Ithaca BZA approves 6‑foot fence at 107 Faget Street after debate over 8‑foot request

The Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals on June 2 approved a modified fence proposal for 107 Faget Street, authorizing a six‑foot fence along the front and side yards and allowing a taller arbor or gate at the property’s entry. The board polled 5–0 in favor after the applicant reduced his original request — which had sought up to eight feet in places — to keep the project moving on the demolition and installation schedule.

Cameron Cohen, who lives at 309 West Green Street and said he owns the adjacent parcel, described a house next door that is being demolished and said he wants a red‑cedar, permeable fence and arbor to provide privacy while he gardens the cleared lot. "I'm not in a position to put up another structure due to economics," Cohen told the board. He described plans for a 6‑ft front fence of vertical slats with a permeable lattice topper and a more solid side fence to shield an adjacent commercial wall and lighting previously identified behind the parcel.

Board members pressed for objective criteria because the city’s zoning code section cited by the applicant (chapter 325 §17D) does not specify a numeric maximum for fence height and instead bars fences that "interfere with the light, air, or view" of neighbors. Staff explained that by past practice the city typically treats 4 ft front fences and 6 ft side fences as approvable at staff level, while taller or more opaque fences require board review because impacts are context dependent.

Members expressed sympathy for Cohen’s privacy concerns but also cautioned against setting a precedent that would routinely allow 8‑ft fences in residential streetscapes. Several members suggested vegetative buffers, modest setbacks from the property line and a site visit after demolition to better assess the visual impacts. Cohen said demolition was scheduled the following week and the fence company planned installation shortly after, and asked the board to act so he could keep the schedule.

To accommodate timing, the applicant revised the proposal to limit all new fence panels to six feet with the arbor/gate exception; one board member said staff could write the decision in a way that reflects the board’s review method (variance or administrative determination). The board then made and seconded a motion to approve the six‑foot fence on the front and side with an exception for the arbor and polled unanimous approval.

What’s next: staff will prepare the decision consistent with the board’s motion so demolition and fence installation may proceed. Board members noted they retained the ability to consider any future requests for additional height if the applicant returns with a different proposal or new information.

Speakers quoted: Cameron Cohen (applicant/resident); Megan Wilson (staff); several board members who polled in the vote.