Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1973-03-20 ' T(XvTN OF ITHACA PLAN14ING BOAU MARCH 2.0 , 1973 A regular meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board was held on Tuesday , March 20 , 173 , in the Town Offices at 103 East Green Street , Ithaca ,, New York , at 7030 p . m . PRESENT : Chairwoman Barbara Holcomb , Sam Slack , Daniel Baker , Robert Scannell. , Maurice Harris , Arnold Peter Francese ( Planning Consultant ) , Kenneth Kroohs ( Planning Albrecht , onsultant) . ABSENT : Jack Lowe , E obert Christianson . APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved by Mr . . Scannell and seconded by Mr . Harris that the Minutes of February 6 , 1973 ; be approved as amended by deleting the final paragraph having reference to the attached proposed intent . All voted aye . See also Page 6 of these Minutes . REPORT OF PLANNING CONSULTANT Mrs , Holcomb and Mrs K-roohs inspected the Eastern Heights area for existing shoulder width after concern had been voiced at the last Town Board meeting about some sections tterei Mr . Kroohs reported that in several. locations there is less than the required four feet of shoulder : Specifically , the North side of Regency Lane in front of # 101 has only two feet of shoulder and the West side of Park Lane across from # 11. 5 has two and one -half feet . In general the shoulder varies throughout the development with very few areas having more than the four feet . Also noted on the inspection trip was the lack of a roadside ditch on Sharlene Drive across from # 107 . The area where the ditch should be is presently full of debris . Mrs . Holcomb and Mr . � Kroohs also insppected the pedestrian walkway on the Forest Dome Bridge . The waltcway is wooden about 12" below the roadway . The tailings are painted white , but tie flooring is not yet painted or treated . Mr . Kroohs reported that the walkway was substantial . On March 3 , 19732 a meeting was held between Mrs . Holcomb Mr . Kroohs and Mr . Calhoun of the Soil Conservation Service . Mr . Calhoun was asked to review the Eastwood Commons project . He commented that the project looks good , especially since the water is cut off above the property by the railroad embankment and below by the proposed diversion ditch . Mr . Calhoun felt that the diversion ditch between Mr . Schickel ' s property and the properties bordering Slaterville Road should be built first to prevent any possibility of increased runoff from Mr . Schickel ' s land . The engineers for Mr . Schickel should check the possibility of needing rock base for that ditch to prevent erosion . On March 163, 1973 , Mrs . Holcomb and Mr . Kroohs met with Mr . Shannon of the New York State Department of Transportation to discuss drainage problems in the Honness Lane - Slaterville Road area . Mr . Shannon stated that he did not believe in using underground drainage in nonurban areas on State roads . Iie will , however , deepen the • Town of Ithaca Planning Board - 2- � March 20 , 1973 existing ditch on the West side of Slaterville Road North of Honness Lane to the depth needed to match the underground system proposed by the Town for the North side of Honness Lane . Ills equipment will not be available until August , therefore schedules oust be co- ordinated between the State and the Town crews . Mr . Shannon also stated that he willpprevent the roots of the bushes which were removed on Slaterville Road South of Honness Lane from growing back . These are the bushes cut down to improve sight distance from Honness Lane . Lastly , it was decided that upon receipt of a resolution from the Plannin Board requesting Mr . Shannon to cut back the bank on Slaterville Road South of Honness Lane , he will do so . MOTION by Mr . Scannell , seconded by Mr . Albrecht , RESOLVED that the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca wishes to call to the attention of Mr . Shannon , the Regional Engineer for the Department of Transportation , the continuing problem of lack of sight distance at the intersection of Honness Lane and Slaterville Road , and requests that Mr . Shannon cut back the bank on the South- east corner of this intersection to the greatest extent possible . All members present voted ayes Carried : NO PARKING ORDINANCE Mrs . Holcomb reported on the discussion held at the last Town Boated meeting relative to the existing No Parking Ordinance and to the recommendation for extension of the Ordinance made by the Planning Board . The Town Board expressed concern about the existing Ordinance , especially whether it included vehicles parked off the pavement but within the Right of T•lay . Mr . Francese said he would check into No Parking Ordinances in other towns and report back to the Planning Board . Mr . Scannell stated that Cornell University felt that they could keep packers off the shoulder of Pleasant Grove Road if the Town prevents then from parking on the pavement . HPa IDEMI_- NI S LAND ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MITCHELL STREET Mrs . Holcomb asked the Board to consider the zoning of Mr . Idenan ' s parcel . She noted that the parcel is surrounded by Cornell property with commercial across the street and next to it . Mr . Francese stated that he felt that the land should be zoned residential and the Planning Board could consider any specific request to rezone it in the future . Mrs . Holcomb and Mr . Kroohs are to meet with Mr . Yarnell of the Cornell Planning. Departnent and they will investigate what long range plans Cornell has for the surrounding land . HAAG AND WRITE. REZONING Mrs . Holcomb reported that during discussion of the Haag and White proposal. along