Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1994-12-14 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS • WEDNESDAY , DECEMBER 14 , 1994 FINAL 7 . 00 P . M . By direction of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca on Wednesday , December 14 , 1994 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , ( FIRST Floor , REAR Entrance , WEST Side ) , Ithaca , N . Y . , COMMENCING AT 7 : 00 P . M . , on the following matters : Appeal ( Adjourned from November 9 , 1994 ) of Douglas H . Armstrong , Appellant , requesting a time- limited variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 11 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to maintain the occupancy of a single - family residence by five unrelated persons ( maximum three unrelated persons allowed ) at 975 Taughannock Boulevard , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 21 - 2 - 32 , Residence District R- 15 . Said building currently has a non-code compliant second dwelling unit located in the structure ' s basement . Appeal of Donald Carroll , Appellant , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals , under Article XII , Section 54 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to enlarge the use of a non- conforming residential building with the addition of a second dwelling unit at 651 Five Mile Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 31 - 2 - 25 . 2 , Residence District R- 30 . Said building is nonconforming since it is located 32 ' from the south side property line ( 40 ' setback required ) and contains a 24 ' front yard building setback ( 25 ' required ) . • Appeal of Ronald Hoy & Margaret Nelson , Appellants , John Golay , Agent , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals , under Article XII , Section 54 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to extend a non- conforming building on a non- conforming lot , at 119 Forest Home Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 66 - 5 - 13 , Residence District R- 15 . _ The extension involves the construction of 48 + square feet of additional living space on the building ' s west side . Said building is non- conforming since it has a south side building setback of 8 . 4 + feet ( 15 ' required ) . Said lot is non- conforming since it has a lot area of 9 , 000 ± square feet ( 15 , 000 ' required ) and a lot width of 60 ' ( 100 ' required ) . Appeal of John Salmi , Appellant , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V . Section 20 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to permit the placement of a satellite dish antenna in the front yard at 132 Enfield Falls Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 33- 1 - 9 . 1 , Residence District R- 30 , Article XIII , Section 59A , of said Ordinance , considers a dish antenna a permitted accessory building . Article V . Section 20 requires accessory buildings to be located in a rear yard only . The appellant received a time - limited five year variance for the satellite dish placement on October 12 , 1988 , however , the variance expired on October 12 , 1993 . Said Zoning Board of Appeals will at said time , 7 : 00 p . m . , and said place , hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto . Persons may appear by agent or in person . Andrew S . Frost • Building Inspector/ Zoning Enforcement Officer 273- 1783 Dated : December 6 , 1994 Publish : December 9 , 1994 FINAL TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA WEDNESDAY , DECEMBER 14 , 1994 7 . 00 P . M . 1 ) Appeal of Douglas H . Armstrong at 975 Taughannock Boulevard . 2 ) Appeal of Donald Carroll at 651 Five Mile Drive . 3 ) Appeal of Ronald Hoy & Margaret Nelson at 119 Forest Home Drive . 4 ) Appeal of John Salmi at 132 Enfield Falls Road . 5 ) Discussion of height variance restrictions . • Andrew S . Frost Building Inspector/ Zoning Enforcement Officer 273- 1783 Dated : December 6 , 1994 TOWN OF ITHACA FILED ZONING BOARD OF APPEAIS TOWN OFITHACA WEDNESDAY , DECEMBER 14 , 1994 n Qate� I `t ClerklhnL % HUl �ncl • The following appeals were heard by the Board on December 14 , 1994 : Areal ( Adjourned from November 9 , 1994 ) of Douglas H . Armstrong , Appellant , requesting a time - limited variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 11 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to maintain the occupancy of a single - family residence by five unrelated persons ( maximum three unrelated persons allowed ) at 975 Taughannock Boulevard , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 21 - 2- 32 , Residence District R- 15 . Said building currently has a non- code compliant second dwelling unit located in the structure ' s basement . GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS . Appeal of Donald Carroll , Appellant , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals , under Article XII , Section 54 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to enlarge the use of a non- conforming residential building with the addition of a second dwelling unit at 651 Five Mile Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 31 - 2 - 25 . 2 , Residence District R- 30 . Said building is nonconforming since it is located 32 ' from the south side property line ( 40 ' setback required ) and contains a 24 ' front yard building setback ( 25 ' required ) . GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS . Appeal of Ronald Hoy & Margaret Nelson , Appellants , John Golay , Agent , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals , under Article XII , Section 54 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to extend a non- conforming building on a non- conforming lot , at 119 Forest Home Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 66 - 5 - 13 , Residence Sl . strict R- 15 . The extension involves the construction of 48 + square feet of additional iving space on the building ' s west side . Said building is non- conforming since it has a south side building setback of 8 . 4 + feet ( 15 ' required ) . Said lot is non- conforming since it has a lot area of 9 , 000 + square feet ( 15 , 000 ' required ) and a lot width of 60 ' ( 100 ' required ) . GRANTED . Appeal of John Salmi , Appellant , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V , Section 20 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to permit the placement of a satellite dish antenna in the front yard at 132 Enfield Falls Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 33- 1 - 9 . 1 , Residence District R- 30 . Article XIII , Section 59A , of said Ordinance , considers a dish antenna a permitted accessory building . Article V , Section 20 requires accessory buildings to be located in a rear yard only . The appellant received a time - limited five year variance for the satellite dish placement on October 12 , 1988 , however , the variance expired on October 12 , 1993 . GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS . FILED 1 TOWN OF ITHACA TOWN OF ITHACA I ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Date DECEMBER 14 , 1994 ClerlC`` n° Nr`1�U�a • PRESENT : Chairman Edward Austen , David Stotz , Edward King , Town Attorney John C . Barney , Zoning Enforcement Officer / Building Inspector Andrew Frost , Town Planner Jonathan Kanter . OTHERS : Donn K . Carroll , Nancy Thompson , Pam Silverstein , George Kugler , John Salmi , Doug and Lucia Armstrong , Ronald Hoy , John Marcoux , Chairman Austen called the meeting to order at 7 : 08 PM stating that all posting , publication , and notification of the public hearings had been completed and the same were in order . The first appeal to be heard by the Board was as follows : APPEAL ( Adjourned from November 9 , 1994 ) of Douglas H . Armstrong , Appellant , requesting a time- limited variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 11 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to maintain the occupancy of a single- family residence by five unrelated persons ( maximum three unrelated persons allowed ) at 975 Taughannock Boulevard , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 21- 2- 32 , Residence District R- 15 . Said building currently has a non-code compliant second dwelling unit located in the structure ' s basement . Chairman Austen invited Mr . Armstrong to take the seat by the microphone in order to record the meeting for the secretary . He then stated that specific plans had been requested or the fire rating materials , the windows and things pertaining to fire safety issues . Chairman Austen asked Mr . Armstrong if he had those materials . Mr . Armstrong stated that in talking with Andy Frost after the last Board meeting on the ninth of November , he suggested various things that we might do in order to improve the chances of getting a time