HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1980-10-22 �-�' �! � "�"�:�'� FIZZ � ��' ^--
- -
® TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
OCTOBER 22 , 1980
The Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals met in regular session
on Wednesday , October 22 , 1980 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street ,
Ithaca , New York , at 7 : 00 p . m .
PRESENT : Chairman Peter K . Francese , Joan G . Reuning , Edward N .
Austen , Edward W . King , Lewis D . Cartee ( Building
Inspector ) , Nancy M . Fuller ( Secretary ) .
ALSO PRESENT : Mitchell Lavine , Richard Sullivan , Ann Pendleton ,
Richard F . Pendleton , Robert J . Hines , Esq . , Josephine
Richards , Almina Leach , Katherine Anderson , Michael
Leach , Mark Hutchins , Bruce D . Wilson , Esq . , Donna M .
Van Order , Julia Van Order , Ulric Neisser , Diane M .
Curtis , Ann M . Schnepp , Heidi Landecker , Barbara
Goessler , Elizabeth Roscioli , Patricia H . Whittle ,
Roberta W . Chiesa , J . Victor Bagnardi , Rev . Bernard L .
Carges , R . J . Leach Jr . , Martin R . de Laureal , Victor
Del Rosso , Harold Mix , JoAnn Maricle , Ralph Bonnett ,
Rose F . Ocello , Doris J . Bonnett , Elva W . Holman , Helen
Binger , Gladys E . Kalman , Carol Ciaschi , Jean Apgar ,
® Tony Ciaschi , Alfred Stage , Kay Del Rosso , John E . Van
Order Sr . , John E . Van Order Jr . , Richard Boronkay ,
Matt Leone ( Ithaca Journal ) , Donna Kessler ( WTKO News ) ,
Katy Heime ( WHCU ) , Leslie Levitt ( WVBR ) , Dan Geller
( WVBR ) .
Chairman Francese declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 05 p . m .
and noted that the matters scheduled between 7 : 00 p . m . and 7 : 30 p . m .
are adjourned appeals involving similar cases regarding increased
occupancy .
Chairman Francese accepted for the record the Clerk ' s Affidavit
of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town
Hall and the Ithaca Journal on October 8 and 14 , 1980 , and October 11
and 17 , 1980 , respectively , together with the Secretary ' s -Affidavit of
Service by Mail of said Notice of Public Hearings upon the neighbors
of each of the properties under discussion , as appropriate , and upon
each of the applicants and / or agents , as appropriate , as parties to
the actions , on October 8 and October 14 , 1980 .
ADJOURNED APPEAL ( FROM SEPTEMBER 18 , 1980 ) OF MITCHELL AND LINDA
LAVINE ,. APPELLANTS , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR
DENYING PERMISSION TO OCCUPY A TWO - FAMILY DWELLING WITH A FAMILY PLUS
ROOMER IN ONE UNIT ( UPSTAIRS ) AND THREE UNRELATED GRADUATE STUDENTS IN
THE SECOND UNIT ( DOWNSTAIRS ) , AT 124 EASTERN HEIGHTS DRIVE , PARCEL NO ,
6 - 57 - 1 - 8 . 109 , ITHACA , N . Y . PERMISSION IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE IV ,
SECTION 11 , PARAGRAPH 2a , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE .
Chairman Francese declared the Adjourned Public Hearing in the
Zoning Board of Appeals - 2 - October 22 , 1980
® above - noted matter duly opened at 7 : 05 p . m . Mr . Lavine appeared
before the Board . Mr . Francese asked Mr . Lavine what the situation is
at present at 124 Eastern Heights Drive ,
Mr . Lavine stated that he did not know that the Board wanted
information on the other unit upstairs at the time he gave Mr . Cartee
the lease for the downstairs unit . Mr . Lavine stated that there are
two graduate students upstairs . He stated that there are two persons
downstairs and two persons upstairs . He stated that the two persons
upstairs are no longer a married couple , adding that he was apparently
beck into trouble again . Mr . Lavine stated again that the present
occupancy of the house is two graduate students downstairs and two
graduate students upstairs .
Mr . Francese stated that the maximum number of unrelated persons
in a two - family dwelling is three .
Mr . Lavine presented the lease for the upstairs apartment to the
Board .
Mr . Francese asked Mr . Lavine if it were not clear at the
previous meeting with the Board that the maximum number of unrelated
persons permitted in a dwelling is three . Mr . Lavine stated that it
is not reasonable to have only three unrelated persons in this
two - family house . Mr . Francese pointed out that under the current
® zoning ordinance as it is written the maximum number permitted in a
two - family dwelling unit is three . He noted that it is the intent of
the ordinance to prevent overcrowding and , in the case of 124 Eastern
Heights Drive , there are four individuals living there which generally
means four automobiles and can presume twice as much traffic . Mr .
Francese stated that the purpose of the ordinance is not to make a
dwelling uneconomical but to retain the character of neighborhoods and
not to lead to student housing . Mr . Francese commented that in the
short term one may have monetary gain .
Mr . Lavine stated that the zoning ordinance is discriminatory and
if it refers to the number of cars as a criteria then the Town should
say what it means . He suggested that for the discussion of the new
zoning ordinance that should be put into the discussion . He stated
that it is not of any help to the Town or the people who have any
investment , adding that this unit , for example , has an average rental
of $ 450 . 00 per month .
Mr . Francese stated that Mr . Lavine could rent to a family . Mr .
Lavine replied that Mr . Francese had pointed out that the idea was to
reduce cars . Mr . Francese stated that the idea was not that but the
intent is to maintain the residential character of neighborhoods . Mr .
Lavine stated that he understood the difference between student
housing and family housing and noted that there are differences . He
stated that that should be written into the zoning ordinance , the
ordinance should differ between residences and student housing .
® Mr . Francese stated that the history of neighborhood
deterioration is that of the absentee landlord , adding that Mr . Lavine
Zoning Board of Appeals - 3 - October 22 , 1980
® may not be of that type , but then he would be very atypical . Mr .
Francese asked if Mr . Cartee would renegotiate the time element of
compliance with the occupancy requirements . Mr . Cartee stated that he
would like the Board to consider a decision whereby Mr . Lavine would
be given a specific time to comply with the ordinance .
MOTION by Mr . Peter Francese , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning :
RESOLVED , that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca
give and hereby does give the Appellants , Mitchell and Linda Lavine ,
until January 2 , 1981 , to bring the premises at 124 Eastern Heights
Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 57 - 1 - 8 . 109 , into compliance
with the requirements of the current Zoning Ordinance of the Town of
Ithaca .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Francese , Reuning , Austen , King .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman Francese declared the Adjourned Public Hearing in the
matter of the Lavine Appeal further adjourned at 7 : 24 p . m .
® ADJOURNED APPEAL ( FROM MAY 14 , 1980 AND SEPTEMBER 18 , 1980 ) OF RICHARD
J . AND PHYLLIS H . SULLIVAN , APPELLANTS , FROM THE DECISION OF THE
BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING PERMISSION FOR THE OCCUPANCY OF A SINGLE -
FAMILY HOME BY FOUR UNRELATED PERSONS AT 242 CODDINGTON ROAD , PARCEL
NO . 6 - 41 - 1 - 26 , ITHACA , N . Y . PERMISSION IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE III ,
SECTION 4 , PARAGRAPH 1 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE .
Chairman Francese declared the Adjourned Public Hearing duly
opened at 7 : 26 p . m . Mr . Sullivan was present , as was his Attorney ,
Robert J . Hines ,
Attorney Hines stated that Mr . Sullivan owns a house on
Coddington Road in the general area of Ithaca College . Attorney Hines
stated that Mr . Sullivan has rented to four students since 1972 , just
a few years after the time Ithaca College was located there . Attorney
Hines stated that Mr . Sullivan requested an Appeal which was never
actually heard for various reasons . Attorney Hines stated that this
is not the first person he has come into contact with with respect to
the character of this neighborhood . Attorney Hines , commenting that
there is a restaurant on the corner ; Ithaca College and its dorms are
there , Hudson Heights Apartments are there , etc . , stated that it is
not particularly attractive to families . Attorney Hines stated that
there is a lease , adding that Mr . Sullivan went ahead and leased it to
four young ladies . Attorney Hines stated that neither he nor Mr .
Sullivan is quarrelling with the Zoning Ordinance , however , they think
that since the 1960 rezoning to R - 9 the character of the neighborhood
® has changed . Attorney Hines asked that the Board recognize some
extenuating circumstances in that the area may be rezoned differently
in the near future as a result of the new zoning ordinance presently
Zoning Board of Appeals - 4 - October 22 , 1980
® being written , adding that he hoped the Board would give Mr . Sullivan
one more occupant until that time . Mr . Francese asked how long the
lease runs , with Attorney Hines responding , September 1 , 1980 to
August 31 , 1981 .
Mr . Francese asked Mr . Cartee if the area under discussion were
zoned R - 9 , with Mr . Cartee indicating R - 15 . Mrs . Fuller offered that
it is zoned R- 9 . Messrs . Cartee and Francese reviewed the history of
the Notice of Violation March 27th , which was followed by an Appeal ,
which was followed by a Hearing on May 14 , 1980 , which was adjourned
to September 18 , 1980 in order for Mr . Sullivan to retain counsel .
Mr . Francese stated that , with regard to bringing the house into
compliance , he was surprised by the new lease . Attorney Hines stated
that , given all those things , he did think Mr . Sullivan thought
legitimately because of previous situations and because the character
of that neighborhood has changed . Attorney Hines stated that he would
suggest that the Board examine hardship as a factor in the granting of
a limited variance , especially in view of the proposed zoning
ordinance changes .
Mr . Francese stated that the Board would have appreciated it if
Mr . Sullivan had come in August and made this argument . Mr . Francese
stated that the Board is faced with a fait accompli , . adding that Mr .
Sullivan rented knowing it was not legal . Attorney Hines offered that
® that fact should not be considered in relation to considering
hardship , adding that a violation , or disregard , is not relevant in
defining a hardship . Attorney Hines stated that he was addressing
himself to the neighborhood , adding that single family residences up
there are just not going to be the mode of living , and further adding
that the legislative body of the Town is considering a change .
Attorney Hines stated that justice would indicate some small extension
of time .
Board Member King stated that it has been the policy of the Board
never to grant a variance for occupation density , therefore , the
approach has been to adjourn the matter so as not to impose
unnecessary hardship on a tenant . Mr . King asked if , in this
situation , would this residence come into compliance under the
proposed ordinance which is in the works . Discussion followed , the
general tenor of which indicated that four occupants was being
considered for R- 9 under the proposals so far .
Mr . Francese asked how the Board felt about this matter .
Attorney Hines offered that he did not anticipate a good_ deal of
difficulty because he was familiar with the area , but , if the Board
felt that it was not inclined to grant an extension , he would be able
to show hardship .
Mr . Francese , commenting that the Board had anticipated that this
-" ,*o'ne -half - hour of Agenda time would go fast because the Board thought
everyone would be in compliance , stated that there may be an
adjournment and at that time the Board may have more time , adding that
the Board should continue this at another meeting .
Zoning Board of Appeals - 5 - October 22 , 1980
MOTION by Mr . Peter Francese , seconded by Mr . Edward Austen :
RESOLVED ; by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals , that Mr .
Sullivan bring the subject premises into compliance with the Zoning
Ordinance by January 2 , 1981 , unless at that time the Town Board is
actively considering an amendment to the present Zoning Ordinance
which would permit four unrelated persons , for example , a multiple
family rezoning , for this area , and further
RESOLVED , that it is left to Mr . Sullivan to apply for a
reconsideraton by this Board by December 15 , 1980 if there is a
rezoning contemplated .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Francese , Reuning , Austen , King .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
[ For the record , the following letter dated September 15 , 1980 ,
from Frank R . Liguori , Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning , to
Mr . Lewis Cartee , had been received :
" Appeals of Cassel , Sullivan , Saunders , Brown , Simons , and Stark
from September 18 , 1980 , agenda ( within 500 feet of state or county
highway or municipal boundary ) .
This will acknowledge the receipt of the proposals for review
under Section 239 -m .
The proposals , as submitted , will have no significant deleterious
impact on intercommunity , county , or state interests . Therefore , no
recommendation is indicated by the County Planning Department and you
are free to act without prejudice . " ]
Chairman Francese declared the occupancy matter at the Sullivan
property , 242 Coddington Road , duly closed at 7 : 44 p . m . , until further
notice .
ADJOURNED APPEAL ( FROM MARCH 11 , APRIL 8 , AND SEPTEMBER 18 , 1980 ) OF
DAVID G . AND EDITH CASSEL , APPELLANTS , FROM THE DECISION OF THE
BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING PERMISSION TO HAVE FOUR UNRELATED PERSONS
LIVING AT ONCE AT 152 PINE TREE ROAD , PARCEL NO . 6 - 58 - 2 - 6 , ITHACA ,
N . Y . PERMISSION IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE IV , SECTION 11 , PARAGRAPH 1 ,
OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE .
Chairman Francese declared the Adjourned Public Hearing in the
above - noted matter duly opened at 7 : 46 p . m . Chairman Francese read
aloud the following letter to Lewis D . Cartee , signed by Henry W .
Theisen , Attorney and Counselor at Law , and dated September 29 , 1980 :
" Re : David & Edith Cassel
® Thank you for informing us that the adjourned appeal of the
Cassels , in re occupancy of 152 Pine Tree Road , has been adjourned
Zoning Board of Appeals - 6 - October 22 , 1980
® from September 18 , 1980 to next month ' s meeting of the Zoning Board of
Appeals .
The Cassels have returned from their sabbatic leave and are again
residing in the house . There are no tenants and no lease , and
therefore no further need for the appeal .
I trust , therefore , that this appeal can be cancelled without the
need for an appearnace by the Cassels or me as their attorney . "
MOTION by Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Peter Francese :
RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals dismiss
and hereby does dismiss the matter of the David and Edith Cassel
Appeal in re the occupancy of 152 Pine Tree Road , declaring the matter
moot .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Francese , Reuning , Austen , King .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
[ For the record , the following letter dated September 15 , 1980 ,
from Frank R . Liguori , Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning , to
Mr . Lewis Cartee , had been received :
® " Appeals of Cassel , Sullivan , Saunders , Brown , Simons , and Stark
from September 18 , 1980 , agenda ( within 500 feet of state or county
highway or municipal boundary ) .
This will acknowledge the receipt of the proposals for review
under Section 239 -m .
The proposals , as submitted , will have no significant deleterious
impact on intercommunity , county , or state interests . Therefore , no
recommendation is indicated by the County Planning Department and you
are free to act without prejudice . " ]
Chairman Francese declared the Cassel Appeal duly dismissed .
ADJOURNED APPEAL ( FROM JUNE 4 AND SEPTEMBER 18 , 1980 ) OF RICHARD F .
AND ANN B . PENDLETON , APPELLANTS , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING
INSPECTOR DENYING PERMISSION FOR THE OCCUPANCY OF A TWO- FAMILY
DWELLING BY FOUR UNRELATED PERSONS AT 324 FOREST HOME DRIVE , PARCEL
NO . 6 - 66 - 3 - 7 . 21 ITHACA , N . Y . PERMISSION IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE IV ,
SECTION 11 ( 2 ) ( a ) ( 3 ) , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING . ORDINANCE .
Chairman Francese declared the Adjourned Public Hearing in the
above - noted matter duly opened at 7 : 47 p . m . Both Mr . and Mrs .
