
on
the
property
and
building
a
house
that
is
habitable
and
can
be
used.
It
can
be
added
to
the
Ithaca
housing
stock
and
whether
or
not
the
alleged
difficulty
was
self-created
in
some
regard.
F
B
B
Okay:
okay,
our
next
appeal
is
number
3257
for
510
West,
State,
Street
property
owner
Ithaca
office.
Space
LLC
is
seeking
an
area
of
variance
from
section
325,
8
column,
nine,
maximum
Building
height
in
feet
in
column,
1415,
rear
yard
requirements
of
the
zoning
ordinance
in
order
to
construct
a
four
to
five
story:
mixed-use
building
on
a
new
Consolidated
lot.
G
Good
evening,
thank
you
for
having
us.
My
name
is
Julia
Booker
and
I'm
with
wisdom.
Development
group,
together
with
me,
I,
have
Catherine
Cullen
with
vizim
as
well,
and
there's
Eric
Reynolds
have
a
br
architecture
and
Noah
Demarest
with
stream
collaborative
who
will
be
helping
us
present.
The
requests
for
the
stately
Apartments
tonight.
H
So
we're
here
essentially
to
update
a
previously
granted
variant.
This
is
a
project
that
was
approved
I,
guess
more
than
two
years
ago,
through
both
planning
board
and
then
also
with
a
couple
of
variances
that
we
had
gone
through
as
well.
The
reason
for
coming
back
is
because
the
project
was
delayed
in
seeking
funding
for
affordable
housing
funding
and
as
a
result
of
that,
the
variance
expired.
H
We
were
able
to
update
or
extend
the
planning
board
approval
and
and
but
unfortunately,
I
guess.
As
far
as
we're
aware,
that's
not
the
same
case
for
variances.
They
actually
expire.
So
so,
unfortunately,
we're
back
but
we're
essentially
presenting
exactly
the
same
variants
that
was
previously
approved.
I
know
a
number
of
the
board.
Members
might
be
different
from
that
at
that
time,
so
I'm
happy
to
walk
through
exactly
what
those
variances
are
and
I
don't
know.
H
If,
if
you
need
that
much
detail
or
I
guess,
I
would
look
to
you
to
guide
me
again
happy
to
do
that,
but
it's
I
don't
want
to
waste
anyone's
time.
I!
Guess!
If
there's,
if
there's
already
understanding
of
what
those
variances
are.
H
Yeah-
and
that
is
the
more
significant
one,
so
we
do
have
a
rear
yard
setback,
which
is
only
six
inches,
and
then
we
have
a
height
variance
in
the
CBD
50,
which
is
only
off
by
seven
inches
from
what's
required,
but
the
bigger
one
is
that
44
feet,
5
inches
and
that's
the
result
of
a
the
project
being
a
single
building.
H
That's
actually
spanning
two
different
zones
and
we
are
holding
the
topography
at
State.
Street
is
about
two
feet
higher
than
the
topography
on
Seneca,
Street
and
so
as
part
of
our
constructability
of
this
project
and
trying
to
aim
for
efficiency
and
and
affordability.
We're
trying
to
maintain
the
same
exact
floor
levels
across
the
entire
building,
because,
as
you
might
imagine,
any
sort
of
stepping
or
ramping
internal
to
the
building
really
complicates
things
significantly.
H
However,
our
desire
is
to
really
maintain
those
floor
levels
all
the
way
through,
so
we're
carrying
that
12
feet
into
that
zone
and
that's
accounting
for
the
additional
two
feet
effectively.
So
that's
that's
really
the
what's
driving
the
four
feet.
Five
inch
discrepancy
between
what's
allowed
the
40
feet
is
allowed
and
44
feet.
Five
inches
is
what
we're
proposing.
A
H
H
The
problem
is
it's
kind
of
All
or
Nothing,
given
modular
construction
or
using
drywall,
for
example,
and
and
the
efficiency
of
studs
wood,
studs
and
and
drywall
you,
basically
you
either
get
eight
feet
or
you
get
nine
feet
doing
anything
in
between,
creates
a
situation
where
you're
trimming
off
and
wasting
a
lot
of
material.
So
that's
that
is
part
of
it
as
well.
We're
aiming
for
a
sort
of
upgraded
feeling
for
these
units
more
livable
at
nine
feet,
and
it
also
helps
with
some
utility
things
as
well.