extension . One of the things had to do with the garbage situation . That has been taken care of . Another was the parking situation and , in the information that we passed on to the Board , one of the items was parking regulations that we have issued to the renters asking them for their type of automobile and their license plate numbers . We have given a copy of this to the Lucentes so that , if someone is parking illegally in their area , they know who and where the car belongs . Andy suggested that we make some corrections in the safety features of the cottage . We have contacted the electrician , Dennis Sheehan , from Trumansburg , who has done the electricity on our cottage for eight years . He has agreed to rewire and replace the smoke alarms which were disconnected , unfortunately , by renters . Also , the idea of moving them to more logical places , both downstairs and upstairs . We have also made , or asked for estimates , from Bowker Builders and Crispell and Scott General Contractors in regard to the window in the downstairs bedroom , and I have the estimates here for that work if you care to see them . Mr . King asked if Mr . Armstrong could give the Board a description of the work he was speaking of . Mr . Armstrong said yes , in the back bedroom , in the downstairs section of the house there ' s a window that doesn ' t allow egress in case of a fire ; it doesn ' t meet code , it ' s too small . So , we asked actually three contractors . One did not comply with our request , but the other two did . Mr . King asked what the contractors proposed to do . Mr . Armstrong answered that they would put a window that meets code in that bedroom . Mr . King asked if it would be a larger window . Mr . Armstrong answered yes . Mr . King said that the 10oard did not care how much it would cost , just that Mr . Armstrong did it . He then asked Mr . Armstrong if he would do it . Mr . Armstrong replied that yes they have made plans to do it . He continued by stating that the Christmas vacation seems the logical time to do it and that both of the builders , at that time would be available to do it . Mr . King asked if Mr . Town of Ithaca 2 Zoning Board of Appeals December 14 , 1994 Armstrong had selected one to do it? Mr . Armstrong said no , they had not yet selected the .,ontractor . He also stated that the difficulty is that the contractors are unable to see what is in the walls , so they are making an estimate completely " off the top of their heads . " Therefore , they are making the estimate on a time and material basis . Mr . King then asked Mr . Armstrong if he is going to get it done during the holiday? Mr . Armstrong said that that is what the plan is . Mr . King said that it better be , more than a plan , it better be a commitment to do it . Mr . Armstrong stated that he saw no problem with it . He has gone out and obtained the estimate with the idea that the work would be done while the students were away on Christmas vacation . Mr . Frost told Mr . Armstrong that if he did not get the approval tonight , there may not be any reason to make that investment , if they were going to no longer occupy the space anyhow . He continued by saying that he would feel comfortable that , if the approval was granted , that Mr . Armstrong would install the window . Mr . Stotz stated that he believed there was also some mention made of some statements from the students that live in the adjoining property addressing the parking , garbage and partying situation . He then asked if those statements had been obtained . Mr . John Marcoux said that he had the statements . He continued by saying that he lives in the house whose zoning is being appealed right now . He also stated that he lives at 975 Taughannock Boulevard and that he brought statements from his neighbors . Mr . King said that Mr . Armstrong had mentioned that something had been done to take care of the garbage situation . He then asked what had been done . Mr . Armstrong asked if he could *mead a statement in regard to the allegations that Mr . Lucente made last time in regard to he garbage . He stated that he was talking about Andy ' s idea . Mr . Armstrong stated in the last meeting Mr . Lucente spoke to three particular points . One was the garbage , one was the idea of being in a family neighborhood and the third was the Garrison letter , which was read by Mr . Lucente at the last meeting . Mr . Armstrong continued by saying that in regard to the garbage , Mr . Lucente had stated that we had made no provision for garbage . On the contrary , several years ago , we shared in the cost of the construction of a closed wooden shed on Route 89 with Mr . Garrison . We share the space for garbage . Our space is marked 975 , and the renters were advised from the first day where it was , that garbage cans were provided and that they were responsible for contacting the hauler of their choice . We paid the county trash fee . That is simply in reply to the statement that no provision was made in regard to garbage . Chairman Austen asked if the renters use that facility , or do they not take it up . Mr . Armstrong replied that until three weeks ago the renters had not used the facility ; it has now been cleaned up and taken care of . Mr . Armstrong continued with number . two . Mr . Lucente used the word " maximum occupancy" and " maximum income , " objected to the maximum occupancy of rental units in the area . What Mr . Lucente failed to note was that , of seven units in the area , only his is a family unit . He moved into an area that was already highly rental units- - two units to the south of us , belonging to Walter Wiggins , are rental units . Our place was bought as a rental unit . Matt McHughes ' buildings , two places just to the north of Mr . Lucente , are both rental units and now Mr . Garrison , who lives next door to us , has rented his unit . So , the only unit out of seven , in 300 feet of lake frontage - - his is the only unit with a family in it . The letter that Mr . Lucente read in for Mr . Garrison . . . I don ' t know whether you have received a copy of this , but it was a handwritten letter that Mr . Lucente read at the last meeting . This was written at the insistence of Mr . Lucente and the wording of the letter , when we get to maximizing income , " is a Lucente vocabulary . The letter implies that Mr . Garrison and his family are living at 979 Taughannock Boulevard . This is not the case . They live in Big Flats , and the letter objects to the renting of our property when , in reality , Mr . Garrison has also rented his property . And we talk about maximum income - - we rent our place : five Town of Ithaca 3 Zoning Board of Appeals December 14 , 1994 bedrooms , five renters . As long as it was a two- family , we didn ' t realize there was anything wrong with this . But the idea of maximizing our rent - - we have just put in a $ 25 , 000 retaining wall behind the cottage for the safety of the renters and I don ' t call this maximizing our income . But these are points that were presented at the last meeting which I thought needed some kind of rebuff . Mr . Stotz asked if Mr . Armstrong was able to speak with Mr . Wiggins ? Mr . Armstrong replied that he had talked to Mr . Wiggins and Mr . Wiggins said that he didn ' t feel that he should write a letter to the Board , that Mr . Armstrong should talk to the people who lived next to the cottage . That would be two young ladies . Mr . Armstrong continued by saying that he had talked to one of the young ladies and asked her to write a letter but that no letter has been forthcoming . Mr . King asked , have you discussed with Mr . Frost your proposed smoke alarm/ fire alarm rewiring and relocating? Mr . Armstrong replied that yes he had spoken with Mr . Frost and that Mr . Frost was the one who suggested that the smoke alarms be moved from their present location to a more advantageous position , closer to the bedrooms downstairs particularly , and perhaps also upstairs . Mr . Frost said should this be considered , I would want to re- review that situation on- site . The situation , as I recollect it , is the typical situation where smoke detectors are too close to the kitchen , so they are disconnected because the cooking sets off the smoke detectors . Chairman Austen asked how long are they going to be here before you do this work? Mr . �rmstrong stated that the exams are apparently over on the 22nd of December . Mr . Stotz asked if there is a requirement for fire- resistant sheet rock? Mr . Frost replied that there is basically a requirement for fire separation between the units . Mr . Stotz said he assumed Mr . Frost had seen this estimate . Mr . Frost replied that no he had not . Mr . Stotz asked if fire considerations