Pendleton were present .
Mr . Pendleton appeared before the Board and stated that this was
a little different situation , adding that he had oral agreements . Mr .
® Pendleton stated that his tenants are year- round , adding that the
house is a two - family dwelling , and further adding that his tenants
were out of the country at the time . Mr . Pendleton stated that at that
Zoning Board of Appeals - 7 - October 22 , 1980
® time he heard that the Zoning Ordinance was to be redone , adding that
he talked to Noel Desch . Mr . Pendleton noted that at the June meeting
[ June 4 , 1980 ] , the Board advised an adjournment to September
[ September 18 , 1980 ] . Mr . Pendleton stated that at that time he was
in school in New England and could not appear . Mr . Pendleton stated
that , other than that , the situation is the same ; there are four
students still there in a two - family house . Mr . Pendleton stated that
he is the " neighbors " on both sides , adding that he lives next door
and owns the next two to the house in question . Mr . Pendleton stated
that he did not feel that what goes on in this house is deleterious to
the neighborhood , adding that each of the four tenants has a car but
they drive very little as the house is very close to Cornell , and
further adding that they use their cars less than a family with
teenagers .
Chairman Francese noted that Mr . Pendleton owns four properties ,
living in one and renting three . Chairman Francese asked Mr .
Pendleton how long the oral lease goes , with Mr . Pendleton responding
that one of the tenants should have his Ph . D . sometime between the end
of this year and the following June , and adding that he is a physics
student . Mr . Pendleton stated that of the other three one is a
beginning Vet student , so there are four years involved there . Mr .
Pendleton stated that his request would be to adjourn this , or put it
over , until such time as we see how the new zoning ordinance goes .
® Chairman Francese stated that he started working on the " new "
zoning ordinance , as Town Planner , in July of 1970 , however , it would
appear that this one is moving ahead . Mr . Pendleton stated that , from
the standpoint of the students , he would settle for term ' s end in the
middle of May 1981 .
MOTION by Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Edward Austen :
RESOLVED , by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals , that , in
the matter of the Pendleton Appeal with respect to the two - family
dwelling at 324 Forest Home Drive , the premises be brought into
compliance with the existing Zoning Ordinance by January 2 , 1981 .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Francese , Reuning , Austen , King .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman Francese declared the matter of the Pendleton Appeal
duly closed at 7 : 54 p . m .
ADJOURNED APPEAL ( FROM JANUARY 14 , FEBRUARY 7 , AND SEPTEMBER 18 , 1980 )
OF EBERHARD W . AND MONICA M . IRMLER , APPELLANTS , FROM THE DECISION OF
THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING PERMISSION FOR OCCUPANCY OF A
® TWO- FAMILY DWELLING BY FOUR UNRELATED PERSONS , AT 217 SNYDER HILL
ROAD , PARCEL NO , 6 - 57 - 1 - 8 . 65 , ITHACA , N . Y . PERMISSION IS DENIED UNDER
ARTICLE IV , SECTION 11 ( 2 ) ( a ) ( 2 ) OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING
ORDINANCE .
Zoning Board of Appeals - 8 - October 22 , 1980
® Noting that the two - family dwelling in question has been sold to
the young man who is taking the Appeal following on the Agenda ,
Chairman . Francese MOVED that the Irmler Appeal be dismissed . Mrs .
Joan Reuning seconded the MOTION ,
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote ,
Aye - Francese , Reuning , Austen , King .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman Francese declared the matter of the Irmler Appeal duly
dismissed at 7 : 56 p . m .
APPEAL OF WILLIAM J . DeMARTINO , APPELLANT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE
BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING PERMISSION FOR OCCUPANCY OF A TWO- FAMILY
DWELLING BY A FAMILY AND THREE UNRELATED PERSONS , AT 217 SNYDER HILL
ROAD , PARCEL NO , 6 - 57 - 1 - 8 . 65 , ITHACA , N . Y . PERMISSION IS DENIED UNDER
ARTICLE IV , SECTION 11 ( 2 ) ( a ) ( 2 ) OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING
ORDINANCE .
Chairman Francese declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted
matter duly opened at 7 : 57 p . m . Mr . DeMartino was present .
Mr . Cartee stated that Mr . DeMartino bought the property from the
® Irmlers completely unaware of the occupancy problem .
Mr . DeMartino stated that he would like to respectfully request
an adjournment , adding that this situation was more complex than he
thought .
Chairman Francese pointed out that the Board had never granted a
variance in such cases , and noted that the residence in question is a
two - family house with a family in one and three unrelated individuals
in the second portion of the house .
MOTION by Mr . Peter Francese :
RESOLVED , by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals , that , in
the matter of the DeMartino Appeal with respect to the two - family
dwelling at 217 Snyder Hill Road , the premises be brought into
compliance with the existing Zoning Ordinance by January 2 , 1981 .
Mr . King stated that there would appear to be evidence that Mr .
DeMartino did not know about the violation , however , that is not a
good case , adding that the Board has to enforce the law which would
require a showing of hardship ,
Chairman Francese stated that he had made his motion , however , if
Mr . DeMartino wanted to come back between then and now , the Board will
® listen .
There appeared to be a question as to whether two of Mr .
Zoning Board of Appeals - 9 - October 22 , 1980
® DeMartino ' s tenants were related or not and , if so , whether that would
be a hardship to them .
Mrs . Joan Reuning seconded by MOTION .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Francese , Reuning , Austen , King .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Mr . DeMartino stated that he wished , right now , to apply to be
re - heard at the next meeting of the Board . Chairman Francese stated
that it was the consensus of the Board that the DeMartino Appeal would
be re - heard at its November 12 , 1980 meeting , adding , however , that it
should be clear that Mr . DeMartino was on notice to be in compliance
by January 2 , 1981 .
Chairman Francese declared the matter of the October 22 , 1980
Appeal of Mr . William DeMartino duly closed at 8 : 01 p . m .
ADJOURNED APPEAL ( FROM SEPTEMBER 18 , 1980 ) OF MARIE LOUISE BROWN ,
APPELLANT , RANDOLPH F . BROWN , AS AGENT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE
BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING PERMISSION TO RE - ERECT THE INDIAN CREEK
® FRUIT FARM SIGN AT 1408 TRUMANSBURG ROAD , PARCEL NO , 6 - 24 - 1 - 25 . 21 ,
ITHACA , N . Y . PERMISSION IS DENIED BY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR UNDER
SECTION 8 . 05 - 3 OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA SIGN LAW ,
Chairman Francese declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted
matter duly opened at 8 : 02 p . m .
Chairman Francese noted that there was a slight change in wording
of the sign which existed prior to 1950 , in that the only difference
is the addition of the words " Littletree Orchards " and the deletion of
the words " Retail Sales " and " Drive In " .
Chairman Francese stated that , in view of the fact that the Board
has received a recommendation from the Planning Board to approve , and
from the photographs which Mr . Cartee had , it would appear that the
sign has been improved .
[ For the record , the Planning Board Resolution of September 23 ,
1980 follows :
" MOTION by Mrs . Barbara Schultz , seconded by Mrs . Liese
Bronfenbrenner :
RESOLVED , that the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca advise
and hereby does advise the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of
Ithaca that said Planning Board approves of the renovation of the sign
® for Indian Creek Fruit Farm and recommends that said Zoning Board of
Appeals grant a variance therefor .
Zoning Board of Appeals - 10 - October 22 , 1980
Aye - May , Mazza , Grigorov , Bronfenbrenner , Baker , Schultz .
Nay - None . " ]
MOTION by Mr . Peter Francese , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning :
RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant
and hereby does grant a variance for the Indian Creek Fruit Farm sign
as proposed .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Francese , Reuning , Austen , King .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
[ For the record , the following letter dated September 15 , 1980 ,
from Frank R . Liguori , Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning , to
Mr . Lewis Cartee , had been received :
" Appeals of Cassel , Sullivan , Saunders , Brown , Simons , and Stark
from September 18 , 1980 , agenda ( within 500 feet of state or county
highway or municipal boundary ) .
This will acknowledge the receipt of the proposals for review
under Section 239 -m .
The proposals , as submitted , will have no significant deleterious
impact on intercommunity , county , or state interests . Therefore , no
recommendation is indicated by the County Planning Department and you
are free to act without prejudice . " ]
Chairman Francese declared the matter of the Indian Creek Fruit
Farm sign duly closed at 8 : 03 p . m .
APPEAL OF THE CATHOLIC CEMETERY ASSOCIATION , APPELLANTS , J . VICTOR
BAGNARDI , ARCHITECT , AS AGENT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING
INSPECTOR DENYING BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 224 CRYPT
MAUSOLEUM AT CALVARY CEMETERY , 632 - 640 FIVE MILE DRIVE , PARCEL NO .
6 - 31 - 1 - 5 , ITHACA , N . Y . PERMISSION IS DENIED BY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR
UNDER ARTICLE V , SECTION 18 , PARAGRAPH 12 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA
ZONING ORDINANCE WHEREBY APPROVAL BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS IS
REQUIRED IN SUCH MATTERS .
Chairman Francese declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted
matter duly opened at 8 : 04 p . m . Architect J . Victor Bagnardi was
present , as was Rev . Bernard L . Carges .
For the record , the following letter dated October 23 , 1980 from
Mr . Frank R . Liguori , Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning , to Mr .
Lewis D . Cartee was received :
" RE : Zoning Review Pursuant to Section 239 - 1 and -m of the New York
® State General Municipal Law .
CASE : Special permit application of Catholic Cemetery Association at
632 - 640 Five Mile Drive ( Rt . 13A )
Zoning Board of Appeals - 11 - October 22 , 1980
® This will acknowledge the receipt of the proposal for review
under Section 239 -m .
The proposal , as submitted , will have no significant deleterious
impact on intercommunity , county , or state interests . Therefore , no
recommendation is indicated by the County Planning Department and you
are free to act without prejudice . "
Mr . Bagnardi appeared before the Board and stated that the
proposal involves the construction of a 224 crypt mausoleum on the
site of the Calvary Cemetery on Five Mile Drive , with which everyone
was familiar . Mr . Bagnardi noted that he had presented an application
for building permit and a set of detail plans and specifications of
the site and structure . Mr . Bagnardi noted that the setback would be
about 150 to 200 feet . A site plan was viewed with Mr . Bagnardi
noting that the mausoleum will have 224 crypts with room for
expansion . Chairman Francese asked about the proposed height of the
structure , with Mr . Cartee responding that it will be 16 to 18 feet in
height . Mr . Bagnardi displayed the architects ' s rendering of the
proposed building .
Mr . Cartee read from the Zoning Ordinance , Article V , Section 18 ,
paragraph 12 , with respect to cemeteries and the buildings and
structures incident thereto as being permitted uses with the special
approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals . Chairman Francese noted that
® this building is a necessary part of this particular cemetery , adding
that it was not there before . Pastor Carges noted that this would be
the first one in the County .
Mr . King asked what the distance would be from the nearest
property line , with Mr . Bagnardi responding , about 218 feet from the
road on the east ( from the east to the west ) , and with Mr . King
commenting on the distance from the north wall to the north property
line . It was pointed out that there are 80 acres in the first
one - third of the property . Chairman Francese asked if there were to
be any cremation involved , with Mr . Bargnardi responding , no . Mr .
King asked about the closest occupied home , with Mr . Cartee
responding , across the street .
Chairman Francese asked if there were any neighbors present .
There being no response , Chairman Francese noted that no neighbors
came even though they were notified .
Chairman Francese asked if there would be any heat in the
building , with Mr . Bagnardi responding , yes , but only at times of
commitment . Chairman Francese asked if there were to be toilet
facilities , with Mr . Bagnardi responding , no . Chairman Francese asked
if there were any requirement for Health Department approval , with Mr .
Bagnardi responding , no . Mr . Cartee pointed out that he did not have
the information on the volume of fluid in the decomposition stage and
how it is to be taken care of . Discussion followed with respect to
® the method of disposing of the liquid for the process of embalming and
the time frame involved .
Zoning Board of Appeals - 12 - October 22 , 1980
® Mr . Martin R . De Laureal , of the Acme Marble & Granite Co . , Inc . ,
New Orleans , Louisiana , cemetery specialists in planning , design ,
development , and sales , spoke to the Board and stated that he had been
involved in designing and constructing these facilities for thirty
years , adding that this is not the first time that question has been
asked . Mr . De Laureal , commenting that death rates do not increase ,
noted that the development of a mausoleum facility involves
above - ground burial , adding that the process is the same as in
in - ground burial . Mr . De Laureal stated that there is more
possibility of environmental pollution in in - ground burial , adding
that it normally takes about two years , and further adding that most
bodies are embalmed as embalming kills micro - organisms in the body .
Mr . De Laureal described the embalming process and noted the
capability of the concrete to absorb the fermaldihyde . Mr . De Laureal
described the French drain system in the floor slab , surrounded by a
foundation , pointing out that it does not connect to any water system
or any other drainage system . Chairman Francese pointed out that the
ground has much more opportunity to absorb liquids as it involves a
much larger area , whereas the 224 crypts are in one area . Mr . De
Laureal noted that the 224 are not involved all at once as these
things are spread over a long period of time , and added that it could
take a lifetime .
Mr . King asked if the proposed building would include a chapel ,
with Mr . Bagnardi responding , yes , and displaying a preliminary design
® showing the chapel between the crypt banks . Mr . Bagnardi stated that
the chapel would be lit , carpeted , heated , with areas for visitation ,
committal , and praying .
Mr . Cartee stated that he reviewed the plans with Town Engineer
Larry Fabbroni and that was their only question . Chairman Francese
asked if there were any further questions . There were none . Chairman
Francese asked again if any persons present wished to speak . No one
spoke . Chairman Francese closed the Public Hearing at 8 : 14 p . m .
MOTION by Mr . Peter Francese , seconded by Mr . Edward Austen :
RESOLVED , that the Catholic Cemetery Association be granted a
permit to construct a 224 crypt mausoleum at Calvary Cemetery , 632 - 640
Five Mile Drive in the location as shown on the plans submitted .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Francese , Reuning , Austen , King .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman Francese declared the matter of special approval of the ,
Board of Appeals for the construction of a 224 crypt mausoleum at
Calvary Cemetery duly closed .
Zoning Board of Appeals - 13 - October 22 , 1980
® APPEAL OF ULRIC AND ARDEN NEISSER , APPELLANTS , FROM THE DECISION OF
THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING PERMISSION FOR OCCUPANCY OF A SINGLE
FAMILY HOME BY MORE THAN THREE UNRELATED PERSONS AT 115 McINTYRE
PLACE , PARCEL NO , 6 - 66 - 6 - 41 ITHACA , N . Y . PERMISSION IS DENIED BY THE
BUILDING INSPECTOR UNDER ARTICLE IV , SECTION 11 , PARAGRAPH 1 , OF THE
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE .
Chairman Francese declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted
matter duly opened and asked Mr . Neisser to present his case to the
Board . For the record , the following statement was attached to Mr .
Neisser ' s Appeal Form dated September 29 , 1980 .
" Appeal to the Building Inspector and the Zoning Board of Appeals in
the matter of 115 McIntyre Place , Ithaca , N . Y .