Five Mile Drive , the Town Board expressed the feeling that the buildings proposed are three story structures . Mrs . Holcomb read Section 28 , pa-raazaph 5 , of the Zoning Ordinance which states that "no structure shall exceed 2 stories on the road side . Since the roads through this development are to be private , the question was Praised of which is the road side . Mr . Francese stated that these buildings were comparable to Mr . Lucente ' s Winston Court . Town of Ithaca Planning Board - 3 - March 20 , 1973 The Board agreed that this was one more section that should be clari» Pied in the new Zoning Ordinance , EASTGJOOD COMMONS - Multi -Family Mrs . Holcomb reported to the Board on discussions held relative to the proposed restriction on who nay rent units in Eastwood Commons . The Town Board wished to have the restrictions be the same as those which apply to single family residences . Mr . Buyouco , the Town Attorney , now feels that Eastwood Commons should be treated as multi " family . After examination of the existing Ordinance Mr . Barney of the law firm of Buyoucos and Barney , reports that his interpretation is that in nulti - amily districts a unit nay be rented to only one family . Mrs . Holcomb sunnarized the history of the definition of B ° family and read parts of the existin Ordinance . Mrs : Holcomb further stated that she felt that Mr . Barney s interpretation was an unreasonable restriction and should be changed and clarified in the new Ordinance . The question of: how to regulate the number of people per unit was discussed „ The: first suggestion was to regulate the number of people per bedroom . Mro Scannell suggested that total square footage of living space be! used instead to compensate for the difference between un3.its with big bedrooms and those with small ones . Mrs , Holcomb made the point that the impact on the neighborhood is different between a family of , f:ive and five single students . Mr . Francese stated that he feels it is possible to use the census concept of the household and/ or total number of people per apartment . He will attempt to write this section of the Ordinance . • Mrs . Holcomb . added that parking dight be regulated according to the number of bedroods , in a unit . , Mr . Slack said that although parking might be the most visible problem , the total number of people is also important „ Mr . Francese said the census does not use family , but rather uses household . The household could be a single person living alone ,, or a person with rooners , boarders or lodgers . Mr . Francese felt that the new Ordinance should ignore the concept of family and use households . PROPOSED 14ORATO111IUM ON ZONING CHANGES Mrs . Holcomb said she had been thinking about the possibility of the Planning; Board requesting the Town Board to declare a nora- torium on zoning changes until the new Ordinance is finished . She stated that the problem of: trying to keep new developments within the framework of the proposed Ordinance was extremely difficult . In reply to a question on the timetable for the new Ordinance Mr . Francese reported that the entire Ordinance should be ready for Board discussion by the second April meeting . The question was raised as to whether or not a moratorium would emphasize the difference between the existing Ordinance and the proposed one . Mrs . Holcomb stated that she was most concerned about nulti - family zones . MOTION by Mr . Scannell , seconded by Mr . Harris : RESOLVED that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board requests the Town of Ithaca Planning Board - 4- March 20 , 1973 Ithaca Town Board to impose a Moratorium on zoning changes until the Proposed revised Zoning Ordinance has been adopted , but in no case for , a period to exceed six months from the date of the adoption of the Moratorium . Mr . Scannell , Mr . Barris , Mr . Baker and Mrs . Holcomb voted Aye ; Mr . Slack and Mr . Albrecht voted Nay . Carried . FUTURE PLA14NING BOARD MEETINGS The next meeting of the Town Planning Board was set for April 3 , 1973 : This will allow Mr . Schickel to present the Eastwood Commons drainage plans -to the Planning Boated before presenting thea to the Town Board on April 9i 1973 . The following meeting is to be on April 17 , 1973 . It was agreed that the general pattern should be for the Town Planning Board to meet the week before the Town Board meets . INTENT OF PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE Members of the Planning Board were given copies of the Intent section of the new Ordinances including all changes made to date . The industrial , agricultural , and public use sections were discussed . After some wording changes were made , the Intent was accepted as amended . MOTION by Mr . Scannell , seconded by Mr . Slack , RESOLVED that the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby accepts the Intent or Preface to the proposed Zoning Ordinance of the . Town of Ithaca , as amended , and dated March 2.0 , 1973 . All members present voted Aye . Carried . It is to be noted here that the Intent as revised is attached to the official copy of the Minutes of this Meeting and is filed in the Town Office ., MANCINI 'S _ INDUSTPIIAL DISTRICT Mrs . -Holcomb brought the development plan for Mr . ManciniIsindustrial district to the Planning Board ' s attention ( Map #304) . . This plan was dated 8 / 8 / 67 . It was noted that the planting strip on the east side of the plot has not been completed and that with Town Board knowledge , the setback for the Millbrook building is less than the 150 ' shown . Except for these two details , the development plan has been essentially followed