had been made in this estimate in terms of the sheet rock . Mr . Armstrong replied that he had asked them to do this as long as he was going to be looking at several other things . He asked the contractor to give him a figure on the sheet rocking also . But if the students are going to be allowed to remain only until the 31st of July , and we don ' t plan to ask for a two- family designation , there really is no point in going that route . Chairman Austen said you would use that as a bedroom then? Mrs . Armstrong said we ' ve put in our original application that we do not intend to make it a two- family . Mr . Stotz asked if they were going to pursue an appeal . Mr . Armstrong answered no . Mrs . Armstrong added that they had tried to sell it and they would sell it as a single- family . Mr . Stotz asked what Mrs . Armstrong had said . Mrs . Armstrong stated that they would advise a future buyer that it is a single family and that they do not intend to make it a two- family . Chairman Austen asked if there were any other questions . Mr . King stated that the only thing of concern at this point was , if there was going to Ooe any leeway given to continue the occupancy , is that the two fire matters be taken care of - - the smoke detectors - - and that there be a limited time . He continued by stating that the lease expires July 31 . Town of Ithaca 4 Zoning Board of Appeals December 14 , 1994 Chairman Austen asked Mr . Armstrong if the present lease with the students expired on Ouly 31 . Mr . Armstrong replied with yes . Mrs . Armstrong stated that they had explained that before . She continued to say that there are two leases . The original lease is until May 31 and , at the same time , there was a summer lease if the house was not sold . This was so that they could stay and prepare for the bar . Mr . King asked if there were three too many people . He said there are five people in the house . Mr . Armstrong stated that there could be three either upstairs or downstairs and two in the other part . Chairman Austen asked if someone would like to make a motion on this matter . MOTION By Mr . Edward King seconded by Mr . David Stotz . RESOLVED , that the Board grant the applicant , Douglas H . Armstrong , a time - limited variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 11 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to maintain the occupancy of a single - family residence by five unrelated persons ( maximum three unrelated persons allowed ) at 975 Taughannock Boulevard , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 21 - 2 - 32 , Residence District R- 15 ( said building currently has a non- code compliant second dwelling unit located in the structure ' s basement ) , with the following findings and conditions : 1 . That this grantance is more for the benefit of the students who are all law students ( some of them in their final year ) where they wish to have as little disruption as possible . 2 . That the occupancy would continue only until the expiration of the basic lease which would be on May 31 , 1995 . 3 . That the proposal to extend the lease until July 31 , 1995 would not be accommodated by this variance . 4 . That the variance be conditioned upon the applicants completing ( within 30 days ) the window in the basement bedroom apartment such that it will meet the code to size and fire regulations . 5 . Conditioned upon the applicants also completing the replacement and rewiring of smoke detectors and any other fire safety detectors according to a plan that they must submit to the Building Inspector/ Zoning Enforcement Officer , Andrew Frost for his approval after an on- site inspection and that this plan must also be accomplished within 30 days of the date of this meeting . 6 . That , if the above conditions are not met within the time limits specified , there will be no variance and the applicants must bring the occupancy into compliance immediately ( upon the 31st day after the date of this meeting ) . Mr . Kugler asked if there was to be any public comment . Chairman Austen stated that the public hearing had been closed on the last meeting . Mr . Kugler interrupted and said that he objected to making an elongated parking lot out of Taughannock Boulevard for visitors who 0-4ome to my place and consider it a slum . Chairman Austen told Mr . Kugler that he was out of order . Mr . Kugler said that he knew he was , but that he didn ' t realize the open hearing had been closed . Chairman Austen stated that the open hearing was closed at the last meeting and that Mr . Armstrong had just been asked to bring back information as to fire safety on this . Town of Ithaca 5 Zoning Board of Appeals December 14 , 1994 0 Mr . Frost stated that he had two questions . He then asked when the time limit of the variance , once the conditions are met , would expire . Mr . King responded with May 31 , Mr . Frost then stated that , just for a point to David : they are proposing to put in fire - rated sheet rock in the ceiling , so the only real deficiency they would have , which would need a state variance , is the deficient ceiling height . They do provide fire separation and the smoke detectors . He then added that they would need a building permit to do that work . Mr . King asked what was being spoken of as a fire separation . Mr . Frost responded that the sheet rock on the ceiling would prevent rapid spread of fire from the basement apartment to the upstairs and that is in both of the estimates . Mr . King stated that , if he is understanding correctly , they are not proposing to do that . Mr . Frost then said that that is the question he has for the applicants . Mr . Armstrong replied that he and Andy had spoken about not going through the appeals process to change this to a two unit and , therefore , if it is not a two unit , you don ' t need the sheetrocking . Mr . Frost said that was correct , he was just commenting that both of these proposals had that in there and it wasn ' t clear . . . Mr . Armstrong interrupted by stating that he had asked for it on both proposals . Mr . Frost said OK . Attorney Barney stated that it has been almost as long since Mr . King took the Bar Exam that he , himself , had taken the Bar Exam . He continued by saying that he does remember that it was a fairly horrendous period of his life for about six weeks leading up to the Bar Exam because you don ' t really want to go through the experience more than once . He wondered if athe Board choosing to grant the variance might not add a deference to the Armstrongs , but ight add a deference to the occupants . Instead of forcing them into having to move when they are going to embark on this six-week cram course and the Bar Exam that follows - - if you see fit to grant the variance until the 31st of May , I guess the question is what ' s wrong with going to the 31st of July to accommodate that situation? Mr . King responded by stating that one thing is that they don ' t have assurance that they would be able to stay until the 31st if the applicants sell the property . Attorney Barney said that maybe they could be told on the variance that , if the property is sold , the variance ends either on 31st of May ( if it ' s sold prior to that date ) or the 31st of July ( if the property is not sold ) . Mr . Frost asked if the consideration was made to extend it to July , could there be imposed something that says should there be any documented violations of property maintenance or noise ordinance in the Town of Ithaca that the variance would automatically terminate itself legally . Mr . Frost said it had to be made clear to the tenants that there can ' t be any noise and there can ' t be any property maintenance violations that would be any problem for the adjoining neighbors . Mr . Frost said that his office would document and verify those problems and allegations . Chairman Austen stated he had one question , too . How many students are going for their Bar Exam this year? Mr . Armstrong responded that all five that are renting are going for the exam this year . Attorney Barney asked if they were due to be finished July 31 . Mr . WArmstrong responded with yes . Mrs . Armstrong stated that they would actually be finished on e 25th . Town of Ithaca 6 Zoning Board of Appeals December 14 , 1994 • AMENDMENTS TO THE MOTION By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . David Stotz . 1 . That the date for the termination of the variance is amended to July 31 , 1995 or such sooner date as the occupancy terminates because of sale of the property . 2 . The variance is further conditioned on there being no documented violations of the noise ordinance or property maintenance and the property be kept in good form . By a documented violation , it is meant that a complaint is made to the office of Mr . Frost and a zoning officer finds that indeed there have been such violations . 