We ask the Board to take the following points into consideration in
acting on our appeal :
( 1 ) We did not intentionally violate the zoning ordinance . We had
rented the house to four students on our previous sabbatical leave in
1973 - 74 and never received any complaints from our neighbors or the
Town . The arrangement worked out very well . Moreover , the previous
owner had regularly rented out several rooms to individual tenants ;
for this reason the house is equipped with a fire escape and fire
extinguishers . There are seven bedrooms , so the house can easily
® accommodate half a dozen people . We have often had six or more
members of our family living there ( fewer in recent years ) . The
possibility of a zoning violation never crossed our minds when we
signed the present lease on May 4 , 1980 .
( 2 ) The term of the lease is brief : ten months from August 22 , 1980
to June 22 , 1981 . We could not find tenants other than students who
were willing to rent it for this short period . The rental just covers •
our monthly mortgage and tax payments .
( 3 ) It was partly with the character of the neighborhood in mind that
we selected the present group of tenants : four studious and
responsible young women , third - year law students . We gave them oral
permission to add one additional renter if they wanted to . We did ask
them not to park more than two cars at the house on a regular basis .
( Two fit in the driveway . )
( 4 ) We understand that one or two of our neighbors were disturbed ,
early in September , by what they considered to be an undesirable
number of cars parked on the south side of McIntyre Place . Some of
these cars probably had no connection with our tenants at all ;
because there is very little parking in the neighborhood ( none on Judd
Falls Road ) , we have often found unfamiliar cars in front of the house
both by day and by night . It is true , however , that our tenants did
keep three cars at the house for a certain period of time after they
first moved in . They have now agreed to park one of these cars
® elsewhere . Indeed , it appears that all the outstanding issues have
now been resolved by discussions between our tenants and our
neighbors . So far as we know there are no active complaints , and the
neighbors are not asking for enforcement of the ordinance .
Zoning Board of Appeals - 14 - October 22 , 1980
® ( 5 ) It would be a considerable hardship for our tenants to seek new
lodgings at this time . It would also be extremely difficult for us ,
from out of town , to find satisfactory new tenants to replace them .
In view of the present satisfactory situation with respect to
on - street parking , in view of the good faith with which we and the
tenants entered into the present lease arrangement , and in view of the
hardship that would result from interrupting that lease , we
respectfully bring this appeal . We ask that our tenants be permitted
to remain until the expiration of their lease next June . Thank you .
( sgd . ) Ulric Neisser
( sgd . ) Arden Neisser
September 29 , 1980
751 Millbrook Lane
Haverford , Pennsylvania
Phone : 215 - 642 - 2937 "
Mr . Neisser stated that he did not want to ask the Board for a
variance , only for some delay . Mr . Neisser stated that he signed a
lease in May , adding that he had no idea of the Zoning Ordinance
requirement , and further adding that he had rented to students in his
previous sabbatical and it was rented before he bought it . Mr .
Neisser stated that there are four students there at present , most of
whom are law students , adding that they will be leaving at the end of
June . Mr . Neisser stated that there had been some difficulty about
parking cars on the street , commenting that he is presently in
Philadelphia , and adding that he came up for this and he thought it
had to do with cars but that has been cleared up . Mr . Neisser
reiterated that he was not seeking a variance ; he was asking for a
delay in enforcement until June 22 , 1981 .
Mr . King commented that Mr . Neisser ' s property is also adjacent
to Cornell . Mr . Neisser stated that that was correct , adding that it
is adjacent to the Cornell Plantations .
Chairman Francese asked if there were anyone present who wished
to speak against the matter . No one spoke .
The four tenants of Mr . Neisser ' s home , Diane M . Curtis , Ann M .
Schnepp , Heidi Landecker , and Barbara Goessler were present and stated
that they wished to speak . One of the ladies stated that they did not
know that there was a problem and when they did they talked to them
and explained the situation and they did not know who they ( the
ladies ) were , adding that they have an understanding that if there
ever is any misunderstanding that they come and talk to them ( the
ladies ) , and further adding that they have two cars and both are in
the driveway . Mr . Cartee offered that the third car caused the
problem . One of the ladies stated that they have a parking place
which they pay for for the third car . Chairman Francese asked if
® there would be any problem with there being a condition on parking
imposed ; the ladies answered , no .
Zoning Board of Appeals - 15 - October 22 , 1980
Secretary Fuller stated , for the record , that she had received a
telephone call , this date , October 221p 1980 , from Liese
Bronfenbrenner , 108 McIntyre Place , neighbor of Ulric and Arden
Neisser , as follows : " The tenants in the Neisser house have in no way
caused any harm or problem to the neighborhood . Immediately upon
being told that the parking was a problem they took care of it and
have continued to do so . As long as this is a sabbatic rental , we see
no problem in changing the character of the neighborhood . They are
not noisy or cause any problem in the neighborhood . They are
reasonably clean and neat . We assume that Mr . and Mrs . Neisser will
return in the summer and re - occupy the house . Liese Bronfenbrenner ,
speaking for both herself and her husband Urie Bronfenbrenner . "
Chairman Francese asked if there were any other questions . There
were none .
MOTION by Mr . Peter Francese , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning :
RESOLVED , by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals , that the
matter of the Ulric and Arden Neisser Appeal with respect to the
occupancy of 115 McIntyre Place be and hereby is adjourned until the
first meeting of said Board in July 1981 , on the condition that the
tenants now residing at 115 McIntyre Place keep , on a permanent basis ,
not more than two automobiles on site .
® There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Francese , Reuning , Austen , King .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman Francese declared the matter of the Neisser Appeal duly
adjourned .
CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION OF CORNELL RADIO GUILD , INC . , D / B / A WVBR ,
FOR SPECIAL PERMISSION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TO OBTAIN A
BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE ERECTION OF A RADIO TRANSMISSION TOWER IN AN
AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT , 245 BUNDY ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO .
6 - 27 - 1 - 7 .
[ Secretary ' s Note : The official record with respect to the
above - noted matter is entered herein and follows this page . ]
•
From the desk of
i
NANCY M o FULLER
i
nuary 16 , 1981 .
ENTERED as the Official Record in
the matter of the WVBR permit
application , this date , January 16 ,
1981 ,
Nancy M . Iruller
Deputy Town Clerk
and
Secretary Zoning Board of Appeals
Town of Ithaca
•
EXCERPT from the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals
Meeting of October 22 , 1980 .
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
PRESENT : Chairman Peter K . Francese , Joan Reuning , Edward N . Austen ,
Edward W . King ,
ALSO PRESENT : Lewis D . Cartee ( Building Inspector ) ; Nancy Al . Fuller
( Secretary ) ; Matt Leone , Ithaca Journal ; Richard Sullivan ,
253 Applegate Road ; Ann Pendleton , 326 Forest Home Drive ;
Richard F . Pendleton , 326 Forest Home Drive ; Attorney
Robert Hines , 417 North Cayuga Street ; Donna Kessler ,
WTKO News ; Katy Heine , WHCU ; Josephine Richards , 142
Bundy Road ; Almina Leach , 268 Bundy Road ; Katherine
Anderson , 258 Bundy Road ; Michael Leach , 268 Bundy Road ;
Leslie Levitt , WVBR ; Mark Hutchins , Continental Electronics ,
Dallas , Texas ; Attorney Bruce D . Wilson , WVBR ; Dan Geller ,
WVBR ; Donna M . VanOrder , 128 Bundy Road ; Julia VanOrder ,
250 Bundy Road ; Ulric Neisser , 751 Millbrook Lane , Haverford ,
PA ( re 115 McIntyre Place ) ; Diane M . Curtis , 115 McIntyre
Place ; Ann M . Schnepp , 115 McIntyre Place ; Heidi Landecker ,
115 McIntyre Place ; Barbara Roessler , 115 McIntyre Place ;
Elizabeth Roscioli , 152 Bundy Road ; Patricia H . Whittle ,
271 Bundy Road ; Roberta W . Chiesa , 159 Bundy Road ; Rev .
Bernard L . Carges , 113 North Geneva Street ; A . J . Leach , Jr . ,
330 West Buffalo Street ; Martin R . de Laureal , New Orleans ,
® LA ; Victor DelRosso , 138 Bundy Road ; Harold Mix , 690 Ring -
wood Road ; JoAnn Maricle , 121 Pearsall Place ; Ralph Bonnett ,
133 Pearsall Place ; Rose F . Ocello , 145 Pearsall Place ;
Doris J . Bonnett , 133 Pearsall Place ; Elva W . Holman , 141
Pearsall Place ; Helen Binger , 170 Pearsall Place ; Gladys Z .
Kalman , 153 Pearsall Place ; Carol Ciaschi , 157 Pearsall
Place ; Jean Apgar , 176 Pearsall Place ; Tony Ciaschi , 157
Pearsall Place ; Alfred Stage , 158 Pearsall Place ; Kay
DelRosso , 138 Bundy Road ; John E . VanOrder , Sr . , 238 Bundy
Road ; John E . VanOrder , Jr . , 238 Bundy Road ; Richard
Boronkay , 150 Pearsall Place ,
PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION OF CORNELL RADIO GUILD , INC . ,
D / B / A WVBR , FOR SPECIAL PERMISSION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF
APPEALS TO OBTAIN A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE ERECTION OF A
RADIO TRANSMISSION TOWER IN AN AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT , 245
BUNDY ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO , 6 - 27 - 1 - 7 .
Chairman Francese declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted
matter duly opened and accepted for the record the Clerk ' s Affidavit of
Posting and Publication of the . Notice of Public Hearing in Town Hall and
the Ithaca Journal on October 8 and 14 , 1980 , and October 11 and 17 , 1980 ,
respectively , together with the Secretary ' s Affidavit of Service by Mail
of said Notice of Public Hearing upon 53 adjacent property owners of the
parcel in question and upon Messrs . Geller and Wilson , as parties to the
action ,
Chairman Francese described in detail the procedures of the Zoning
Board of Appeals stating that the Board will hear from the applicant ,
Excerpt - Z . B . A . Mtg . IO / Z2 / 80 . - � -
followed by the public .
Mr . Bruce D . Wilson , Attorney for the Cornell Radio Guild ( WVBR ) ,
appeared before the Board and stated that the applicant is accompanied by
numerous persons with expertise in matters of radio towers . He stated that
he assumed the Board was familiar with the matter before them , however , just
to acquaint the Board members with some aspects , this has been well over an
eight month process . He noted that this is not an appeal process - - the
matter before the Board is a unique feature of the Town . He stated that
the process is one of a permit authorized by the Zoning Board of Appeals
which the Town Planning Board has recommended as its part of the process .
Mr . Wilson noted the Local Law amending the Zoning Ordinance specifically
created by the Town Board , Mr . Wilson described briefly the history of
the matter , stating that WVBR applied for a building permit to Mr . Cartee ,
the Building Inspector , who submitted the matter to the Planning Board
where it was determined that radio towers were not a permitted use and the
matter went to the Town Board , the result being the amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance . Mr . Wilson stated that the applicant has complied with all of
the requirements that have been set forth since the first meeting in February
of 1980 and that they intend to comply with all the requirements of the new
ordinance . Mr . Wilson noted that Mr . Dan Geller , President of WVBR was
present , and pointed out that WVBR is a not - for - profit corporation licensed
by the FCC serving the public interest . He stated that at the present time
WVBR does not serve all the community as it is licensed to do . He stated
that the FCC and the FAA have approved WVBR ' s application .
Mr . Francese asked why the present antenna is inadequate . Mr . Geller
replied that , at present , the transmitter location is such that there are
® transmission shadows . He stated that the signal from their present tower on
Hungerford Hill up by the East Hill Plaza is weak and overshadowed , as a
result of which 10 , 000 to 15 , 000 persons in the Town and City cannot receive
WVBR . . He stated that by moving the transmitter to the proposed site there
would - be improved transmission to all areas and into Dryden and Cortland .
Mr . Geller stated that the proposed site is one of the only sites available
and the best location spans a small area and within that area only one resi -
dent is willing to sell land to WVBR - - Mr . Carpenter , Mr . Geller stated
that they looked intoa relatively non - populated area keeping in mind that
it would be less offensive .
Mr . Francese asked if WVBR takes advertising . Mr . Geller stated that
they do . Mr . Geller stated that WVBR is a not - for - profit corporation pro -
viding training for radio , adding that there is no funding and no one
receives any pay .
Mr . King asked if WVBR would discontinue use of the present tower were
this new tower erected . Mr . Geller replied that they would . Mr . King
asked when that would occur . Mr . Geller stated that the tower use would be
discontinued as soon as construction of the proposed tower is completed ,
adding that that would be around the end of summer of 1981 and that the
time to tear down the old tower would be within three years . Mr . King
asked if there is a commitment to tear down the old tower . Mr . Geller
replied that there is not a written commitment , but that they could put
such a commitment in writing .
Mr . Francese asked if WVBR owns the land upon which the present tower
sits . Mr . Geller replied that they do not , stating that the land was leased
to them by Cornell University .
Excerpt - Z . ts . A * mitg . lU / 2JajuU . - 3 -
Mr . King asked how many other possibilities were revealed by WVBR ' s
engineering study . Mr . Geller replied that it revealed a small area around
the Bundy Road site . Mr . Geller stated that there are several classes of
stations and the class WVBR is restricts where it can go . Mr . King asked if
the Board has a copy of that engineering , study . It was noted that it does
in Exhibit 8 .
Mr . Francese asked about sites farther out into rural areas . Mr .
Geller stated that there were none suitable and commented on one in Enfield ,
literally one - half a mile up the road from where the proposed tower would
be sited . He stated that the site would not provide the coverage and it
would be 500 ' tall . Mr . Francese asked how it is that WNOZ can broadcast
all over the City with the little tower they have up by Ithaca College , Mr .
Geller replied that WNOZ ' s main broadcast facility is in Cortland and they
opted for a " translator " as the way to cover Ithaca and for that they only
needed a small tower . Mr . Geller stated that WNOZ goes outside of their
area .
Mr . King wondered who conducted the engineering study submitted to the
FCC . Mr . Geller stated that it was done by staff and that Mr . Les Levitt
of the engineering staff was present at this meeting also . Mr . Wilson
stated that the engineering study was submitted to the FCC and noted that
Mr . Mark -Hutchins from Rockwell International , the supplier of the tower ,
was also present .
Mr . Wilson stated that if there is any possibility of a tower , WVBR
has complied with and tried to comply with every regulation set forth . He
commented that the tower proposed is not as tall as the four WTKO towers .
® Mr . King asked how high the WTKO towers are or any other towers that the
applicant knows of . Mr . Geller said he did not know for sure but he knew
that WHCU ' s tower is much higher than the proposed tower and so are WTKO ' s .
It was noted that WHCU ' s tower is located on Connecticut Hill in the Town
of . Newfield • and WTKO ' s four towers are located just over the Town of Ithaca
line in the Town of 'Danby , with WVBR presently being located on Mount .
Pleasant on Cornell University property in the Town of Ithaca .
Mr . Geller stated that some of the concerns of residents are inter -
ference with TV and radio stations . He stated that the FCC approved the
request knowing that the proposed site will not interfere with TV and radio .
Mr . Geller pointed out that WVBR must comply with FCC rulings to make it
right should there ever be any . He noted also that there was concern about
the tower tipping over , say in a tornado , and falling off the area of the
site . He stated that the Planning Board recommended that WVBR purchase
additional land . He stated that they now have 7 . 35 acres of land under
option , the new ordinance requiring six acres .
Mr . King asked what the dimensions of the proposed parcel are . Mr .
Geller did not indicate the exact dimension but noted that the parcel would
be around 566 ' square .