H
I
would
imagine
so
yeah
that
explains
the
further
explains
sort
of
how
much
of
the
variants
we're
asking
for.
H
You
well
no,
it's
it's
it's
nine
feet
of
sheetrock
to
the
underside
of
the
ceiling
and
then
there's
yeah,
there's
about
a
foot
of
structure
and
Eric,
probably
knows
more
details
than
I
do
at
this
point
in
terms
exactly
where
things
are
ending
up.
But
it's
it's
roughly
10
feet
floor
to
floor
with
nine
foot
ceilings.
H
So
it
is
fairly
common
actually
and
and
it's
not,
that
you
can
get
either
nine
foot
sheets
or
you
it's
complicated,
but
you
can
get
48
inch
sheets
and
54
inch
sheets
and
that
allows
you
to
get
to
the
to
the
nine
feet.
Basically
without
a
lot
of
waste.
A
I'm
I
have
no
other
questions
unless
any
other
members
of
the
board.
Are
you
guys
done
with
your
presentation,
or
would
you
like
to
take
another
couple
notes.
H
A
B
So
we
did
not
receive
any
comments
or
in
support
or
have
anyone
signed
up
to
speak
in
either
support
or
opposition.
I
did
receive
two
written
comments
today
that
I
will
read
so
the
first
is
I'm
an
owner
of
a
property,
two
doors
down
that
will
be
directly
impacted
by
this
project.
I'd
like
to
know
how
you
intend
to
monitor
for
any
structural
impacts.
Your
project
may
have
on
your
neighbor's
property.
My
building
is
mixed
use,
1865,
three-story,
masonry,
building
built
on
a
Fieldstone
foundation
with
a
full
basement.
B
It's
a
mixed
use,
mixed
commercial
and
residential,
so
there's
24,
7
usage
I
feel
that
it's
necessary
to
monitor
the
structure,
especially
during
the
demolition
process.
Deep
pile
driving
in
the
Foundation
Building
phases
of
the
project
I
want
to
maintain
the
public
safety
for
the
residents
of
my
building
and
the
patrons
of
the
businesses
that
occupy
the
building.
I
am
requesting
monitored
engineering
paid
for
by
bism
for
my
property,
as
well
as
others
of
similar
construction
nearby
as
per
standard
practice.
B
I
B
The
next
comment
is
I'm,
the
owner
of
the
building
located
at
512
West,
State
Street
and
the
owner
of
Maro
ramen
restaurant,
which
operates
the
in
the
building
regarding
the
510
West
State
Street
project
I
have
two
major
concerns
as
the
building
owner
in
the
restaurant
operator.
Immediately
next
to
the
project
site,
one,
the
restaurant
Maro
Ramen,
has
been
in
operation
peacefully
for
the
past
six
years
and
I
want
to
minimize
any
negative
business
impact
from
the
project.
B
The
project
should
not
obstruct
the
walking
pathway
for
our
customers
in
any
manner
and
keep
the
noise
and
dust
level
to
a
minimum
during
business
hours.
Two
there's
a
shared
driveway
between
the
project
site,
510,
West
State
and
my
building
512
West
State,
which
leads
to
the
parking
lot
behind
my
building
for
our
tenants
and
restaurant.
This
driveway
should
never
be
obstructed
at
any
given
time.
The
driveway
is
being
used
by
tenants
and
delivery
trucks
on
a
daily
basis,
sincerely
Chris
Kim
owner
of
512
West
State
Street.
H
Yeah
I
might
look
to
either
vism
or
Eric
to
talk
about
the
monitoring,
as
well
as
the
the
shared
access
I
think.
Those
are
those
are
things
that
are
very
much
on
their
their
minds
and
I'm
sure
they
have
been
working
on
it.
So
maybe
it
I
don't
know
Julia
or
Catherine
or
Eric
want
to
jump
in
and
talk
about
those.
F
So
this
was
another
question
that
came
up
during
the
planning
board
process,
so
I
I
kind
of
heard
almost
two
questions
in
that
in
there
so
first
one
related
to
maybe
foundations
and
underground
excavation
work
and
that
sort
of
thing.
So
we
did
review
this
during
the
planning
board
process.