3 . That the date for the applicants to complete all conditions noted above is changed to January 22 , 1995 ( prior to return of the students ) . With no further discussion , Chairman Austen asked for a vote on the motion which resulted as follows : AYES - Austen , King , Stotz . NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously . Mrs . Armstrong asked to clarify two things : One is the 30 days . She asked if the Board as saying 30 days from today? We ' re entering into a difficult time to get workmen . 0 Mr . King stated that he supposed that should be changed to the end of January . Chairman Austen asked how about before the students get back . Attorney Barney said the students would be back January 22 . Mr . King said Ok , that would add one week . Mrs . Armstrong said that the second question she has is that , if you are not a quorum , could someone challenge the ruling from tonight . Chairman Austen responded that they are a quorum . We do not have a full Board , but there is a quorum . Mr . Frost stated that , if there was a negative vote , you would have the right to come back , there would be no action taken . Attorney Barney said all three must vote the same way in order for it to be an action when there ' s only three here . He said she lucked out tonight . Mr . Armstrong thanked the Board for their considerate opinion and for Andy Frost ' s help in telling them what they had to do in order to bring this about . He said thank you very much . The second appeal to be heard by the Board was as follows : Appeal of Donald Carroll , Appellant , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals , under Article %II , Section 54 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to enlarge the use of a non-conforming residential building with the addition of a second dwelling unit at 651 Five Mile Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No , 31-2- 25 . 2 , Residence District R-30 . Said building is nonconforming since it is located 32 ' from the south side property line ( 40 ' setback required ) and contains a 24 ' front yard building setback ( 25 ' required ) . 0Chairman Austen invited Mr . Carroll to tell them what he is planning . Mr . Carroll stated .1�hat in June he had purchased the property at 651 Five Mile Drive with the intention of iving there . It ' s a marginal property . He is in the process of still trying to get the cash necessary to do the renovations . His intention , in requesting putting a small apartment on the front , would be to raise the potential equity value and have a little more flexibility Town of Ithaca 7 Zoning Board of Appeals December 14 , 1994 10fn the use of the space . A single studio apartment on the front of the building on the first loor would be quite handy and easily accessible in its present location . He believes it would be rentable and his son and himself could easily occupy the rest of the building without any problem . It would be a two-bedroom unit as the plans exist , as well as the single-bedroom unit on the front . He referred to a photograph and said they would see , on that photograph , a series of windows across the front on the first floor . He believes it was originally a coffee shop . Chairman Austen asked if that was the place Mr . Carroll planned to enlarge . Mr . Carroll said it would be slightly enlarged and converted into a studio apartment . Mr . King stated that the property is non- conforming because it has a front yard that is too shallow . Mr . Carroll said it was too short by approximately a foot . Mr . King asked Mr . Carroll if his proposal would cut into that another foot? Mr . Carroll replied that it would not change the footprint at all except for a box bay window , otherwise the footprint is not changed at all . It wouldn ' t , in fact , change the foundation line at all . Mr . King continued by saying that , when he viewed the property , there was an automobile parked in the front yard and there seemed to be a regular path or driveway in there . Mr . Carroll replied that there is some gravel there . His intention would be , on the north side of the house , to have a parking space for the apartment and , just south of the house , have a parking space for himself . Mr . King noted there was not much room south of the house before there is a steep bank in there . Mr . Carroll responded that there is room enough ; they have parked several cars along there when they have had company . Mr . Stotz noted that Mr . Carroll ' s intent was either not to park himself or have any of his tenants parking in front of the house . Mr . Carroll said not on the street . Mr . Stotz stated that this meant not facing in on the front of the house so the front bumper is . . . Mr . Carroll said no , that it would north of the house , not by much , but the parking would be north of the building and just south of the building . Mr . Stotz asked Mr . Carroll how far back he planned on putting those parking spaces . Would they just be off the road with enough room for a car or would they extend back for some distance . Mr . Carroll stated that , at the front of the house , the grade breaks , both north and south so that would be the limit . But , he would expect to have them sitting well off from the road and off from the present circular drive so that either occupant could use that to come in and go out . He said he should have prepared a diagram for that . Mr . Stotz asked if there was a circular drive there . Mr . Carroll responded that there was one , of sorts , around the pole . It ' s not really a driveway ; there ' s gravel in place . Mr . King asked Mr . Carroll if he was proposing to keep that circular drive and to park cars in it . Mr . Carroll said that the parking would be just off from that small circular drive , so that they could maneuver through the drive and not be backing or pulling onto the highway . Mr . King noted that part of the problem , sight-wise , is seeing a car parked in the front yard of the house , which is what this amounts to . Mr . Carroll responded by saying OK , well that ' s unavoidable , short of driving to the north edge of the lot and pulling down around behind , which would be very difficult to access in the winter time . He continued by saying that there is , virtually , no way in and out of the house on the back side unless you walked around to the south , so that would be very difficult functionally . Mr . King said that Mr . Carroll was proposing to make parking spaces both to the north and he tsouth of the house . He then asked if those spaces would be in the front yard . Mr . Carroll said they would be in what would be perceived as the front yard . If you drew a line across the facade , they would be in front of that line , just north and just south of the house . Town of Ithaca 8 Zoning Board of Appeals December 14 , 1994 10Mr . Stotz stated that that was true , but not in front of the building . Mr . Carroll said hat if you drew lines from the side of the building straight to the road , they would not be in that space . Mr . King then added that there seems to be a right- of-way north of the house , shown on the survey map . He then asked if that was the extent of Mr . Carroll ' s property ownership , that right-of -way . Does Mr . Carroll own the right- of-way? Mr . Carroll responded that there is a 12 ' right- of-way on his property and then the Town of Ithaca owns 50 ' which has been referred to as a right- of-way , but that ' s not his property . Chairman Austen pointed to a stake on the map . Mr . Carroll said that the front of the property is the narrowest part . Mr . King noted that he had noticed a sign , a brokerage sign , that indicates acreage for sale to the north of Mr . Carroll . He then asked Mr . Carroll if that was his property . Mr . Carroll responded that is property that lies to the east of him , behind the tracks . The only access to that property is the 12 ' right- of-way which is part of his deed . Mr . King asked if that was part of Mr . Carroll ' s land that is being offered . Mr . Carroll stated no . Mr . King asked who owns that . Mr . Carroll said he could not tell ( he doesn ' t know ) . It ' s the parcel directly behind his own parcel , on the other side of the tracks . Mr . Frost said the development in that area may be difficult because of the flood plane there . He could not clarify how much is in the flood plane . Mr . Frost said that it needed to be clarified that he had advertised this as having a side yard setback of 32 ' . He noted that Mr . Carroll had written in 27 feet . Mr . Carroll affirmed that that was true . Mr . Frost indicated that the scale