Mr . Francese asked how far away the nearest house is . Mr . Geller
stated that it is a full 1 / 4 mile back from Bundy Road ( the tower location )
and there are hedges existing . He stated that the building on the site is
very small , like a two - car garage , and would be totally invisible . He
stated that the building is unmanned . He stated that there would be n
- o
noise ; the transmitter is virtually silent . He stated that the land is
currently unused , but was once used for farming but because . of the rock and
Excerpt - Z . B . A . Mtg . 10 / 22 / 80 . - 4 -
clay is not . farmed . He stated that the property would not be altered very
much and the stream would be untouched . Mr . Geller stated that the Planning
Board recommended the easement access called Option " A " and two culverts
sized for drainage . He stated that no trees will be cut except for the
easement and maybe even no trees cut at that . Mr . Geller stated that the
closest house is 1 / 3 mile away , and there are three within 1 / 2 mile .
Mr . Francese noted that WVBR has an option to purchase a sufficient
amount of land so that the tower would fall entirely within the property ,
and , the tower is not reasonably close to any other dwellings . Mr .
Francese stated that he understood from the Minutes of the September 23 ,
1980 , Planning Board Meeting that there are two blinking lights . Mr . Geller
stated that the tower will be lit with one aviation beacon with a dark red
filter at the top and two small red obstruction lights in the middle ; the
lights are focused up . He said that they are relatively unnoticeable . He
said that the obstruction lights are two bulbs just over 100 watts each and
remain on continuously sunset to sunrise . He said that the code beacon
flashes every second and a half with a 600 watt bulb . ( Exhibit 5 )
Mr . Austen noted that the tower is to be painted orange and white as
required by the FAA .
Mr . Geller stated that the tower will also service auxilliary services
such as doctors , fires , police . He commented that Scranton TV , a private
TV , has spoken to him about a translator .
Mr . King stated that the summary presentation was very beautiful and
asked for a copy . Air . Geller noted that Mr . Hutchins of Rockwell Interna -
tional was present to answer questions from the Board .
Mr . Francese stated that he understood from the Planning Board Minutes
that the tower is constructed in such a fashion that in the unlikely event
it fell down , it will not just topple straight over , it will crumple . Mr .
Hutchins stated that that would be the case generally . He noted that the
tower is built in 20 ' sections . Mr . Francese wondered about its falling
in a disaster situation . Mr . Hutchins described the engineering aspects
of the tower falling and rule of thumb of a 2 / 3 radius being sufficient
land to contain the tower . Mr . Francese asked what the possibility is of
kids climbing the tower and asked if it would be protected by fences . Mr .
Hutchins said it would be surrounded by a chain link fence 8 ' high at the
base with 5 ' high chain link fence at the guys . ( Exhibit 6 ) Mr . Francese
asked what happens if they jump the fence and climb the tower . Air . Hutchins
stated that the tower is merely used to support the antenna which consists
of three elements on top , circular elements of 20 ' each , with the station
signal being on the antenna and under 1 , 000 watts . He noted that in an
AM station the actual tower is used to radiate the signal with an insulator
process .
Mr . Francese noted that in this situation WVBR feels that this is a
totally safe tower from an electrocution point of view . Mr . Hutchins agreed
but commented that one could get a shock from the antenna . Mr . Francese
asked about the TV possibility . Air . Geller stated that that was completely
speculative but would be added to the tower but not too high . Mr . Hutchins
stated that the three circular elements are of less than 2 " ( two inch )
radius in a triangular form and present the least wind loading effect . He
stated that the wind loading is as low as it can possibly be . He noted
that the base is 18 " to 24 " and . added that most FM stations are 500 ' high
and have a width as much as 42 " .
IJll. — L+ . L . H . lril. g . 1V � uc � vv .
Mr . Francese asked if there were not already a tower on West Hill and _
it was stated that there was a tower for WTKO - AM in the Town there but was "
removed in 1973 after they put up the four towers on South Hill .
Mr . Austen asked how the tower was guyed . Mr . Hutchins stated that
there are three stations at three different points and three wires at each
of those points .
Mr . Francese asked . if WVBR had any photos that show a tower of similar
size in any other location . Mr . Geller said that they did not at this time .
Mr . King stated that he had read the information on TV interference as
submitted to the Planning Board . He noted that the station is obligated to
help adjacent property owners and wondered if they actually go in and
eliminate the problem . Mr . Hutchins stated that this is one of the areas
where the FCC bears down on stations . He stated that with even one complaint
it is generally required that they go to the house and not only establish
that they were not the cause or were the cause , but also in any event take
care of the problem . He stated that usually the TV itself is the problem ,
but they had to put in a trap and do as much as they can to correct the
problem even though the problem is in the TV set . He stated that the trap
is put in the TV set where the antenna lead comes into the home .
Mr . Francese asked if the residents of the area were on Ceracche Cable
TV . It was stated that nobody is ; the Cable is not up there .
Mr . Francese turned to interference given the wattage and the tower
size and asked what the outer limits would be of the distance where one
would expect interference - - what is the range of possi le nterference .
Mr . Hutchins stated that the tower is almost not a hig s ion to count on
a blanket interference but he could guess at , say , within a mile or two .
Mr . Hutchins added that generally where they receive interference for a
mile or more is usually a tuning adjustment on the TV .
Mr . King wondered if someone wanted to complain to the FCC , where
would they complain . Mr . Hutchins stated that it would be to the Buffalo
Office of the FCC , but most people would complain to the station . Mr .
King asked if the station has any procedure for accepting reports and
stated that it would be reasonable to submit to this Board such a procedure
- - whom to call - - what to do . Mr . Hutchins stated that he has talked to
the FCC and they have a booklet which tells people how to identify such
things and that he ( Hutchins ) has recommended that WVBR get this booklet .
Mr . King asked if the Board can get one for the record . Mr . Geller stated
he would do so .
Mr . Francese posed the . question that if he lived 3 / 4 of a mile from
this site and it interfered with his TV and WVBR put in a trap or a filter ,
does that eliminate the trouble . Mr . Hutchins replied that it does and
added that most TVs do not have elaborate circuitry involved in order to
eradicate a problem . He commented that the problem is usually confined to
one channel and so it is easy to tune it .
Mr . Francese asked about interference with CBs . Mr . Hutchins replied
® that that is very unlikely , it being more likely that the CB will interfere
with the TV . Mr . Francese noted that Mr . Hutchins was saying that FM does
not generally interfere with CBs . Mr . Francese asked about AM interference .
Mr . Hutchins replied that there would be none . Mr . Francese - asked about F.Al
Excerpt - [, . h . A . Mtge lU / Z6 / 6u* — b —
interference and Mr . Hutchins replied that there may be some effect in the
immediate vicinity but probably no worse than what one is getting now .
Mr . Francese asked if there would be interference with any other elec -
tronic equipment , such as garage door openers or pacemakers . Mr . Hutchins
replied to the question of pacemakers and stated that they are not required
to post a pacemaker notice on this particular station .
Mr . Austen asked if there would be any interference with the Hospital .
Mr . Hutchins replied that there should not be . Mr . Geller stated that the
FCC did take that into consideration and added that the liklihood is minimal .
Mr . Geller stated that if there is any interference they are obligated and
they will fulfill their obligations .
Mr . King asked if there would be any other use made of the grass . Mr .
Geller replied none . Mr . Francese noted that the parcel would contain the
garage - type building and the tower . Mr . King asked how the grass would be
kept and added the question as to whether it is pasture land . Mr . Geller
replied that . it is overgrown now and there are no plans to change the
character of the land . He added that it is not a picnic site .
Mr . Francese noted that there are 3 , 000 watts of power , i . e . , 3 x 1 , 000 .
Mr . King inquired about screening and was informed of the plans for the
security fence around the site and also the posting of notices to operators
of snowmobiles . Mr . King asked if the guy wires go beyond the fence and he
was informed that they do . Mr . King asked if there were any plantings
planned and he was informed that none were planned , the natural area being
sufficient . Mr . King asked how far back the tower will be from the road
and was informed that it would be 1 , 320 ' back .
Chairman Francese declared the public hearing open to the public and
recited the history of the WVBR application . He referred specifically to
Local Law No . 4 - 1980 , entitled , " A Local Law Amending the Zoning Ordinance
of the Town of Ithaca to Provide for the Erection of Radio Transmission
Towers in an Agricultural District . " He stated that this is a Local Law
amending the Zoning Ordinance by adding a new section number 51A , adopted
by the Town Board on June 9 , 1980 . He stated that the Zoning Board of
Appeals receives a recommendation from the Planning Board and the Zoning
Board may grant a permit for the erection of radio transmission towers .
Mr . Francese read the Planning Board Resolution as adopted September 23 ,
1980 , and the vote , as follows :
" MOTION by Mr . Montgomery May , seconded by Mr . Edward Mazza :
RESOLVED , that the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca recommend and hereby
does recommend to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals approval of the
application of Cornell Radio Guild , Inc . d / b / a WVBR , for permit to erect a
Radio Transmission Tower in an Agricultural District , 245 Bundy Road , being
a portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 27 - 1 - 7 , with the following
conditions :
1 . That additional land is required in order to totally contain the antenna
should it fall from the base .
2 . That Access Option " A " be selected insofar as such access pertains to
the location of the site , with the addition of two culverts , one 18 "
to take care of the draw north of the tree line , and , one 4 ' to take
care of the deep draw , both as further defined and approved by the
Town Engineer .
, f
3 . That the hedgerow between Carpenter ' s land and Hopkins ' land be left
intact .
4 . That the Environmental Assessment Form , as amended during this public
hearing by the Planning Board , be accepted .
Aye - May , Mazza , Grigorov , Bronfenbrenner .
Nay - Baker , Schultz . "
Mr . Francese stated that the Board would like to hear from the neigh -
borhood people . Mr . Francese stated that at this point he finds it
unlikely that the Zoning Board will reach a decision tonight . He stated
that he , personally , wants to visit the site and get a visual picture of
the site and also to look at other towers . He stated that the other members
of the Board wish to do the same thing .
Donna M . VanOrder , 128 Bundy Road , spoke from the floor and stated that
she understood that the tower is one - quarter of a mile from the road . She
stated that the house nearest to the tower site is lived in by a lady who
has a pacemaker and the neighbors want to be sure that that will not be
bothered . Mr . Francese asked who the lady is , and Ms . VanOrder replied ,
Charlotte VanOrder , who lives at 236 Bundy Road .
Mr . Francese asked Mr . Hutchins if there is any record of any engineer -
ing tests on the effect of FM on pacemakers from the FCC . Mr . Hutchins
replied that he was not sure of any FCC tests on pacemakers as with micro -
ovens , for example , however , it has been type accepted and they are not
® required to post a warning on the transmitter .
Elizabeth Roscioli , 152 Bundy Road , asked if the Zoning Board of Appeals
members had received copies of the neighborhood petition presented to the
Planning Board on April 15 , 1980 . Mr . Francese stated that each member of
the Zoning Board had been mailed a copy by the Secretary as had been the
Town Board . He noted that the petition contained 75 names and is basically
in opposition to the construction of this tower and notes that property
values would be threatened and it would be . an eyesore , among other things .
Mrs . Roscioli stated that she heard the Board state that they wanted to
go up there . She stated that she knew that Mr . Austen of the Zoning Board
is familiar with it and added that she is going up there herself . She
stated that she was not aware of swamp land there and she has lived there
for 16 years . She said she questioned that a 283 ' tower painted orange
and white with blinking lights could not be seen . Mr . Francese noted that
the applicant was referring to the building as not being seen , not the
tower . Mrs . Roscioli expressed concern over the blinking lights . Mr .
Francese noted that the lights are focused up and asked if the lights on
the four WTKO towers are of the same wattage . Mr . Hutchins stated that
they are .
Mrs . Roscioli asked where the outcry is from people who want to hear
WVBR . She stated that she has not heard a word from any of these people
making this terrible outcry and saying they need this wonderful tower on
Bundy Road and it is the only place for a tower in the City . She said she
did not understand that part of it at all what with all the land that
Cornell owns .
Mr . Francese asked Mr . Geller if the FCC requires that an applicant
provide letters from people saying they want to hear a station . Mr . Geller
replied that they do not .
- U -
Mrs . Roberta Chiesa , 159 Bundy Road , stated to the Board that she
wished to read a letter to the Board which has been approved by the neigh -
bors , as follows :
" Buying a home is a difficult decision . Some neighborhoods are
eliminated because of various features ; things that are there , or are not
there . We all chose to live on Bundy Road for various reasons , and for
whatever those reasons , we liked the area for what was there and for most
of us , for things that did not clutter the area and the skyline .
The resale value of the homes was high , in that there was a school in
the neighborhood and the area was void of commercial structures . The school
board had the final say on the school and we were under the impression that
zoning would protect us from other instrusions .
Property resale value was reduced when Glenwood School was closed .
A neighborhood is more attractive if there is an elementary school close by .
Now , the values will be reduced even more if an ugly eyesore is permitted .
No trees or hedgerows are high enough to obscure a radio tower !
Is WVBR prepared to police the area 24 hours a day , 365 days a year ?
What about the safety feature ? We have already discussed , at previous
meetings , . the possibility of collapse of the tower , but many more safety
problems must be considered . ( Added verbally , not on text - - ' There is the
matter of the pacemakers . ' ) What about the person who tries to climb the
tower ? A fence won ' t keep someone out who is intent on climbing and
possibly falling or being electrocuted . What about the person who walks
thru the area or goes thru on a snowmobile and runs into a guy wire ,
possibly being decapitated ?
Taxpayers in this community are on the verge of revolt ! Taxes are
going out of sight and services are being reduced . One of the greatest
problems in the Ithaca area is that a very high percentage of property
is tax - exempt and the rest of us must pay taxes upon taxes to make up for
the tax - exempt property . WE DO NOT NEED THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY , NO MATTER
HOW SMALL , TAKEN FROM THE TAX ROLLS . What rights do we , the taxpayers have
in Ithaca anymore ?
( Added verbally , not on text - - ' Gentlemen and Lady of the Zoning Board
of Appeals : How many of you would want a radio . tower in your neighborhood ?
This area is well serviced by several radio stations , we don ' t need any
more coverage in Ithaca and we especially don ' t need or want WVBR to build
a- tower on Bundy Road ! ' '
( sgd . ) Roberta Chiesa "
Mr . Victor DelRosso , 138 Bundy Road , stated to the Board that he
thought both the Board and the applicant did a very outstanding job in
eliciting som (p very good technical information on this tower . He stated
that he thought the field was very well known and he did not suspect the
safety . He stated that the aspects of transmitting are very well known and
the matter has been presented accurately . Mr . DelRosso stated that the
problem that has not been addressed is the Local Law itself . He stated
® that the ordinance is very restrictive in permitting towers and that there
is to be no alternative in putting them where an applicant has requested
pp
their placement . He stated that WVBR has stated that no other site is
suitable and available . Mr . DelRosso noted that `tiTKO also said that there
was no other place suitable and available when they requested towers con -
struction on South Hill and when they were denied , they built them someplace
Excerpt - Lsb * A . Mtg . _LU14Z1OU . - y -
else . Mr . DelRosso stated that if this is , indeed , the only site for mass
coverage , then this implies a nesting area for other towers . Mr . DelRosso
commented that FM radio is the thing now . Mr . DelRosso stated that it was
not the intention of the ordinance to pack all towers in one spot . He
noted that WVBR is a not - for - profit organization and they do have one tower
in existence . He noted that WVBR talks about shadows and voids and lost
coverage in East Ithaca out to Dryden , and stated that on West Hill they
will do exactly the same thing and will have shadows and voids on West Hill
down to the Lake . He stated that in order to correct one ill , they will
create another . Mr . DelRosso stated that this tower is not needed ; it is
not desired in the neighborhood ; and flat out , it should not be accepted .