so far . It was suggested that the wording on setbacks in industrial zones be changed so as to vary for setbacks on the boundary of the district and those on interior roads . Section 45 , paragraph 5 , of the existing Ordinance was read . This section pertains to screening of industrial districts from . agricultural zones or residences . It was felt that the wording should be to screen the industrial area from any other zone and not just ® from existing residences . Mrs , Holcomb will check on what other requirements were made of Mr . Mancini , KENILWORTH PLANTING Mrs . Holcomb asked if now was the time for Kenilworth to start Town of Ithaca Planning Board - 5 - March 20 , 1973 planting . The reply was that it is . A suggestion was made that Marain Locust trees or a similar tree be used instead of Taxis Yew Hedge , M:r . Scanne.11 replied that the Marain Locust was a brittle tree and oak might be better . The concern with the Taxis Hedge is over si ht distance for vehicles entering or leaving the parking lot . Mrs . Holcomb asked if the Planning Board felt a letter should be sent . to Kenilworth regarding the plantings . The Board concluded that if such a , letter were sent it should be stated that if a suitable plan was not presented within a reasonable tine the Town would do the planting using the money from the escrow account . DENSITY ZONING Mrs . Holcomb and Mr . Francese net with Miss Sandy McCullough and Miss Kay Burgunder relative to the work they are doing on the neighborhood density . Several general policies to be applied to our new zoning concept were discussed and approved by the Planning Board . All approved subdivisions and multi- fanily, zones will be included as I f complete . In the case where an area is zoned nulti " family but no planes have been approved , it will be assured . that this area will be developed at the maximum permitted densit' yi The ordinance should have a review mechanism where after a fixed period of time , possibly 3 years ? approved plans where no development has taken place will be re - examined . It will be the Board + s duty to either extend the approval at that tide or to institute rezoning procedures to place the land back in Rml . Mr . Francese stated that when figures on the • existing units have been determined , the Town Board should adopt then as official Town figures . Mr . Kroohs brought up the problem of what will happen if two developers simultaneously requested rezoning to multi - fauily separate pieces of land , but because of the limits set on the total number of units , only one could be approved . The Board concluded that this is an unlikely occurrence and if it does occur the Board will accept the better of the two plans . Mrs . Holcomb read a letter from Janes Coon , Senior Attorney , at the New York State Office of Planninn Services . Mr . Coon wrote that in his opinion our density zoning concept would be legal . DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA Mr . Francese read an article from ASPO magazine , P ° Putting a S eed Limit on: Growth" which he felt had a good list of the criteria the Planning Board should consider when examining a development proposal . Included in this list was the ability of the sewer , water , drainage and traffic systems to handle the increased load without extensive cost to the Town . The article also mentioned schools fire protection , police protection , parks and recreational facilities . Mr . Francese said that the primary thought is to exanine what having the development will cost the Town as opposed to what taxes will be brouht in . Conditions created or changes external to the proposed deveTopnent should be exanined , REPORT OF THE Z0INIING OFFICER. Mrs . Holcomb spoke for Mr . Cowan . A permit has been requested for the constriction of a modular house on the rear of a six acre lot . The lot is owned by the father of the prospective builder . One house exists on the 'Lot . The question is . may the second house be built Town of Ithaca Planning Board - 6 - March 20 , 1973 without subdividing ? Also , oust this house have direct frontage on the road? Thin consensus is that subdividing would not be too difficult , even if the lot were not sold and should be done . Mr . Francese will rewrite that section for the new Ordinance . Mr . Cowan has been asked to present a list of all such probleros he has found in the present Ordinance . SETBACKS Mrs . Holcomb reported that the question of how the required setback is neasured has been asked on several occasions . The choices are , the edge of the pavenent , the right of way line , or the center line of the road . The Board felt that the center line is the best choice . APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was noved by Mr . Slack and seconded by Mr . Baker that the Minutes of January 16 , 1973 , be approved as presented ; All voted aye . ADJOURNMENT The neeting was adjourned at 10 : 00 P . M. Respectfully subnitted Kenneth C . Kroohs Acting-Secretary 3 /' 20 / / 3 PREFACE • This reface is meant to be a ' p guide to acquaint the reader with the purpose and intent of this Ordinance . Each major section of the Ordinances will be discussed with the objective of clarifying the intent of the official text . Background and General Intent The first Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Ithaca was enacted in 1954 and revised in 1960 and 1960 . As amended , the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance is based on the Ithaca Urban area General Plan completed in 1959 . There have been significant changes in highway location and building design since 1959 which have necessitated some changes from the General Plan to meet present conditions . • Large areas of the Town of Ithaca are still undeveloped '. It is the purpose of this revised Ordinance to be flexible enough to permit imaginatively designed development while at the same time restrictive enough to prevent uncontrolled development . The Town of ]Ithaca , in the formulation of this revised Zoning Ordinance , hcl: s taken into consideration the following facts : 1 . The Town of Ithaca forms a horseshoe surrounding the City of Ithaca on three sides . „ Within the City of Ithaca extensive areas are presently zoned for commercial and industrial use . 