does show 32 ' and that it was a little unclear as to how accurate Mr . Carroll felt his 27 ' measurement . Mr . Carroll aid that he had stood there with Mr . Jenks and they guessed where the post was because they were unable to find it . Mr . Frost stated that the scale on the survey is fairly accurate at 32 ' if the house is plotted on the survey correctly . Mr . Kanter said that , getting back to the parking question , the planning staff went out to look out at the site . It did appear that cars had been parking on the front lawn , which doesn ' t appear to be a good practice and I ' m just getting a little more detail on what your plans are . Were you proposing to make a more formal parking area? What exactly do you have in mind? Mr . Carroll responded that what he has in mind is having some privacy fence in front of the apartment where the new , larger windows are . On the north side of that privacy fence , have one graveled parking space with something like a tie so that it ' s clear that ' s a parking space and to make a similar arrangement for himself just south of the building so that it is clear to anyone who could easily pull in on that circular graveled area , that there are two spaces . He then asked if the parking out front violated any zoning regula- tions . Mr . Kanter responded that it was a question of the desirability as a practice . He continued with the fact that the main concern would be the number of spaces that would be accommodated . Mr . Stotz asked Mr . Carroll if he had one car . Mr . Carroll stated he had one car . Mr . Stotz then noted that Mr . Carroll had mentioned he would be living there with his son , does he have a car , too . Mr . Carroll responded that his son , at 13 , does not , as yet , have a car . Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . Since no one appeared to address the Board , Chairman Austen closed the public hearing . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Chairman Austen referred to the environmental assessment form prepared by JoAnn Cornish , Planner II of the Town of Ithaca Planning Department . Town of Ithaca 9 Zoning Board of Appeals December 14 , 1994 SMr . Kanter asked Chairman Austen if he would like a thumbnail sketch . Chairman Austen eplied that yes , he would . Mr . Kanter stated that basically JoAnn found that the community and neighborhood character would not be significantly impacted and that the renovations would not alter the character of the surrounding neighborhood or the existing structure . She did raise the issue of parking and just asked that the details of the parking be identified a little bit more specifically at the Board of Appeals . So , based on her review , she recommends a negative determination of environmental significance . Chairman Austen stated that this was reviewed on December 8 , 1994 . He then asked for a motion on the environmental assessment form . MOTION By Mr . David Stotz , seconded by Mr . Edward King . RESOLVED , that the Board adopt the recommendations of JoAnn Cornish , Planner II , dated December 8 , 1994 relative to the appeal of Donald Carroll to be permitted to enlarge the use of a non- conforming residential building with the addition of a second dwelling unit at 651 Five Mile Drive , Town of Ithaca Parcel No . 31 - 2 - 25 . 2 , Residence District R- 30 . With no further discussion , Chairman Austen asked for a vote on the motion which resulted as follows : AYES - Austen , King , Stotz . NAYS - None . • The motion was carried unanimously . Attorney Barney asked Mr . Carroll if there was any particular reason why the bay window was created for this master suite . Why not just have a regular window and not have to encroach into that . Mr . Carroll stated that , in fact , it would be cheaper to put a regular window there . With the twin windows involved and with a very flat facade , it seemed like it would look better and add just a little bit more interior space if it were boxed out . That was his only reason for doing that . Mr . Frost asked Attorney Barney how much he had scaled that because it may be exempt if it doesn ' t project more than two feet into the required yard . Mr . Carroll replied that it ' s calculated as a two- foot projection because he couldn ' t structurally do anything more than that . Mr . Stotz asked if it was going to be cantilevered? Mr . Carroll replied that yes , it would be , for the frame wall with , perhaps , a window seat . Mr . Frost asked if it was 24 or 28 inches . Attorney Barney replied that it is 28 inches , measuring from inside the wall . Mr . Carroll said the extent of the projection is not important to him ; it would be cheaper to put in just twin windows on the facade . Chairman Austen asked if the other matter was to rebuild the porch there to make it a double entry? Mr . Carroll asked if he meant on the rear of the house . Chairman Austen replied no , on the front . He then continued by saying that he saw the entry porch would be strictly for Mr . Carroll ' s unit . Mr . Carroll said that was correct . He said there would be a small landing . Another advantage of having a boxed bay is that there is a natural , small roof line that could be extended as a hood over that entry in its existing location . There is no roof over that entry as it exists . Mr . King asked if that central , front entry would �e used for the apartment . Mr . Carroll replied saying that yes , that would be the entry . Mr . Stotz stated that what he heard Mr . Carroll saying is that he is kind of neutral about whether he wants a bay window . Mr . Carroll said he has drawn it that way because it would make the house look best . In fact , if there ' s any problem with the extension , it would be very easy to simply eliminate that . Town of Ithaca 10 Zoning Board of Appeals December 14 , 1994 eMr . King said it looks as though the extension is something like 22 inches from the xisting face of the house , not 28 inches , because he ' s measuring that from the inside wall . Attorney Barney said it ' s scaled as 28 inches , here , from the inside wall to the inside wall . So , if the wall stays the same thickness , it would be 28 inches from the outside wall to the outside wall . Mr . Carroll stated that the 28 inches is the width of the window . Mr . Frost stated that he could see where it looks like the depth and not the width . He understands why the mistake was made . Mr . Frost pointed out that Section 67 would exempt the projection into the required yard as long as it didn ' t exceed two feet . A projection is permitted to be 24 inches , up to two feet . So , it looks like that bay window would not further encroach on the setback if limited to 24 inches . Mr . Stotz asked Mr . Carroll what it would mean to him if he didn ' t renovate the space . Mr . Carroll said it would mean he would have a room of similar proportions on the front of the house that he would not be able to rent ; he would use it for a guest room , and he is presently using that space for a bedroom for himself . When the upstairs is renovated , he will have a choice of where his bedroom would be . Mr . Stotz asked Mr . Carroll if his reason for doing this is to make the property more marketable . Mr . Carroll said to make it more marketable and to provide a somewhat separate living space . In his thinking , he has a friend who spends a significant amount of time out of the country , but then is back for several months at a time . To have a semi - separate space made sense . He has an elderly mother who may , at some time , need care . This situation is a little bit closer and this would be a � eparate space . In the meantime , to raise the equity value and have some income is certainly art of it . Mr . Stotz asked if people that would be occupying that space would be known to Mr . Carroll . Mr . Carroll responded that he couldn ' t guarantee that , but that certainly would be important . He would have a relationship with anyone that would be living there ; it wouldn ' t be like renting a building that he didn ' t live in . Mr . King stated that it is a R- 30 zone residential and the second apartment is allowed by the statute . The only reason that ' s before us is because of yard deficiencies . He asked if there were any feelings about the parking arrangements . Mr . Kanter said he felt there should be some provision made for parking that ' s back off that lawn so that parking doesn ' t occur right in front of the house . He feels Mr . Carroll has addressed that . Mr . King stated that the further away from the front of the house , and the further back on the property Mr . Carroll creates his parking areas , the happier the Board will be . Mr . Carroll said OK . Chairman Austen asked for a motion . MOTION By Mr . Edward King and seconded by Mr . David Stotz . RESOLVED , that the Board approve the extension of the addition of a second dwelling unit on the Donn Carroll property at 651 Five Mile Drive as he has indicated in his drawings and proposal before the Board , with the following findings and conditions : 1 . The approval is being given under Section 54 of the ordinance and the property is non-conforming because the front and south side yard setbacks are substandard • according to the present ordinance . This , obviously , being a house which existed long before the ordinance , the proposal does not aggravate , particularly beyond two feet , the substandard front yard . Town of Ithaca 11 Zoning Board of -Appeals December 14 , 1994 • 2 . The provision that Mr . Donn K . Carroll make provisions for two gravel parking spaces on either side of the house so that a car parking in either space will not obstruct the front of the house . 