Mr . Francese asked what the output of the present WVBR tower is . Mr .
Geller replied 3 , 000 watts .
?tis . Katherine Anderson , 258 Bundy Road , stated that her main = concern
is the TV and stated that WVBR will come in and say that it is her set and
that she cannot afford a new TV . Ms . Anderson stated that Ceracche TV will
not support TV cable up on Bundy Road ,
Ms . Patricia Whittle , 271 Bundy Road , asked if it were not possible to
have a translator like WNOZ has . Mr . Hutchins replied that it was not
under FCC ,. rules . Ms . Whittle stated that the land is not a swamp land , it
is a pasture land with up to 40 horses there . She .stated that she gets
good reception on three stations and she does not want that changed since
it is not that great now , ,
Mrs . Chiesa asked how many people WVBR is going to pick up that it does
not get now . Mr . Geller stated that this is impossible to verify , but that
currently they are not serving what they were originally licensed to serve
and that is all of Ithaca . He said they are neglecting a large area , an
area which covers ten to twelve thousand persons in the Town alone . He
stated that they are not servicing the entire area and that is reason
enough in the eyes of the FCC and in WVBR ' s eyes .
Mrs . Reuning asked about the same shadows being there at a new site .
Mr .. Hutchins described the pattern study , the beam tilt on the antenna and
other technical matters . Mr . Hutchins commented that the old location is
a bad location to begin with . Mr . Hutchins pointed out that the number
twelve to fifteen thousand people was based on coverage maps in the engineer -
ing survey that the FCC accepted .
Mr . Francese asked how many persons WVBR covers today when they talk
about coverage in terms of number of people . Mr . Geller replied the entire
Ithaca population minus those not covered because of the tower location .
Mr . Francese noted that this might be considered as 45 , 000 people less
15, 000 and that itwould be fair to say WVBR today covers 30 , 000 people and
if they were to erect a new tower the signal could go to Cortland and
Dryden . Mr . Geller agreed . Mr . Francese asked if there would be a fairly
good signal to anyone living in Tompkins County . Mr . Geller replied ,
generally yes . Mr . Francese wondered if then it would be fair to say that
up to 80 , 000 people could be served . Mr . Geller pointed out that some are
already served . Mr . Francese wondered if the number would be doubled , i . e . ,
� . 40 , 000 to 80 , 000 . Mr . Geller said that that would not be right ; 40% would
1 be added . Mr . Francese noted that coverage would be 140% of what WVBR has
today .
Ms . Donna VanOrder asked if WVBR has found they can change the tilt
of the beam , would it be possible to extend the tower that they now have
Excerpt - Z . B . A . Mtg . 10 / 22 / 80 . - 10 -
and make it taller and change the beam, on it and get better coverage with
that existing tower . Mr . Hutchins replied that WVBR is generally overshoo -
ting areas and added that they can do what Ms . VanOrder suggested but only
up to a point . Mr . Geller stated that WVBR cannot extend the height of
their present tower beyond 140 ' because of the airport .
Attorney Bruce Wilson pointed out that the new amendment to the
ordinance , allows radio towers only in an Agricultural District .
Mr . John VanOrder , 238 Bundy Road , asked if WVBR had commercial time
for money . Mr . Geller stated that they did . Mr . VanOrder stated that the
people just will not buy this tower thing and the business about not
reaching people . Mr . VanOrder stated that once you open yourself up for
this , they have got a foot in the door and it can go on and on .
Mr . Francese stated that that was not true and pointed out that this is
an application for a very specific permit for a single radio tower in an
Agricultural District ; a gas station business , for example , a commercial
enterprise of that sort , is not permitted . Mr . VanOrder commented that it
could , could it not . Mr . VanOrder stated that Mr . Buyoucos , the Town
Attorney , just handed it to WVBR on a silver platter . He asked if this
would not give other people ideas to go there with the same thing . He
said it is a heck of a thing just to say " no " or " yes " .
Mrs . Chiesa stated that one radio tower leads to how many radio towers ?
Mr . Francese stated that Mr . DelRosso made that point and it is a valid
point ; that is possible , however , there is no relation between a radio
tower and any other commercial properties .
Mrs . Roscioli stated that she did not even know whose title is
what any more - - so many meetings before this thing is decided upon - - but
the people on Bundy Road are pretty sturdy , and if there is one meeting
that they do not know about , will they be made aware of it and if they are
not there , does that mean the Board will take it that they do not care .
Mr . Francese stated that that would certainly not be the case and that
there will most probably be only one more meeting of the Zoning Board on
this subject and they will be aware of when that will be . Mr . Francese
described the procedure should there be an appeal of any kind in this
matter , i . e . , an appeal to re - hear the matter which must be agreed to by
the Board , or an appeal from a decision either for or against which would
go to the courts .
Mrs . Whittle asked if WVBR had looked two miles up the road where they
do not have zoning - - in Enfield . Mr . Geller stated that they had and it
is not as optimal as the proposed location and further the tower would have
to be substantially higher due to the propogation of radio waves . Mr .
Francese asked how high and Mr . Geller replied 400 ' to 5001
.
Mr . VanOrder asked why it would have to be so much higher if the
ground slopes up . Mr . Geller explained that as you continue up the area
the hill levels and as you pull back the propogation of the waves changes
significantly and the effect is to lessen the approved signal . Mr . Hutchins
stated that the farther away you get the higher you have to go . Mr . Francese
asked if two miles makes a difference . !tor . Hutchins replied , yes , at this
tower station , it does .
Mr . King inquired as to the probable future use of the land in the
neighborhood up there and asked if it were on the record as to the probable
Excerpt - Z . B . A . Mtg . 10 / 22 / 80 . - 11 -
future use of the land in that area .
Mr . DelRosso described a road proposed and shown on the Town Highway
® Map as a part of the west by - pass and near Hopkins Road and noted that as
that road is established the area will obviously develop residentially .
It was noted that the proposed tower location is in an Agricultural District
as referred to in the Town Zoning Ordinance and also an Agricultural
District under the terms of a County Agricultural District , Mr . Francese
pointed out that under the County Agricultural District laws residential
development is slower than under normal circumstances since the idea is
to maintain agricultural land without pressures of development .
Mr . Lewis Cartee , the Building Inspector , asked that WVBR place markers
on the proposed site in order to identify it clearly when the Zoning Board
members go up to the site . Mr . Geller said that they would do that and will
mark the entry and the site itself .
After discussion with the . Boar-d_members , Chairman Francese declared
that the Public Hearing in the - matter - of\, the N1WVBR applicat-iou_ was formally
adjourned until Wednesday , Novem er 1 '98 _0 ._ at " 7 : 30 p . m .
STATE OF NEW YORK ) SS . :
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS )
® I , the undersigned Deputy Clerk and Secretary to the Zoning Board of
Appeals of the Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County , New York , DO HEREBY CERTIFY :
That the fore € oing Excerpt from the Minutes of the meeting of the
Zoning Board of Appeals of said Town , including the resolutions contained
therein , held on the 22nd day of October , 1980 , is a true and correct copy
of the original and of the whole of said original so far as the same relates
to the subject matter therein referred to .
I FURTHER CERTIFY that all members of said Board had due notice of said
meeting and that , pursuant to Section 98 of the Public Officers Law ( Open
Meetings Law ) , said meeting was open to the general public and that I duly
caused a public notice of the time and place of said meeting to be given to
the following newspapers and / or other news media as follows :
Ithaca Journal October 8 and October 14 , 1980
Ithaca Journal ( Publication ) October 11 and October 17 , 1980
WHCU October 8 and October 141 1980
WTKO October 8 and October 14 , 1980
WVBR October 8 and October 141 1980
WICB - AM - FM- TV October 8 and October 142 1980
The Ithaca Times October 8 and October 14 , 1980
and that further notice of the time and place of such meeting was given to
the public by posting such notice in the following place on the following
date and by giving such other notice as follows :
Town Clerk ' s Bulletin Board October 8 and October 14 , 1980
Service by Mail October 8 and October 14 , 1980
Certification - Z . B . A . Mtg , 10 / 22 / 80 . - 12 -
IN WITNESS WHEREOF , I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal
of said Town this 15th day of January , 1981 .
Deputy T n Clerk
and
Secretary , Zoning Board of Appeals
S E A L
Zoning Board of Appeals - 16 - October 22 , 1980
® ADJOURNED APPEAL ( FROM SEPTEMBER 18 , 1980 ) OF RICHARD AND CELLA
SIMONS , APPELLANTS , BARBARA AND JOHN McGUIRE , AS AGENTS , FROM THE
DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING PERMISSION TO OPERATE TAXI
SERVICE EMPLOYING TWO PART - TIME PERSONS NOT RESIDING ON PREMISES AT
172 PEARSALL PLACE , PARCEL NO , 6 - 54 - 1 - 3 , ITHACA , N . Y . PERMISSION IS
DENIED BY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR UNDER ARTICLE III , SECTION 51
PARAGRAPH 2 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE .
Chairman Francese declared the Adjourned Public Hearing in the
above - noted matter duly opened and stated that all members of the
Board had visited the site . Chairman Francese stated that , since the
Applicant was not present , he would offer his impression of the
situation . Chairman Francese stated that it is located at the end of
a dead - end road , adding that the road did not appear to him to be very
wide in places , and further adding that it was not as wide as Muriel
Street where he lives . Chairman Francese stated that there are no
sidewalks in the upper end toward Hudson Street and none in the Town ;
the houses are close together and most are in the City , with about 60
feet of frontage in both the Town and the City , the Town portion
pre - dating zoning . Chairman Francese asked Mr . King if his
observations squared with his , with Mr . King responding that they did ,
and adding that he agreed . Mr . King stated that the zoning is R- 9
residential and there has been one home occupation in the area for 20
years - - a beauty shop with no other employees . Each of the Board
members agreed . Chairman Francese spoke of the character of the
® street , describing again , the relative narrowness of the road , the
closeness of the houses , there being no sidewalks one - quarter of a
mile from Hudson Street , and being a dead - end street . Mr . Austen
stated that his impression was that it looks like the road itself is a
playground , adding that the neighbors were having a party in the
street which was closed .
Chairman Francese stated that he would MOVE the foregoing as
Findings of Fact . Mrs . Reuning seconded the MOTION . All four members
present voted aye . Chairman Francese declared the MOTION carried
unanimously .
Mrs . Elva W . Holman , 141 Pearsall Place , spoke from the floor and
presented to the Board , for the record , a yellow flyer advertising
" Independent Taxi Service - - 24 Hour Service - - 273 - 5301 - - 4
Dispatched Radio Station Wagons and Sedans " . Mrs . Holman stated that
she saw the flyer on the 6th of October , 1980 , on the bulletin board
at the P & C downtown . Mrs . Holman pointed out that the applicants
had stated previously that they did not advertise 24 - hour service ,
adding , here it is .
Chairman Francese asked how many taxis there were , with Mrs .
Holman responding that there there three cabs at 172 Pearsall Place ,
adding that the City has licensed them .
Mr . Cartee stated that about less than a week after the adjourned
® hearing , Mr . McGuire finally moved in his operation even though the
matter was pending and although the cabs had been operating from a
different base . Chairman Francese asked if there has been a
Zoning Board of Appeals - 17 - October 22 , 1980
® noticeable increase in " traffic " . Mrs . Rose Ocello , 145 Pearsall
Place , spoke from the floor and stated that , yes , there had been an
increase . Mr . Ralph Bonnett , 133 Pearsall Place , spoke from the floor
and stated that , yes , there had been an increase especially on Friday
and Saturday , and at other times too , after the bars are closed . Mrs .
Jean Apgar , 176 Pearsall Place , spoke from the floor and stated that
there had been a definite increase that she had noticed because they
come into her yard to turn around . Mrs . Apgar stated that she lives
actually on the dead - end where it is all dirt road .
The following letters of opposition were entered into the record
as noted .
1 . Exhibit # 1 - - letter dated September 26 , 1980 , signed by Walter
L . Binger , 170 Pearsall Place ,
2 . Exhibit # 2 - - letter dated September 22 , 1980 , signed by Barbara
Jean Apgar , 176 Pearsall Place ,
3 . Exhibit # 3 - - letter dated September 18 , 1980 , signed by Dawn E .
Haines , 161 Pearsall Place .
4 . Exhibit # 4 - - letter dated September 17 , 1980 , signed by Orville
and Aurora Curtis , 138 Pearsall Place .
® Mr . Cartee stated that he consulted with the Town Attorney on
this matter and he asked him ( Cartee ) to offer his ( Buyoucos )
thoughts , which were for the Board to please consider the words
" customary home occupation " and the question of whether a taxi service
falls within these confines . Mr . Cartee noted that there are two
outside employees , part - time .
Chairman Francese stated the following Findings :
1 . This use , in general , does not appear to be a customary home
occupation .
2 . This use causes disturbance beyond the vicinity of the property .
3 . This use is not wholly contained within the dwelling .
Chairman Francese stated that it was clear to him that this was
not a home occupation .
In response to the Chair , Mr . King stated that he was not sure of
that , however , his inclination , even if it were deemed a " home
occupation " , was that he would vote against it in this particular
situation as being most inappropriate . Mr . King wondered if the Board
wanted to make such a determination of inappropriateness .
Chairman Francese MOVED the following Finding of Fact : This
® activity , a taxi service which employs two outside persons part - time ,
has two or three automobiles parked near the house , and creates
disorder in the immediate vicinity , cannot be, construedto be a home
Zoning Board of Appeals - 18 - October 22 , 1980
® occupation as defined by Section 5 , paragraph 2 , of Article III of the
Zoning Ordinance . Mrs . Reuning seconded the MOTION . All four members
present voted aye . Chairman Francese declared the MOTION carried
unanimously .
MOTION by Mr . Peter Francese , seconded by Mr . Edward Austen :
RESOLVED , by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals , that ,
based on the Board ' s Findings of Fact , the Appeal of Richard and Cella
Simons , Appellants , Barbara and John McGuire , as Agents , to conduct a
taxi service from 172 Pearsall Place , be and hereby is denied .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Francese , Reuning , Austen , King .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman Francese declared the matter of the Simons / McGuire
Appeal duly closed .
IN THE MATTER OF THE PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE TOWN OF ITHACA .
® After discussion , the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals took
the following action .
MOTION by Mr . Edward W . King , seconded by Mr . Edward N . Austen :
RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals present
to the Town Attorney and to the Town Board at the appropriate time ,
Section 71 as proposed by said Zoning Board of Appeals for inclusion
in the new Zoning Ordinance .
Aye - Francese , Reuning , King , Austen .
Nay - None .
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY .
[ Secretary ' s Note : The referenced Section 71 is attached hereto
as Exhibit # 5 . ]
ADJOURNMENT
Upon Motion , Chairman Francese declared the October 22 , 1980
meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals duly adjourned
at 10 : 10 p . m .
Respectfully submitted ,
Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary ,
Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals .
Peter K . Francese , Chairman ,
Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals .
�u
170 Pearsall Place
T __., -u LIthaca , New York 14850
R C .