F
But
there
was
a
report
done
by
our
engineering
staff
and
the
folks
that
are
performing
the
work
about
the
process
in
which
the
foundations
are
going
to
be
constructed
to
to
share
to
just
I
guess
sum
that
up
vibration
monitoring
is
not
something
that's
required
with
that,
and
there's
not
a
huge
amount
of
disturbance,
we're
not
driving
piles
or
anything
that
is
very
disruptive
on
this
site,
we're
using
a
system
that
is
basically
ground
stabilization.
So
we
do
not
have
any
fiber
Tory
foundation
work
or
anything
like
that.
F
So
again,
I
would
maybe
encourage
to
dig
out
some
of
those
pieces
that
we
had
provided
probably
previously
a
couple
years
ago.
F
There
are
some
letters
from
the
engineering
staff
and
going
over
that
piece
and
then
maybe
the
second
part
for
sort
of
above
ground
work
and
that
and
that
sort
of
thing
we
are
in
the
process
of
doing
the
design
right
now
and
so
our
Structural
Engineers
Alwyn
Palmer,
have
been
going
into
some
of
the
neighboring
properties
and
doing
their
evaluation
to
make
sure
that
anything
that
needs
to
get
handled
or
taken
care
of.
F
Does
we
have
not
finalized
that
process
yet,
but
they
are
working
through
that
and
of
course
many
of
these
Property
Owners
may
have
already
met
with
him
and
and
talked
through
some
of
those
spaces.
So
we're
well
underway
with
evaluating
what
effects
our
building
will
have
on
other
properties
and
we'll
be
updating
any
design
documents
or
any
pieces
as
necessary
with
that,
but
at
so
far
no
major
updates
or
anything
required
outside
of
the
normal
sort
of
construction,
Logistics
planning
and
that
sort
of
thing.
C
B
Want
to
give
them
okay,
the
planning
board,
does
not
identify
any
negative
long-term
planning
impacts
and
supports
this
appeal.
They
determine
that
the
height
variances
are
not
impactful
to
the
site
as
there's
a
two
foot
drop
on
the
site
and
it's
important
to
maintain
consistent
floor
levels
across
the
building
and
ample
ceiling
Heights
for
future
tenants
as
well.
The
rear
yard
variance
is
not
impactful
as
it's
a
through
site
in
the
character
of
the
neighborhood
is
such
that
the
houses
are
close
to
the
street
line.
A
All
right,
let's
close
public
comment
and
enter
board
their
Liberation
Mr
Kirby.
Would
you
like
to
kick
us
off.
E
So
I
think
I
do
remember
this
one
when
it
came
around
last
time.
I
don't
remember
if
I
was
on
the
board
or
not,
but
I
do
recall,
seeing
it
I
didn't
have
a
problem
with
it.
Then
I
don't
really
have
a
problem
with
it.
Now
we're
talking
about
seven
inches
in
height
at
one
spot,
a
half,
a
foot
for
a
yard
deficiency
in
another
spot
and
then
four
and
a
half
feet,
but
I
do
think.
E
That's
mitigated
by
the
change
in
topography
and
keeping
the
floors
level
makes
sense
to
me
so
yeah
I
don't
have
a
problem
with
this.
I
A
I
don't
have
any
concerns,
I
mean
that
I
understand
the
topography
argument
I'm
a
little
worried
about
the
long-term
trend
of,
like
you
know,
hitting
targeting
ceiling
Heights
above
you
know,
code
like.
Are
we
going
to
get
to
a
point
where
we're
starting
to
think
about
like
we
want
10
foot
ceilings,
but
you
know
given
the
topography
and
it's
a
relatively
small
variance
from
a
percentage
perspective.
I'm
fine
with
it,
but
I
would
have
focused
on
the
topography
aspect
rather
than
the
you
know.
A
B
All
right,
so
your
the
variance
has
been
granted
you'll
receive
the
written
approval
by
email
later
this
week
and
we'll
send
a
copy
to
the
building
division,
because
I
know
you're
working
on
your
building
permits
as
well.
And
if
you
have
any
questions,
please
let
me
know.
Thank
you
so
much.
Thank.
H
A
B
Okay,
a
quick
update
on
the
zoning,
the
zoning
permit
process
that
we've
talked
about
a
couple
times.
We
did
bring
that
to
the
planning
and
economic
development
committee
of
council
and
they
were
supportive
of
the
changes
that
we
discussed.
B
B
Yeah,
we
can
do
that
after.