3 . The bay window extension may not exceed two feet from the present facade of the house . With no further discussion , Chairman Austen asked for a vote on the motion which resulted as follows : AYES - Austen , King , Stotz . NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously . The third appeal to be heard by the Board was as follows : Appeal of Ronald Hoy & Margaret Nelson , Appellants , John Golay, Agent , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals , under Article %II , Section 54 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to extend a non-conforming building on a non-conforming lot , at 119 Forest Home Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 66- 5- 13 , Residence District R- 15 . The extension involves the construction of 48 + square feet of additional living space on the building ' s west side . Said building is non-conforming since it has a south side building setback of 8 . 4 + feet ( 15 ' required ) . Said lot is non-conforming since it has a lot area of 9 , 000 + square feet ( 15 , 000 ' required ) and a • lot width of 60 ' ( 100 ' required ) . Mr . Frost said that he would like to add that the lot area + is not exact , it ' s a rough number . Chairman Austen said that these are small lots in this particular area , if he remembers right . Mr . Frost clarified that the entrance to this property is off of Judd Falls Road and he thinks the mailbox is 124 - 1 / 2 . Mr . Hoy responded with yes . Mr . Frost added that the property does front on Forest Home Drive and that ' s the address listed in the tax rolls . Mr . King said the mailbox is not there ( on Forest Home Drive ) . Mr . Hoy said the Ithaca Post Office really wanted them to have the mailbox on Judd Falls Road and he thinks they had to come before the Board to get the OK on that some years ago . Mr . Frost stated that they were here several years ago for the carport that would be seen in the picture coming down . Mr . Hoy indicated that he had some plans if the Board would like to see them . Mr . King stated that the record should show that the frontage on Forest Home Drive is quite steep . He doesn ' t know how far above the level of the roadway the Hoy lot is , but he would guess 12 - 15 feet . Mr . Hoy responded that it was easily that and the pitch is pretty formidable . In fact , there is no access , they don ' t use that to get down to the road . So , the only way they actually access the house is off of Judd Falls Road . A long time ago ( the house was built in 1913 or 1914 ) that was the front of the house , and there was a path . But , that ' s long since worn away , and so it is overgrown . Mr . King noted that three or four houses in a row , the Hoy ' s house being one of those , have no access directly from Forest Home Drive . Mr . Frost stated that it ' s also a rather unsafe area on Forest Home Drive - - there ' s not much of a shoulder and there ' s a good curve there , too . Mr . Hoy asked if it would be helpful if he brought some plans that his wife had made . Mr . Frost said they have the building plans from John Golay as well . Mr . Hoy said his wife s a computer person and she made some plans ; she likes to do that . He pointed out that the haded area is the extension . Town of Ithaca 12 Zoning Board of Appeals December 14 , 1994 Mr . Stotz asked Mr . Hoy if the plans were to chop off part of the steps in the front , or Ore they going to leave them out . Mr . Hoy stated that the addition would not actually go beyond the roof line . It will move out , yes ; it will actually move out onto the steps . We will have to remove that portion of the steps which is included in the extension . John Golay was going to come and explain that , but he is ill tonight and can ' t make it . We ' re going to leave the existing brick stairway in place . Obviously , it will be set back a bit . We did ask for supporting letters from our two neighbors , Sandy Delahunta , Judy Bernstock , and David Gross . Presumably , they were sent . There should also be another one from Delahunta . Chairman Austen said he didn ' t recall the second one and it wasn ' t in their packet . They have just the one letter from Bernstock and Gross . Mr . Hoy said that Sandy ( Delahunta ) actually signed a letter to be sent and , perhaps , it somehow just didn ' t make it over . We called them up and showed them the plans and asked him if he would be willing to send the letter along . He said he would . Mr . Hoy continued by saying that if the Board wished , he would get that letter . Chairman Austen asked Mr . Hoy if the extension is about two feet . Mr . Hoy said yes , it is . Chairman Austen continued by asking if it stays within the roof line . Again , Mr . Hoy said yes . Chairman Austen asked if it was a complete kitchen remodel . Mr . Hoy said yes . He also stated that presently the kitchen is narrow enough that they don ' t have standard width counters and , since they were going to do some work on the kitchen anyway , they thought , in discussing it with various builders , that this would be one way to get standard counter space . He specified that this is an addition which was made in 1965 and the kitchen was made from what was the old front porch . Mr . Stotz asked if the extension would have the same kind of siding so it would blend in with the rest of the house . Mr . Hoy said yes , oh definitely . • Chairman Austen then opened up the public hearing . With no one present to speak , the public hearing was closed . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Chairman Austen referred to the environmental assessment form prepared by JoAnn Cornish , Planner II . He then asked if Mr . Kanter would like to comment . Mr . Kanter said sure . He continued with , basically JoAnn indicated that the proposed extension would not change the use or intensity of the land or the property . Community or neighborhood character would not be significantly , adversely affected . Plus , the extension does not destroy the character of the existing structure . In fact , she claimed , it would enhance it , which Mr . Kanter thought was very interesting . Mr . Kanter also states that JoAnn recommends a negative determination of environmental significance for the proposed action . Chairman Austen noted that that was reviewed on December 8 , 1994 . He then asked for a motion on the environmental assessment form . MOTION By Mr . David Stotz and seconded by Mr . Edward King . RESOLVED , that the Board adopt the recommendations of JoAnn Cornish , Planner II , dated December 8 , 1994 , and find a negative determination of environmental significance in the matter of the appeal of Ronald Hoy and Margaret Nelson of 119 Forest Home Drive , to construct a 48 + square foot additional living space on the building ' s west side . • With no further discussion , Chairman Austen asked for a vote on the motion which resulted as follows : Town of Ithaca 13 Zoning Board of Appeals December 14 , 1994 AYES - Austen , King , Stotz . NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously . Chairman Austen asked Mr . Hoy if he planned on matching the windows on both sides . Mr . Hoy responded with yes . Chairman Austen asked if they would still have a sliding door . Mr . Hoy said that no , they think they are going to replace it with a standard door rather than a sliding door . He thinks it would be more in the character of the age of that house to have a regular door , in fact , than a sliding one . Chairman Austen for a motion . MOTION By Mr . David Stotz and seconded by Mr . Edward King . RESOLVED , that the Board approve the appeal of Ronald Hoy and Margaret Nelson , of 119 Forest Home Drive , to construct an extension , of 48 + square feet of additional living space on the building ' s west side . This construction to take place at 119 Forest Home Drive , Parcel No . 