S E P 29 1980
TOWN OF ITHACA September 26 , 1980
Town of Ithaca
Engineering Zoning Board
126 East Seneca Street
Ithaca , New York 14850
Dear Board Members
I have resided on Persall Place approximately 26 years . I consider
Pearsall Place a wonderful residential street . I also consider our street
a playground for the area children . own son and daughter while they
were growing up , utilized the street for that purpose and now my grandson
® does the same . Pearsall Place is a neighborhood playground , excepted as
such by all .
The purpose of this letter is not to expound on the wonderful aspects
of our street but to make you aware of my deep concern that an adverse
change can occur to our street . Our street is zoned as a residential street .
It has been brought to your attention that a taxi service has originated
on Pearsall Place . This type of service is not considered a small residential
or home business such as a small beauty parlor or home sewing service or any
business of that nature . I consider a taxi service with a fleet of three or
more vehicles a much larger business .
Yy concern is that if such a business was allowed to operate from
Pearsall Place , a precedent will have been set and then what is to prevent
other large businesses from infiltrating our street . Zoning laws serve a
purpose and that purpose is to protect home owners and their rights as well
as businesses and their rights .
Because of my concern and the concern of the people on Pearsall Place ,
I ask the Board to deny the appeal of the taxi service operators and have them
discontinue the taxi service from Pearsall Place .
I sympathize with the taxi operator that he didn ' t have the forsight to
investigate the zoning ordinances prior to opening the business from our
street but as I stated before I do not want a precedent set .
Sincere y ,
-0al cz. ` - �� � ��e
Walter L . Binger
RECEIVED
® SEP 2 1980
176 Pearsall Ple TOWid OF ITHACA
Ithaca , X11 11850
Sept . 22 , 19bO
Zoning Board of Appeals
Town of Ithaca
Town 'Mall
126 E . Seneca St .
Ithaca , NY 14850
Lear Members of the Board :
At its September meeting the Zoning Appeals. Board indicated
that it planned to visit 172 Pearsall Place at which a taxi
service is currently being operated . When the Board inspects
the area, I would like for it to be aware of two problems in
particular :
1 . Lack of parking area
!according to Mr . McGuire at the Sept . meeting, he , his
wife, his son , and his daughter each have a car for their
® personal use ( Mr . McGuire ' s cards also a taxi . ) . There is
off'- the-road parking at 172 for only two cars The area
across the road that is currently being used as a parking
area by the group is not part of the property . 14hile it
is possible to use it in good weather as long as the owner
permits it , it is hard to see how it can be used for this
purpose in times of heavy snow or icy conditions . It is
very difficult to see where Mr . McGuire plans to park two
additional taxis in addition to the four cars the family
uses .
2 . Lack of suitability of road for increased traffic
Presumably because of the density of cars around 1'12
the taxis and personal cars come dorm the road to 10(b to
turn around . This part of the road ( one - lane dirt road )
receives very little maintenance at any time . Occasionally
the Town has put some dirt or gravel in the potholes that
develop in the stretch between the two houses but does nothing
in the area past that that is being used for a turn- around
area . In the winter the snowplow comes down the road one
time and backs out leaving a single track between the two
properties . Any maintenance of the area which is being used
as a turn- around place is therefore my problem . dor the 22
years that I have lived in the house this really has not been
a problem until now . :done of the neighbors turn around in
this area and none of the previous tenants at 172 found it
necessary to do so . So much additional usage of the area
between the houses will result in much greater deterioration
of the road and will become a problem to me in terms both
of the road and the area around my house which I must main -
tain .
I will appreciate your consideration of these factors in
reaching a decision .
Respectfully,
Barbara Jean Apgar
Dawn E . Haines
161 Pearsall Place
Ithaca , New York 14850
September 18 , 1980
Town Of Ithaca
106 East Seneca Street
Ithaca , New York 1. 4850
To Whom It May Concern:
It has been brought to my attention that there is a meeting at the Town Offices this
evening on the subject of the Independent Taxi Company operating on Pearsall Place .
Not being able to attend this meeting , I am hereby writing this letter to state my
feelings on the subject .
Being a single working parent of four children , I have been concerned with the
recent operations of the Independent Taxi Company on Pearsall Place . I purchased
my home because it was on a quiet , residential and dead - end street . Having to be
away from my children for the better part of the day , it eased my mind knowing
they were on a non - traffic street where there was no thru traffic and only local
® traffic . In fact , there was so little traffic that the children could play ball in the
street .
However , since the Independent Taxi Company has been operating on Pearsall Place ,
there is constant traffic and horn honking . The cab drivers also drive at a speed
which is dangerous with children playing . The children are not looking , for traffic
of that magnitude or speed having been able to play there for five years without it .
The increase in traffic has increased my concern for my children ' s welfare not
only while I am away at the office , but also while I am home . When I hear all the
traffic , I am constantly running to the window at the sound of a tire screech or a
honking horn ; all foreign sounds on my formerly quiet , residential street .
It also upsets me to have this traffic going on half the night . I haven ' t had a good
night ' s sleep since the Independent Taxi Company came to Pearsall Place . I
implore you in the interest of my children ' s welfare and my peace of mind and need
for sleep to please have this company move their operations to a non - residential
area ,
Thank you for your time and consideration in this important matter .
Sincerely ,
® `
� q �
Dawn E . Haines
0
add
000
L'e
r 7p
rj
� � .--�,� ✓ �.�u� �- � �= ,cam.
,/��Ft� /i J�-�['.� .i' •✓ ..�c.�Z c-� ��2-►-E' ;�,��i:..G�_' Cr�ir�rit.�%.�.�
.Ooo��
' c
13 s ,
• i � GOA SSV
SECTION 71 . Increased Occupancy .
® 1 . The provisions of this Ordinance governing the occupancy of
dwelling units , the number of dwelling units permitted on a particu -
lar lot , the height of buildings , yard and open space requirements ,
and lot coverage limitations notwithstanding , the Planning Board may ,
after due notice and a public hearing , and after adequate site plan
review pursuant to Article XII , if appropriate :
a . Grant a Special Permit to allow , upon such temporary
basis as it shall decide and declare , an increase in the
permitted occupancy of one or more existing dwelling
units or buildings on a particular lot or parcel in any
zone ; or
b . Grant a Special Exception for the conversion of any
existing building into dwelling units or into additional
® dwelling units , or for the construction of new dwellings
( including multiple dwellings and hi - rise apartment
buildings ) upon a particular lot or parcel in any zone , .
upon either a temporary or permanent basis as it shall
decide and declare in such grant .
2 . No such Special Permit or Special Exception shall be granted
unless the Planning Board shall have found that the proposed in -
creased occupancy , under the conditions imposed , shall in its judg -
ment serve . the public welfare without any substantial adverse impact
upon neighborhood amenities , peace and quiet , or upon the values of
other properties in the neighborhood ; and that it will not impact in
a substantial and adverse way upon either neighborhood or community
® traffic and traffic patterns ; that it will be in harmony with the
general purpose and intent of this Ordinance ; and that other consi -
e
7 / 28 / 80
derations such as those detailed in Section 70 hereof have been
® addressed and decided in favor of the grant .
3 . In the exercise of its discretion hereunder , the Planning
Board shall impose such requirements and conditions as it shall deem
advisable in the furtherance of the purposes of this Ordinance and
to assure the preservation of neighborhood values and amenities .
4 . ( a ) Each such Special Permit or Special Exception granted
hereunder shall detail the terms and conditions upon which it was
granted , and shall contain a statement as to its reviewability ,
revocability , and termination .
( b ) All Special Permits and Special Exceptions hereunder
shall be deemed revocable for any substantial violation of the terms
and conditions imposed upon the grant thereof ; but none shall be
revoked except for cause shown after written Notice and an opportu -
nity to be heard before either the Planning Board or the Zoning
Board of Appeals .
( c ) All Special Permits and Special Exceptions hereunder
shall be reviewed at least annually by the Planning Board , and the
Building Inspector may initiate a review at any time he deems the
continuation of the special permit or special exception to be
inappropriate to the welfare of the neighborhood , or whenever he
deems a condition to have been violated , the owner having failed
to correct the same after a warning Notice and request to do so .
Properties given a special permit or special exception hereunder
shall be subject to re - inspection by the Building Inspector at any
time , and from time to time .
I
® ( d ) In granting a Special Permit or Special Exception
hereunder , the Planning Board shall specify whether the same is
f *JW
7 / 28 / 80
intended to endure for either : ( i ) a stated time ; or ( ii ) until
® the happening of a stated event or contingency ; or ( iii ) during
the ownership of the property by the applicant or a particular
person ; or ( iv ) for the duration of the existing or proposed struc -
ture .
5 . Special permits and special exceptions hereunder may be
granted by the Planning Board contingent upon the approval of par -
ticular , specified variances by the Zoning Board of Appeals .
6 . The Planning Board may condition the grant of a special
permit or special exception hereunder upon a specified rehabilitation
of the exterior of any building or structure or yards ; the main -
tenance of the exterior ; or specified improvements to the property .
7 . As a condition of the grant of any Special Permit or
Special Exception hereunder , the Planning Board may require the pro -
® perty . owner to pay for the recording in the .Tompkins County Clerk ' s
Office of a copy of the Order or Resolution granting the same , or
for the recording of some other Memorandum or Declaration of such
action as the :Planning Board deems appropriate , and for the proper
indexing thereof against the . title of the owner .
8 . All applications to the Planning Board hereunder shall be
entertained only in the sound discretion of the Board . It shall
preview every such application and the documentation submitted
therewith prior to authorizing the publication of a Notice and the
holding of a hearing thereon ; and it may require further written
documentation , supporting data , impact studies , and other material
before proceeding with a Notice and hearing ; and it may in any event
® decline to proceed therewith for any failure to supply requested
materials , and in any event if it shall deem the application not
e
7 / 28 / 80
worthy of further consideration .
® 9 . The Planning Board may in its discretion require a partial
or complete study of the impact of the proposal upon various ele -
ments , such as neighborhood amenities , local and area traffic ,
environment , etc . , and in any event SEQR regulations shall be
complied with .
10 . Before deciding upon a grant of a special permit or special
exception hereunder , the Planning Board may require the applicant
to conduct a poll of the neighborhood and / or area property owners ,
upon specific questions posed by the Board , with or without a re -
quirement for signatures by the persons polled ; and the poll or
report or summary thereof may be required to be made under penalties
of perjury . Such a poll , or the written consent of neighbors and
property owners to the grant of the special permit or special excep -
tion requested , shall be advisory only : even if all consent , the
Board must exercise its judgment and discretion in determining
whether to grant or deny the application .
ll . A Notice of Hearing hereunder must state that the applica -
tion is for a Special Permit or for a Special Exception as the case
may be , and shall succinctly describe the extent and duration of
the license or waiver being requested .
12 . As a guide to permitting increased occupancy in a particu -
lar dwelling unit , the Planning Board may ( but need not ) decide that
as a matter of policy no dwelling unit of less than 500 square feet
of habitable floor area shall be considered eligible for increased
occupancy , and that at least 150 square feet of additional habitable
® floor area beyond such basic amount should be required for each
additional occupant to be permitted in excess of the basic number
� wtw�c%j lko"40'
•
7 / 28 % 80
otherwise allowed under this Ordinance ; or that not less than 100
® square feet additional Labitable floor area should be required for
each additional occupant to be allowed over the actual number of
persons then occupying such dwelling unit .
13 . The potential for increased financial yield to the property
owner shall not of itself justify the grant of a Special Permit or
Special Exception , even if it be established that the property
cannot otherwise yield a fair return , and / or that the building or
other structures must otherwise be abandoned or demolished .
14 . An owner who has previously violated the Ordinance as to
any other lot , building , or property owned by him , may be denied a
Special Permit or Special Exception for a different property solely
upon that ground . .
15 . All buildings , whether newly built , converted , altered or
® extended may be the subject of a special permit or special exception
hereunder . Even though an existing dwelling may constitute an
illegal non - conforming use , that fact alone shall not bar the grant
of a special permit or special exception hereunder ; and the owner of
such property , in consideration of his application for a special
permit or special exception to legitimize the existing violation ,
shall , if the application be denied , be given a specified time within
which to bring the property into compliance - -which shall be not less
than 6 months after the decision by the Board .
16 . The applicant for a special permit or special exception
hereunder shall pay such advertising fee as prescribed by the Town
Board .
• From the desk of
NANCY M • FULLER
* nuary 16 , 1981 .
ENTERED as the Official Record in
the matter of the WVBR permit
application , this , date , January 16 ,
1981 .
222
Nanc M . Fuller
Deputy Town Clerk
and
Secretary Zoning Board of Appeals
Town of Ithaca
EXCERPT from the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals
Meeting of October 22 , 1980 .
PRESENT : Chairman Peter K . Francese , Joan Reuning , Edward N . Austen ,
Edward W . King .
ALSO PRESENT : Lewis D . Cartee ( Building Inspector ) ; Nancy M . Fuller
( Secretary ) ; Matt Leone , Ithaca Journal ; Richard Sullivan ,
253 Applegate Road ; Ann Pendleton , 326 Forest Home Drive ;
Richard F . Pendleton , 326 Forest Home Drive ; Attorney
Robert Hines , 417 North Cayuga Street ; Donna Kessler ,
WTKO News ; Katy Heine , WHCU ; Josephine Richards , 142
Bundy Road ; Almina Leach , 268 Bundy Road ; Katherine
Anderson , 258 Bundy Road ; Michael Leach , 268 Bundy Road ;
Leslie Levitt , WVBR ; Mark Hutchins , Continental Electronics ,
Dallas , Texas ; Attorney Bruce D . Wilson , WVBR ; Dan Geller ,
WVBR ; Donna M . VanOrder , 128 Bundy Road ; Julia VanOrder ,
250 Bundy Road ; Ulric Neisser , 751 Millbrook Lane , Haverford ,
PA ( re 115 McIntyre Place ) ; Diane M . Curtis , 115 McIntyre
Place ; Ann M . Schnepp , 115 McIntyre Place ; Heidi Landecker ,
115 McIntyre Place ; Barbara Roessler , 115 McIntyre Place ;
Elizabeth Roscioli , 152 Bundy Road ; Patricia H . Whittle ,
271 Bundy Road ; Roberta W . Chiesa , 159 Bundy Road ; Rev .
Bernard L . Carges , 113 North Geneva Street ; A . J . Leach , Jr . ,
330 West Buffalo Street ; Martin R . de Laureal , New Orleans ,
LA ; Victor DelRosso , 138 Bundy Road ; Harold Mix , 690 Ring -
wood Road ; JoAnn Maricle , 121 Pearsall Place ; Ralph Bonnett ,
133 Pearsall Place ; Rose F . Ocello , 145 Pearsall Place ;
Doris J . Bonnett , 133 Pearsall Place ; Elva W . Holman , 141
Pearsall Place ; Helen Binger , 170 Pearsall Place ; Gladys Z .
Kalman , 153 Pearsall Place ; Carol Ciaschi , 157 Pearsall
Place ; Jean Apgar , 176 Pearsall Place ; Tony Ciaschi , 157
Pearsall Place ; Alfred Stage , 158 Pearsall Place ; Kay
DelRosso , 138 Bundy Road ; John E . VanOrder , Sr . , 238 Bundy
Road ; John E . VanOrder , Jr . , 238 Bundy Road ; Richard
Boronkay , 150 Pearsall Place .
PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION OF CORNELL RADIO GUILD , INC . ,
D / B / A WVBR , FOR SPECIAL PERMISSION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF
APPEALS TO OBTAIN A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE ERECTION OF A
RADIO TRANSMISSION TOWER IN AN AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT , 245
BUNDY ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 27 - 1 - 7 .
Chairman Francese declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted
matter duly opened and accepted for the record the Clerk ' s Affidavit of
Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearing in Town Hall and
the Ithaca Journal on October 8 and 14 , 1980 , and October 11 and 17 , 1980 )
respectively , together with the Secretary ' s Affidavit of Service by Mail
of said Notice of Public Hearing upon 53 adjacent property owners of the
parcel in question and upon Messrs . Geller and Wilson , as parties to the
action .
Chairman Francese described in detail the procedures of the Zoning
Board of Appeals stating that the Board will hear from the applicant ,
Excerpt - Z . B . A . Mtg . 10 / 22 / 80 . - 2 -
followed by the public .
Mr . Bruce D . Wilson , Attorney for the Cornell Radio Guild ( WVBR ) ,
® appeared before the Board and stated that the applicant is accompanied by
numerous persons with expertise in matters of radio towers . He stated that
he assumed the Board was familiar with the matter before them , however , just
to acquaint the Board members with some aspects , this has been well over an
eight month process . He noted that this is not an appeal process - - the
matter before the Board is a unique feature of the Town . He stated that
the process is one of a permit authorized by the Zoning Board of Appeals
which the Town Planning Board has recommended as its part of the process .
Mr . Wilson noted the Local Law amending the Zoning Ordinance specifically
created by the Town Board . Mr . Wilson described briefly the history of
the matter , stating that WVBR applied for a building permit to Mr . Cartee ,
the Building Inspector , who submitted the matter to the Planning Board
where it was determined that radio towers were not a permitted use and the
matter went to - the Town Board , the result being the amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance . Mr . Wilson stated that the applicant has complied with all of
the requirements that have been set forth since the first meeting in February
of 1980 and that they intend to comply with all the requirements of the new
ordinance . Mr . Wilson noted that Mr . Dan Geller , President of WVBR was
present , and pointed out that WVBR is a not - for - profit corporation licensed
by the FCC serving the public interest . He stated that at the present time
WVBR does not serve all the community as it is licensed to do . He stated
that the FCC and the FAA have approved WVBR ' s application .
Mr . Francese asked why the present antenna is inadequate . Mr . Geller
replied that , at present , the transmitter location is such that there are
® transmission shadows . He stated that the signal from their present tower on
Hungerford Hill up by the East Hill Plaza is weak and overshadowed , as a
result of which 10 , 000 to 15 , 000 persons in the Town and City cannot receive
WVBR . He stated that by moving the transmitter to the proposed site there
would be improved transmission to all areas and into Dryden and Cortland .
Mr . Geller stated that the proposed site is one of the only sites available
and the best location spans a small area and within that area only one resi -
dent is willing to sell land to WVBR - - Mr . Carpenter . Mr . Geller stated
that they looked into a relatively non - populated area keeping in mind that
it would be less offensive .
Mr . Francese asked if WVBR takes advertising . Mr . Geller stated that
they do . Mr . Geller stated that WVBR is a not - for - profit corporation pro -
viding training for radio , adding that there is no funding and no one
receives any pay .
Mr . King asked if WVBR would discontinue use of the present tower were
this new tower erected . Mr . Geller replied that they would . Mr . King
asked when that would occur . Mr . Geller stated that the tower use would be
discontinued as soon as construction of the proposed tower is completed ,
adding that that would be around the end of summer of 1981 and that the
time to tear down the old tower would be within three years . Mr . King
asked if there is a commitment to tear down the old tower . Mr . Geller
replied that there is not a written commitment , but that they could put
such a commitment in writing .
Mr . Francese asked if WVBR owns the land upon which the present tower
sits . Mr . Geller replied that they do not , stating that the land was leased
to them by Cornell University .
' Excerpt - Z . B . A . Mtg . 10 / 22 / 80 . - 3 -
Mr . King asked how many other possibilities were revealed by WVBR ' s
engineering study , Mr . Geller replied that it revealed a small area around
the. Bundy Road site . Mr . Geller stated that there are several classes of
stations and the class WVBR is restricts where it can go . Mr . King asked if
the Board has a copy of that engineering study . It was noted that it does
in Exhibit 8 .
Mr . Francese asked about sites farther out into rural areas , Mr .
Geller stated that there were none suitable and commented on one in Enfield ,
literally one - half a mile up the road from where the proposed tower would
be sited . He stated that the site would not provide the coverage and it
would be 500 ' tall , Mr . Francese asked how it is that WNOZ can broadcast
all over the City with the little tower they have up by Ithaca College . Mr .
Geller replied that WNOZ ' s main broadcast facility is in Cortland and they
opted for a " translator " as the way to cover Ithaca and for that they only
needed a small tower . Mr . Geller stated that WNOZ goes outside of their
area .
Mr . King wondered who conducted the engineering study submitted to the
FCC . Mr . Geller stated that it was done by staff and that Mr . Les Levitt
of the engineering staff was present at . this meeting also . Mr . Wilson
stated that the engineering study was submitted to the FCC and noted that
Mr . Mark Hutchins from Rockwell International , the supplier of the tower ,
was also present .
Mr . Wilson stated that if there is any possibility of a tower , WVBR
has complied with and tried to comply with every regulation set forth . He
commented that the tower proposed is not as tall as the four WTKO towers .
® Mr . King asked how high the WTKO towers are or any other towers that the
applicant knows of , Mr . Geller said he did not know for sure but he knew
that WHCU ' s tower is much higher than the proposed tower and so are WTKO ' s .
It was noted that WHCU ' s tower is located on Connecticut Hill in the Town
of Newfield and WTKO ' s four towers are located just over the Town of Ithaca
line in the Town .. of Danby , with WVBR presently being located on Mount
Pleasant on Cornell University property in the Town of Ithaca ,
Mr . Geller stated that some of the concerns of residents are inter -
ference with TV and radio stations , He stated that the FCC approved the
request knowing that the proposed site will not interfere with TV and radio .
Mr . Geller pointed out that WVBR must comply with FCC rulings to make it
right should there ever be any . He noted also that there was concern about
the tower tipping over , say in a tornado , and falling off the area of the
site . He stated that the Planning Board recommended that WVBR purchase
additional land . He stated that they now have 7 . 35 acres of land under
option , the new ordinance requiring six acres ,
Mr . King asked what the dimensions of the proposed parcel are . Mr .
Geller did not indicate the exact dimension but noted that the parcel would
be around 566 ' square .
Mr . Francese asked how far away the nearest house is . Mr . Geller
stated that it is a full 1 / 4 . mile back from Bundy Road ( the tower location )
and there are hedges existing . He stated that the building on the site is
very small , like a two - car garage , and would be totally invisible , He
stated that the building is unmanned . He stated that there would be no
noise ; the transmitter is virtually silent , He stated that the land is
currently unused , but was . once used for farming but because of the rock and
Excerpt - Z . B . A . Mtg . 10 / 22 / 80 . - 4 -
clay is not farmed . He stated that the property would not be altered very
much and the stream would be untouched . Mr . Geller stated that the Planning
® Board recommended the easement access called Option " A " and two culverts
sized for drainage . He stated that no trees will be cut except for the
easement and maybe even no trees cut at that . Mr . Geller stated that the
closest house is 1 / 3 mile away , and there are three within 1 / 2 mile . '
Mr . Francese noted that . WVBR has an option to purchase a sufficient
amount of land so that the tower would fall entirely within the property ,
and , the tower is not reasonably close to any other dwellings . Mr .
Francese stated that he understood from the Minutes of the September 23 ,
1980 , Planning Board Meeting that there are two blinking lights . Mr . Geller
stated that the tower will be lit with one aviation beacon with a dark red
filter at the top and two small red obstruction lights in the middle ; the
lights are focused up . He said that they are relatively unnoticeable . He
said that the obstruction lights are two bulbs just over 100 watts each and
remain on continuously sunset to sunrise . He said that the code beacon
flashes every second and a half with a 600 watt bulb . ( Exhibit 5 )
Mr . Austen noted that the tower is to be painted orange and white as
required by the FAA .
Mr . Geller stated that the tower will also service auxilliary services
such as doctors , fires , police . He commented that Scranton TV , a private
TV , has spoken to him about a translator .
Mr . King stated that the summary presentation was very beautiful and
asked for a copy . Mr . Geller noted that Mr . Hutchins of Rockwell Interna -
tional was present to answer questions from the Board .
Mr . Francese stated that he understood from the Planning Board Minutes
that the tower is constructed in such a fashion that in the unlikely event
it fell down , it will not just topple straight over , it will crumple . Mr .
Hutchins stated that that would be the case generally . He noted that the
tower is built in 20 ' sections . Mr . Francese wondered about its falling
in a disaster situation . Mr . Hutchins described the engineering aspects
of the tower falling and rule of thumb of a 2 / 3 radius being sufficient
land to contain the tower . Mr . Francese asked what the possibility is of
kids climbing the tower and asked if it would be protected by fences . Mr .
Hutchins said it would be surrounded by a chain link fence 8 ' high at the
base with 5 ' high chain link fence at the guys . ( Exhibit 6 ) Mr . Francese
asked what happens if they jump the fence and climb the tower . Mr . Hutchins
stated that the tower is merely used to support the antenna which consists
of three elements on top , circular elements of 20 ' each , with the station
signal being on the antenna and under 1 , 000 watts . He noted that in an
AM station the actual tower is used to radiate the signal with an insulator
process .
Mr . Francese noted that in this situation WVBR feels that this is a
totally safe tower from an electrocution point of view . Mr . Hutchins agreed
but commented that one could get a shock from the antenna . Mr . Francese
asked about the TV possibility . Mr . Geller stated that that was completely
speculative but would be added to the tower but not too high . Mr . Hutchins
stated that the three circular elements are of less than 2 " ( two inch )
radius in a triangular form and present the least wind loading effect . He
stated that the wind loading is as low as it can possibly be . He noted
that the base is 18 " to 24 " and added that most FM stations are 500 ' high
and have a width as much as 42 " .
Excerpt - Z . B . A . Mtg . 10 / 22 / 80 . - 5 -
Mr . Francese asked if there were not already a tower on West Hill and
it was stated that there was a tower for WTKO - AM in the Town there but was
removed in 1973 after they put up the four towers on South Hill .
Mr . Austen asked how the tower was guyed . Mr . Hutchins stated that
there are three stations at three different points and three wires at each
of those points .
Mr . Francese asked if WVBR had any photos that show a tower of similar
size in any other location . Mr . Geller said that they did not at this time .
Mr . King stated that he had read the information on TV interference as
submitted to the Planning Board . He noted that the station is obligated to
help adjacent property owners and wondered if they actually go in and
eliminate the problem . Mr . Hutchins stated that this is one of the areas
where the FCC bears down on stations . He stated that with even one complaint
it is generally required that they go to the house and not only establish
that .they were not the cause or . were the cause , but also in any event take
care of the problem . He stated that usually the TV itself is the problem ,
but they had to put in a trap and do as much as they can to correct the
problem even though the problem is in . - the TV set . He stated that the trap
is put in the TV set where the antenna lead comes into the home .
Mr . Francese asked if the . residents of the area were on Ceracche Cable
TV . It was stated that nobody is ; the Cable is not up there .
Mr . Francese turned to interference given the wattage and the tower
® size and asked what the outer limits would be of the distance where one
would expect interference - - what is the range of possi le ,4nterference .
Mr . Hutchins stated that the tower is almost not a hig s ion to count on
a blanket interference but he could guess at , say , within a mile or two .
Mr . Hutchins added that generally where they receive interference for a
mile or more is usually a tuning adjustment on the TV .
Mr . King wondered if someone wanted to complain to the FCC , where
would they complain . Mr . Hutchins stated that it would be to the Buffalo
Office of the FCC , but most people would complain to the station . Mr .
King asked if the station has any procedure for accepting reports and
stated that it would be reasonable to submit to this Board such a procedure
- - whom to call - - what to do . Mr . Hutchins stated that he has talked to
the FCC and they have a booklet which tells people how to identify such
things and that he ( Hutchins ) has recommended that WVBR get this booklet .
Mr . King asked if the Board can get one for the record . Mr . Geller stated
he would do so .
Mr . Francese posed the question that if he lived 3 / 4 of a mile from
this site and it interfered with his TV and WVBR pint in a trap or a filter ,
does that eliminate the trouble . Mr . Hutchins replied that it does and
added that most TVs do not have elaborate circuitry involved in order to
eradicate a problem . He commented that the problem is usually confined to
one channel and so it is easy to tune it .
Mr . Francese asked about interference with CBs . Mr . Hutchins replied
that that is very unlikely , it being more likely that the CB will interfere
with the TV . Mr . Francese noted that Mr . Hutchins was saying that FM does
not generally interfere with CBs . Mr . Francese asked about AM interference .
Mr . Hutchins replied that there would be none . Mr . Francese asked about FM
Excerpt - Z . B . A . Mtg . 10 / 22 / 80 . - 6 -
interference and Mr . Hutchins replied that there may be some effect in the
immediate vicinity but probably no worse than what one is getting now .
Mr . Francese asked if there would be interference with any other elec -
tronic equipment , such as garage door openers or pacemakers . Mr . Hutchins
replied to the question . of pacemakers and stated that they are not required
to post a pacemaker notice on this particular station .
Mr . Austen asked if there would be any interference with the Hospital .
Mr . Hutchins replied that there should not be . Mr . Geller stated that the
FCC did take that into consideration and added that the liklihood is minimal .
Mr . Geller stated that if there is any interference they are obligated and
they will fulfill their obligations .
Mr . King asked if there would . be any other use made of the grass . Mr .
Geller replied none . Mr . Francese noted that the parcel would contain the
garage - type building and the tower . Mr . King asked how the grass would be
kept and added the question as to whether it is pasture land . Mr . Geller
replied that . it is overgrown now and there are no plans to change the
character of the land . He added that it is not a picnic site .
Mr . Francese noted that there are 3 , 000 watts of power , i . e . , 3 x 1 , 000 .
Mr . King inquired about screening and was informed of the plans for the
security fence around the site and also the posting of notices to operators
of snowmobiles . Mr . King asked if the guy wires go beyond the fence and he
was informed that they do . Mr . King asked if there were any plantings
planned and he was informed that none were planned , the natural area being
® sufficient . Mr . King asked how far back the tower will be from the road
and was informed that it would be 1 , 320 ' back .
Chairman Francese declared the public hearing open to the public and
recited the history of the WVBR application . He referred specifically to
Local Law No . 4 - 1980 , entitled , " A Local Law Amending the Zoning Ordinance
of the Town of Ithaca to Provide for the Erection of Radio Transmission
Towers in an Agricultural District . " He stated that this is a Local Law
amending the Zoning Ordinance by adding a new section number 51A , adopted
by the Town Board on June 9 , 1980 . He stated that the Zoning Board of
Appeals receives a recommendation from the Planning Board and the Zoning
Board may grant a permit for the erection of radio transmission towers .
Mr . Francese read the Planning Board Resolution as adopted September 23 ,
1980 , and the vote , as follows :
" MOTION by Mr . Montgomery May , seconded by Mr . Edward Mazza :
RESOLVED , that the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca recommend and hereby
does recommend to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals approval of the
application of Cornell Radio Guild , Inc . d / b / a WVBR , for permit to erect a
Radio Transmission Tower in an Agricultural District , 245 Bundy Road , being
a portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 27 - 1 - 7 , with the following
conditions :
1 . That additional land is required in order to totally contain the antenna
® should it fall from the base .
2 . That Access Option " A " be selected insofar as such access pertains to
the location of the site , with the addition of two culverts , one 18 "
to take care of the draw north of the tree line , and , one 4 ' to take
care of the deep draw , both as further defined and approved by the
Town Engineer .
'Excerpt - Z . B . A . Mtg . 10 / 22 / 80 . - 7 -
3 . That the hedgerow between Carpenter ' s land and Hopkins ' land be left
intact .
® 4 . That the Environmental Assessment Form , as amended during this public
hearing by the Planning Board , be accepted .
Aye - May , . Mazza , Grigorov , Bronfenbrenner .
Nay - Baker , Schultz , "
Mr . Francese stated that the, Board would like to hear from the neigh -
borhood people . Mr . Francese stated that at this point he finds it
unlikely that the Zoning Board will reach a decision tonight , He stated
that he , personally , wants to visit the site and get a visual picture of
the site and also to look at other towers , He stated that the other members
of the Board wish to do the same thing .
Donna M . VanOrder , 128 Bundy Road , spoke from the floor and stated that
she understood that the tower is one - quarter of a mile from the road . She
stated that the house nearest to the tower site is lived in by a lady who
has a pacemaker and the neighbors want to be sure that that will not be
bothered , Mr . Francese asked who the - lady is , and Ms . VanOrder replied ,
Charlotte VanOrder , who lives at 236 Bundy Road .
Mr . Francese asked . Mr . Hutchins if there is any record of any engineer -
ing tests on the effect of FM on pacemakers from the FCC . Mr . Hutchins
replied that he was not sure of any FCC tests on pacemakers as with micro -
ovens , for example , however , it has been type accepted and they are not
required to post a warning on the transmitter .
® Elizabeth Roscioli , 152 Bundy Road , asked if the Zoning Board of Appeals
members had received copies of the neighborhood petition presented to the
Planning Board on April 15 , 1980 . Mr . Francese stated that each member of
the Zoning Board had been mailed a copy by the Secretary as had been the
Town Board , He noted that the petition contained 75 names and is basically
in opposition to . the construction of this tower and notes that property
values would be threatened and it would be an eyesore , among other things .
Mrs . Roscioli stated that she heard the Board state that they wanted to
go uplthere . She stated that she knew that Mr . Austen of the Zoning Board
is familiar with it and added that she is going - up . there herself . She
stated that she was not aware of swamp land there and she has lived there
for 16 years . She said she questioned that a 283 ' tower painted orange
and white with blinking lights could not be seen . Mr . Francese noted that
the applicant was referring to the building as not being seen , not the
tower ! Mrs . Roscioli expressed concern over the blinking lights . Mr .
Francese noted that the lights are focused up and asked if the lights on
the four WTKO towers are of the same wattage . Mr . Hutchins stated that
they are ,
Mrs . Roscioli asked where the outcry is from people who want to hear
WVBR . She stated that she has not heard a word from any of these people
making this terrible outcry and saying they need this wonderful tower on
Bundy Road and it is the only place for a tower in the City . She said she
did not understand that part of it at all what with all the land that
Cornell owns .
Mr . Francese asked Mr . Geller if the FCC requires that an applicant
provide letters from people saying they want to hear a station , Mr . Geller
replied that they do not .
'Excerpt - Z . B . A . Mtg . 10 / 22 / 80 . - 8 -
Mrs . Roberta Chiesa , 159 Bundy Road , stated to the Board that she
wished to read a letter to the Board which has been approved by the neigh -
bors , as
eigh -
bors , as follows :
, '
Buying a home is a difficult decision . Some neighborhoods are
eliminated because of various features ; things that are there , or are not
there . We all chose to live on Bundy Road for various reasons , and for
whatever those reasons , we liked the area for what was there and for most
of us , for things that did not clutter the area and the skyline .
The resale value of the homes was . high , in that there was a school in
the neighborhood and the area was void of commercial structures . The school
board had the final say on the school and we were under the impression that
zoning . would protect us from other instrusions .
Property resale value was reduced when Glenwood School was closed .
A neighborhood is more attractive if there is an elementary school close by .
Now , the values will be reduced even more if an ugly eyesore is permitted .
No trees or hedgerows are high enough to obscure a radio tower '
Is WVBR prepared to police the area 24 hours a day , 365 days a year ?
What about the safety feature ? We have already discussed , at previous
meetings , the possibility of collapse of the tower , but many more safety
problems must be considered . (.Added verbally , not on text - - ' There is the
matter of the pacemakers . ' ) What about the person who tries to climb the
tower ? A fence won ' t keep someone out - who is intent on climbing and
possibly falling . or being electrocuted . What about the person who walks
thru the area or goes thru on a snowmobile and runs into a guy wire ,
possibly being decapitated ? °
Taxpayers in this community are on the verge of revolt ' Taxes are
going out of sight and services are being reduced . One of the greatest
problems in the Ithaca area is that a very high percentage of property
is tax - exempt and the rest of us must pay taxes upon taxes to make up for
the tax - exempt property . WE DO NOT NEED THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY , NO MATTER
HOW SMALL , TAKEN FROM THE TAX ROLLS . What rights do we , the taxpayers have
in Ithaca anymore ?
( Added verbally , not on text - - ' Gentlemen and Lady of the Zoning Board
of Appeals : How many of you would want a radio . tower in your neighborhood ?
This area is well serviced by several radio stations , we don ' t need any
more coverage in Ithaca and we especially don ' t need or want . WVBR to build
a tower on Bundy Road ' ' '
( sgd ; ) Roberta Chiesa "
Mr . Victor DelRosso , 138 Bundy Road , stated to the Board that he
thought both the Board and the applicant did a very outstanding job in
eliciting some very good technical information on this tower . He stated
that he thought the field was very well known and he did not suspect the
safety . He stated that the aspects of transmitting are very well known . and
the matter has been presented accurately . Mr . DelRosso stated that the
problem that has not been addressed is the Local Law itself . He stated
that the ordinance is very restrictive in permitting towers and that there
is to be no alternative inputting them where an applicant has requested
their placement . He stated that WVBR has stated . that no other site is
suitable and available . Mr . DelRosso noted that WTKO also said that there
was no other place suitable and available when they requested towers con -
struction on South Hill and when they were denied , they built them someplace
'Excerpt - Z . B . A . Mtg . 10 / 22 / 80 . - 9-
else . Mr . DelRosso stated that if this is , indeed , the only site for mass
coverage , then this implies a nesting area for other towers . Mr . DelRosso
commented that FM radio is . the thing now . Mr . DelRosso stated that it was
not the intention of the ordinance to pack all towers in one spot . He
noted that WVBR is a not - for - profit organization and they do have one tower
in existence . He noted that WVBR talks about shadows and voids and lost
coverage in East Ithaca out to Dryden , and stated that on West Hill they
will do exactly the same thing and will have shadows and voids on West Hill
down to the Lake . He stated that in order to correct one ill , they will
create another . Mr . DelRosso stated that this tower is not needed ; it is
not desired in the neighborhood ; and flat out , it should not be accepted .
Mr . Francese asked what the output of the present WVBR .. tower is . Mr .
Geller replied 3 , 000 watts .
Ms . Katherine . Anderson , 258 Bundy Road , stated that her . 'main -= concern
is the TV and stated that WVBR will come in and say that it is her set and
that she cannot afford a new TV . Ms . Anderson stated that Ceracche TV will
not support TV cable up on Bundy Road .
Ms . Patricia Whittle , 271 Bundy Road , asked if it were not possible to
have a translator like WNOZ has . Mr . Hutchins replied that it was not
under FCC rules . Ms . Whittle stated that the land is not a swamp land , it
is a pasture land with up to 40 horses there . She stated that she gets
good reception on three stations and she does not want that changed since
it is not that great now .
Mrs . Chiesa asked how many people WVBR is going to pick up that it does
not get now . Mr . Geller . stated . that this is impossible to verify , but that
currently they are not serving , what they were originally licensed to serve
and that is all of Ithaca . He said they are neglecting a large area , an
area which covers ten to twelve thousand persons in the Town alone . He
stated that they are not servicing the entire area and that is reason
enough in the eyes of the FCC and in WVBR ' s eyes .
Mrs . Retuning asked about the same shadows being there at a new site .
Mr .. Hutchins described the pattern study , the beam tilt on the antenna and
other technical matters . Mr . Hutchins commented that the old location is
a bad location to begin with . Mr . Hutchins pointed out that the number
twelve to fifteen thousand people was based on coverage maps in the engineer -
ing survey that the FCC accepted .
Mr . Francese asked how many persons WVBR covers today when they talk
about coverage in terms of number of people . Mr . Geller replied the entire
Ithaca population minus those not covered because of the tower location .
Mr . Francese noted that this might be considered as 45 , 000 people less
15, 000 and that it .- would be fair to say WVBR today. covers 30 , 000 people and
if they were to erect a . new tower the signal could go to Cortland and
Dryden . Mr . Geller agreed . Mr . Francese asked if there would be a fairly
good signal to anyone living in Tompkins County . Mr . Geller replied ,
generally . yes . Mr . Francese wondered if then it would be fair to say that
up to 80 , 000 people . could be served . Mr . Geller pointed out that some are
already served . Mr . Francese wondered if the number would be doubled , i . e . ,
40 , 000 to 80 , 000 . Mr . Geller said that that would not be right ; 40% would
be added . Mr . Francese noted that coverage would be 140% of what WVBR has
today .
Ms . Donna VanOrder asked if WVBR has found they can change the tilt
of the beam , would it be possible to extend the tower that they now have
Excerpt - Z . B . A . Mtg . 10 / 22 / 80 . - 10 -
and make it taller and change the beam on it and get better coverage with
that existing tower . Mr . Hutchins replied that WVBR is generally overshoo -
ting areas and added that they can do what Ms . VanOrder suggested but only
up to a point . Mr . Geller stated that . WVBR cannot extend the height of
their present tower beyond 140 ' because of the airport .
Attorney Bruce Wilson pointed out that the new amendment to the
ordinance allows radio towers only in an Agricultural District .
Mr . John VanOrder , 238 Bundy Road , . asked if WVBR had commercial time
for money . Mr . Geller stated that they did . Mr . VanOrder stated that the
people just will not buy this tower thing and the business about not
reaching people . Mr . VanOrder stated that once you open yourself up for
this , they have got a foot in the door and it can go on and on .
Mr . Francese stated that that was not true and pointed out that this is
an application for a very specific permit for a single radio tower in an
Agricultural District ; a gas station business , for example , a commercial
enterprise of that sort , is not permitted . Mr . VanOrder commented that it
could , could it not . Mr . VanOrder stated that Mr . Buyoucos , the Town
Attorney , just handed it to WVBR on a silver platter . He asked if this
would not give other people ideas to go there with the same thing . He
said it is a heck of a thing just to say " no " or " yes " .
Mrs . Chiesa stated _ thatone radio tower leads to how many radio towers ?
Mr . Francese stated that Mr . DelRosso made that point and it is a valid
point ; that is possible , however , there is no relation between a radio
® tower and any other commercial properties .
Mrs . Roscioli stated that she did not even know whose title is
what any more - - so many meetings before this thing is decided upon - - but
the people on Bundy Road are pretty sturdy , and if there is one meeting
that they do not know about , will they be made aware of it and if they are
not there , does that mean the Board will take it that they do not care .
Mr . Francese stated that that would certainly not be the case and that
there will most probably be only one more meeting of the Zoning Board on
this subject and they will be aware of when that will be . Mr . Francese
described the procedure should there be an appeal of any kind in this
matter , i . e . , an appeal to re - hear the matter which must be agreed to by
the Board , or an appeal from a decision either for or against which would
go to the courts .
Mrs . Whittle asked if WVBR had looked two miles up the road where they
do not have zoning - - in Enfield . Mr . Geller stated that they had and it
is not as optimal as the proposed location and further the tower would have
to be substantially higher due to the propogation of radio waves . Mr .
Francese asked how high and Mr . Geller replied 400 ' to 5001
.
Mr . VanOrder asked why it would have to be so much higher if the
ground slopes up . Mr . Geller explained that as you continue up the area
the hill levels and as you pull back the propogation . of the waves changes
significantly and the effect is to lessen the approved signal . Mr . Hutchins
stated that the farther away you get the higher you have to go . Mr . Francese
asked if two miles makes a difference . Mr . Hutchins replied , yes , at this
tower station , it does .
Mr . King inquired as to the probable future use of the land in the
neighborhood up there and asked if it were on the record as to the probable
c
' Excerpt - Z . B . A . _ Mtg . 10 / 22 / 80 . - 11 -
future use of the land in that area .
Mr . DelRosso described a road proposed and shown on the Town Highway
Map as a part of the west by - pass and near Hopkins Road and noted that as
that road is established the area will obviously develop residentially .
It was noted . that the . proposed . tower location is in an Agricultural District
as referred to in the Town Zoning Ordinance and also an Agricultural
District under the terms of a County Agricultural District . Mr . Francese
pointed out that under the County Agricultural District laws residential
development is slower than under normal circumstances since the idea is
to maintain agricultural land without pressures of development .
Mr . Lewis Cartee , the Building Inspector , asked that WVBR place markers
on the proposed site in order to identify it clearly when the Zoning Board
members go up to the site . Mr . Geller said that they would do that and will
mark the entry and the site itself .
After discussion with the embers , Chai mean iF ancese declared
that the Public Hearing in the`matt o the VBR applica was formally
adjourned until Wednesday , Novem r - 98 -.a-t p . m . j
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
STATE OF NEW YORK ) SS . :
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS )
I , the undersigned Deputy Clerk and Secretary to the Zoning Board of
Appeals of the Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County , New York , DO HEREBY CERTIFY :
That the foregoing Excerpt from the Minutes of the meeting of the
Zoning Board of Appeals of said Town , including the resolutions contained
therein , held on the 22nd day of October , 1980 , is a true and correct copy
of the original and of the whole of said original so far as the same relates
to the subject matter therein referred to .
I FURTHER CERTIFY that all members of said Board had due notice of said
meeting and that , pursuant to Section 98 of the Public Officers Law ( Open
Meetings Law ) , said meeting was open to the general public and that I duly
caused a public notice of the time and place of said meeting to be given to
the following newspapers and / or other news media as follows :
Ithaca Journal October 8 and October 14 , 1980
Ithaca Journal ( Publication ) October 11 and October 17 , 1980
WHCU October 8 and October 14 , 1980
WTKO October 8 and October 14 , 1980
WVBR October 8 and October 14 , 1980
WICB - AM - FM- TV October 8 and October 14 , 1980
The Ithaca Times October 8 and October 14 , 1980
and that further notice of the time and place of such meeting was given to
the public by posting such notice in the following place on the following
date and by giving such other notice as follows :
® Town Clerk ' s Bulletin Board October 8 and October 14 , 1980
Service by Mail October 8 and - October 14 , 1980
a
Certification - Z . B . A . Mtg . 10 / 22 / 80 . - 12 -
IN WITNESS WHEREOF , I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal
of said Town this 15th day of January , 1981 ,
Deputy T n Clerk
and
Secretary , Zoning Board of Appeals
-_ S E= A , L � =