66 - 5 - 13 , which is a non- conforming lot , with the following findings : 1 ) It will be in conformity with the plans as presented to the Board . 2 ) That it will not alter the character of the neighborhood . That the addition will not devalue the remainder of the neighborhood . 3 ) That the proposal complies with Section 77 , Paragraph 7 , Subparagraphs a-h . With no further discussion , Chairman Austen asked for a vote on the motion which resulted as follows : AYES - Austen , King , Stotz . NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously . Mr . Hoy thanked the Board for their time . Chairman Austen told Mr . Hoy that it should enhance the looks of the house and that he had given a very nice presentation . The last appeal to be heard by the Board was the following : Appeal of John Salmi , Appellant , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V . Section 20 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to permit the placement of a satellite dish antenna in the front yard at 132 Enfield Falls Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 33- 1-9 . 1 , Residence District R-30 . Article %III , Section 59A , of said Ordinance , considers a dish antenna a permitted accessory building . Article V , Section 20 requires accessory buildings to be located in a rear yard only . The appellant received a time-limited five year variance for the satellite dish placement on October 12 , 1988 , however , the variance expired on October 12 , 1993 . Chairman Austen asked Mr . Salmi if he had changed any of the area to the rear of the 4ouse or the sides that would make it suitable to change the location . Mr . Salmi replied that the problem is that the neighbors ' trees are way too high . They looked throughout the back yard before they put it where they did put it , and there was no way that it would work Town of Ithaca 14 Zoning Board of Appeals December 14 , 1994 y place other than where they did finally end up putting it . Mr . King asked if that is ecause they can ' t get a signal there . Mr . Salmi said yes , the neighbors ' trees to the south are just too high . She has a real big oak tree right directly in front of her house , and then on the southeast corner there is a weeping willow that ' s probably 20 feet higher now than it was then . Mr . King asked which neighbor that was - - a name . Mr . Salmi indicated it is Sharon Sorg . Mr . King pointed out to Mr . Salmi that he has all the back yard , which is to the north of the house . Mr . Salmi said she has a huge oak tree there and then the weeping willow . He continued by saying that if the Board saw the trees , they are covering the whole side and there was no way , at that time , that we could get any kind of a signal any place in the back yard . Mr . King asked what about the east side of the property rather than the west , where the big trees are . Mr . Salmi stated that he wants to build a garage back there so that wouldn ' t work too well . That is his next project . Mr . King asked if he meant at the northeast corner of the lot . Mr . Salmi said right , right straight off from the drive he wants to put a garage . Mr . Kanter asked which direction is the signal . One thing he is wondering is that , if this was installed in 1988 , in the intervening six years or so he thinks there are more opportunities to get signals these days . He ' s wondering whether the angle of deflection of the antenna could now be changed . Mr . Salmi stated that the evergreens he planted in the front are getting big ; they ' re not big enough yet to hide it , but they ' re getting there and he also has burning bushes right directly in front of it . They ' re growing ; they haven ' t caught up yet . Mr . King asked Mr . Salmi if his own evergreens wouldn ' t grow up to block the signal . Mr . Salmi replied that no , they are planted right down along the front here where the dish is . I have burning bushes in front here ( pointing to the map ) . Then there ' s a hedgerow of honeysuckle here , then evergreens from here all the way to the back . Mr . King *evergreens tated that Mr . Salmi was indicating all these burning bushes on the south line and the along the west . Mr . Salmi responded , right . Mr . Stotz asked Mr . Salmi to show him on the map where he thinks he will get a signal on his property besides where it is presently located . Mr . Salmi indicated a point on the map and stated that if he put it there , right next to the creek , he might be able to get a signal . However , he believes you can ' t put it right next to the creek . Mr . Stotz told Mr . Salmi that what he hears him saying is that in this ( indicating point on map ) general area , he could get a signal . Mr . Stotz asked Mr . Salmi if he had tested that at all . Mr . Salmi responded that yes , they had tried it before they put the dish where it is . Mr . Salmi indicated a spot where there is a huge hickory tree that belongs to him and a spot where Sharon Sorg has a humongous oak and then a weeping willow in another spot . Mr . Stotz asked if the hickory is blocking it . Mr . Salmi said it would block part of it . Mr . Stotz continued with the fact that Mr . Salmi ' s angle of deflection is such that he would have to get this ( point on map ) far over before the deflection angle could get up over the trees . Mr . Salmi agreed that was correct . He also said that there had been a dish on a trailer , they pulled the trailer to different spots to test it . Mr . King asked Mr . Salmi if those tests were six years ago . Mr . Salmi said yes . Mr . King stated that he has seen on television that they are advertising , he thinks it ' s RCA , an 18 inch dish . Mr . Salmi said that is something that he plans on looking into for the future . He continued by saying that the only thing is , if you get something like that , how would that look? Chairman Austen said you probably wouldn ' t even see it . Attorney Barney , however , stated that you would be limited to the programming that RCA allows . He also understands that there ' s a competing service that people are looking at RCA because they want to get out from under Time -Warner . Time -Warner has now come up with a competing service that , for one- third of the cost of the eRCA service , they will install , essentially , the same system . However , their monthly cost is about $ 10 more than RCA . Mr . Frost asked Mr . Salmi how much he had invested in this dish . Mr . Salmi said he believes he invested about $ 3500 at that time , not counting the foundation that he made and the underground cable going into the house . Mr . Frost continued by stating that the minutes from 1988 state that Mr . Salmi had $ 4000 invested . Town of Ithaca 15 Zoning Board of Appeals December 14 , 1994 Mr . King asked Mr . Salmi how long he has owned the dish . Mr . Salmi told the Board that Ole brought it with him when he moved from Spencer . It was like a year old before I sold my place down there and that ' s why I took it with me . Mr . Frost said so , you ' ve had it about seven years . Mr . Salmi said yes , it ' s one of those Houston Trackers - - it ' s top- of-the - line . Mr . King stated that the situation seems to be that , there being no houses directly across from Mr . Salmi and being all farm land out there , nobody is immediately facing that dish . They ' re not looking at it out their front window except for Mr . Salmi . Mr . Salmi agreed with that and then continued by asking the Board if they remembered the lady on the Board who had brought up the concern about people coming from the park , that they would stop at the stop sign and see it . They ' ve changed that entrance , so they don ' t go out of the park there anymore . They ' ve dead- ended that off . That was one of her main concerns and he can see why she would feel that way . Mr . Frost said that the lower entrance to the State Park has moved easterly . It used to be almost directly across the street from Mr . Salmi . Mr . Salmi replied that yes , it was . If you stopped at that stop sign where the entrance used to be , you ' d be sitting right there ( indicating the map ) . Mr . Kanter asked Mr . Salmi if there are any trails or walks or other areas of the park across the street that are used often by people . Mr . Salmi replied that no , because where that entrance is there are two houses there and they are back in off of the entrance . They dead- ended that off so that people aren ' t supposed to access through there . There ' s no parking there . Mr . Stotz asked Mr . Salmi if the Kellys or Sorgs had expressed an opinion one way or the other . Mr . Salmi said no , they have not said one way or the other . His immediate neighbors efore were Bob and Ginger Ducay and Tom Shay , but they ' ve since moved . Mr . Stotz asked how about Mrs . French , Mr . Frost replied that she seems to be about the only one who was against it . Mr . Stotz asked if she is not there anymore . Mr . Salmi stated that she is ; she lives up around the corner . She can ' t see it from her house , but she can see it when she drives by . Mr . frost indicated that he believes the picture shows the signpost . There ' s no doubt in his mind that any immediate neighbors driving by the property for the last two weeks knew . Basically the sign is intended to catch people ' s attention , notifying them that there is a case before the Zoning Board . This is something that the Town has instituted as a law of policy three , four , five years ago now . Mr . Salmi said that , as a matter of fact , one of the families that live in the house by the entrance there , they did walk over into his front yard to read that . Mr . Salmi also said that , if the picture had been taken in the summertime , you couldn ' t see it as well as you can right now . Mr . King asked what the diameter of the dish is . Mr . Salmi stated that it is ten feet in diameter . Chairman Austen said that he thinks it ' s a three meter . Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . Since no one appeared to address the Board , Chairman Austen closed the public hearing . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Chairman Austen referred to the environmental assessment form , reviewed by JoAnn Cornish , Planner II . He then asked Mr . Kanter to give an overall summary . Mr . Kanter stated that , in this review , we were able to determine that there didn ' t *specifically , appear to be any visual impact from the park entrance , since it had been relocated . Nor , to the neighboring residential properties to the east and the west . But , we did feel that , generally , a satellite dish in a front yard is not in keeping with the neighborhood character or the intent of the ordinance . By granting this variance , it could Town of Ithaca 16 Zoning Board of Appeals December 14 , 1994 eSet a precedent for other areas in the future . We did recommend a negative determination of nvironmental significance , but , again this could be a precedent- setting action . We were hoping that there could be some more study of alternate locations on the site . It was such a long time ago that it was originally installed , there might be some opportunities now that exist that didn ' t exist at that time . Chairman Austen asked for a motion on the environmental assessment . MOTION By Mr . Edward King and seconded by Chairman Edward Austen . RESOLVED , that the Board accept the recommendation of the Town Planning Reviewer , JoAnn Cornish , as making a negative determination of environmental significance as to the existence of the satellite dish in the front yard at the applicant ' s property at 132 Enfield Falls Road . Chairman Austen then asked Mr . Frost if there had been any comments on this case . Mr . Frost responded that they had been reminded of the expiration by someone who called on this , an anonymous call . Mr . Stotz then asked Attorney Barney say that this was extended , and someone else in the town bought a similar satellite dish and had a similar problem , i . e . , they couldn ' t pick up the signal because of some obstruction and the only place was in the front yard , would this set a precedent? Could they come back and say well , you know you granted this in the past to so- and- so , why can ' t you grant it to us ? Would that give them any leg-up on that? Attorney Barney replied that yes , I wouldn ' t go so far as to say a leg- Aip , but it certainly is , you know , we don ' t want to be discriminatory in granting variances ; Won the other hand , I think in this instance there ' s two things . One is that each situation is usually kind of unique . If someone comes and says there ' s absolutely no other place we can place it and it ' s in a relatively rural area without a lot of houses in the vicinity and not a lot of traffic by it . It ' s another set of circumstances when someone wants to do it with a lot of houses and a lot of traffic , that would be basis for not granting it . He thinks the other thing is , though , in the years since they ' ve adopted this ordinance relating to satellite dishes , only one or two have come in that have wanted to be in the front yard . He thinks that with the direction that the technology is going , he doesn ' t think they are likely to see anymore , quite frankly . Mr . King stated that , as a matter of fact , the ordinance doesn ' t seem to authorize a small dish on the roof in a residential neighborhood . Mr . Frost said he doesn ' t think it permits roof mounting period . He thinks it permits roof mounting in business zones , but not residential . Chairman Austen said that the technology has changed tremendously on those , and they do have small dishes that do follow the satellites . Mr . Frost asked how different , actually , is a roof -mounted 18 inch diameter dish than the typical , standard- type , stick-on-your- chimney equipment , which is permitted . Probably an 18 inch diameter is more discreet than the antenna on the chimney . Chairman Austen said he thinks they have somewhere around 30 - 36 inch ones now that they use that are quite effective . Mr . Kanter noted that a 10 foot diameter is quite large . Mr . Frost said that most people don ' t even go that route anymore ; they go with the 18 inch that costs $ 650 with a monthly fee . Attorney Barney informed the Board that he was in on the drafting of the ordinance and Othat the antennas they were thinking of were the unsightly ones that , with all due respect , they are talking about tonight . He guesses that , if the issue came up , the Board would consider amending this to exclude requiring any kind of variance on an antenna that ' s hardly visible , if it were 18 inches or less . Town of Ithaca 17 Zoning Board of Appeals December 14 , 1994 Chairman Austen reminded them that at that time , most of the dishes were solid ; they laeren ' t an expanded metal dish . They were quite an obnoxious looking unit . They were of a solid material . Mr . King added that they presented a problem from wind . Attorney Barney brought up the point that it ' s an interesting question whether the Town can regulate these things at all . That ' s been an item of debate over the years because the FCC has , from time to time , taken the position that that ' s a federally- regulated area that pre - empted all the local regulations of it . He added that they ' ve never litigated the issue , but at one time , when he researched it , he was satisfied that what we did here we could get away with . But , things have changed ; that was back in 1984 or 1983 , something like that . Mr . Kanter said that the FCC pre - emption rules are such that localities can ' t regulate them so that they are excluded or so restricted so that they can ' t function for their use . Certainly zoning controls can be established that require location and screening that do deal with the aesthetic factors , as long as we don ' t restrict the individual ' s right to use the airways . Mr . Frost said that he supposed you could find some people who find it aesthetical - ly pleasing . He ' s not one of those , but aesthetics is in the eyes of the beholder . Mr . King said thinks that , definitely , we should aim for a sense that , on this particular placement , in some fashion , so that it either gets moved to the back yard within a reasonable time or something happens - - a smaller dish , he doesn ' t know what . MOTION By Chairman Edward Austen , seconded by Mr . David Stotz . RESOLVED , that the Board grant the extension of time for this variance for a period of five years , at which time it will be reviewed again . Perhaps by that time , technology will have improved enough so that it wouldn ' t be necessary to maintain a large dish in a front yard location and that we extend it to five years from this date , expiring on December 31 , 1999 . This concerns the property at 132 Enfield Falls Road , Parcel No . 33- 1 - 9 . 1 , property of John Salmi , with the following conditions : 1 . The existing screening , that the trees and the bushes that are there presently remain there for the next five years . 2 . The applicant is encouraged to seek some other location in the rear yard for this dish and move it on his own motion , without waiting for the expiration of five years . Chairman Austen asked for a vote on the motion , which resulted as follows : AYES - Austen , King , Stotz . NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously . Chairman Austen adjourned the meeting . CLL V , TLet� Debbie R . Raines 0 J 119A 101P and Austen , C firman