2 . The Town of Ithaca is bounded on the North , on the East side of the Lake , by the Town of Lansing . In the immediate vicinity of the boundary with the Town of Ithaca there is extensive multiple residence .:Preface - Page Two 3 / 20 / 73 and commercial development . • 3 . The Village of Cayuga Heights is totally within the Town of Ithaca . The Village contains a substantial commercial development and some multiple residence within one - half mile of the Town of Ithaca boundary . Neighborhood Concept Because of its unique topography , the Town of Ithaca can be thought of as a group of six separate neighborhoods ; Each of these areas is defined on the map which is a part of this Ordinance : The purpose in defining neighborhoods is to be able to plan for public facilities and to apply this Zoning Ordinance with some regard for the different conditions which • exist in each of these areasl It is intended that the residents of each neighborhood shall have access to adequate shopping facilities without having commercial areas conflicting with the residential environment . The six Town of Ithaca neighborhoods are as follows : 1 . Renwick Heights 2 . Northeast Ithaca 3 . East Ithaca 4 . South Hill 5 . Elmira Road Area G . West Hill Residence It is the intent of the residence provisions in this Ordinance to .- � ,,; make possible: a mix of residential uses in each neighborhood , including single family , single family cluster , multi- family , and mobile hcxne packs . However , it is the intent of this Ordinance Preface die Page Three 3 / 20 / 73 to permit high density residential development ( multi - family • dwelling and mobile home parks ) only in reasonable proportion to . the low density residential ( one or two family and clustered dwelling units ) . , It is intended that when the number of high density residential units either built or approved in any neigh - borhood approaches 35% of the number of low density residential units either built or approved that no additional high density units will be permitted in that neighborhood until sufficient low density 'units are built to allow additional high density units , An up - to� date listing of the number of dwelling units by type in each neighborhood either built or approved is available in the Town Offices . In this contOxtj College and University dormitories are not considered dwelling ' units . In an R-1 District each house which is on a lot of 15 , O00 square feet or more may have an apartment attached to the main dwelling unit , This. k0rdinance .provides that the'. •apartment be a .maximum of: one -half the size of the main dwelling unit + It is intended that the owner of the property reside in the main dwelling unit ; It is intended that units which are to be used exclusoively for rental purposes should be built in either single family cluster (R- 1 Cluster) or multiple residence (R- 2 ) districts . Land zoned R- 1 is intended for residential use and not for agricultural purposes . Certain agricultural uses , such as the growing of crops , are compatible with residential uses , but other OL uses such as the keeping of livestock herds clearly is not compatible . It is intended that if at some time in the future there is a conflict between agricultural and residential uses in Preface d Page Four 3 / 20 / 73 R� 1 , the residential will be considered the primary use . • Single Fami]y Cluster Housing When an application is made for a single family cluster subdivision , then the one: or twofamily dwelling unit on separate lots concept is not relevant . The important consideration is overall density . This Ordinance provides that no more than 3 . 5 dwelling units per gross acre will be allowed in single family cluster subdivisions . Home ownership versus renter becomes less relevant in a cluster subdivision where home owners ' associations may be operative . This Ordinance provides for a maximum of four dwelling units in each structure in singlefamily cluster subdivisions and that such structUles must be at least 25 feet apart . Any cluster housing plait must make provisions for the permanent maintenance of the open space Mul-- tyleResidence Districts It is the intent of this section to permit the construction of multiple residence units in the established proportion to single family residences . Before new multiple residences are permitted in any neighborhood of the Town it must be shown ; 1 . That adding the proposed number of high density units to the neighborhood will not exceed the permitted ratio of high density to low density residential in that neighborhood , and 2 . That the proposed development will not create a danger to public health and/ or safety because of severe congestion on Town , County , or State roads or because of increased or accelerated surface water Preface s Page F +..ve 3 / 20 / 73 runoff . • Mobile Mone Park Districts (R� 3 ) This section permits the construction of mobile hone parks in the Town of Ithaca . This Ordinance prohibits the placement of mobile homes anywhore in the Town of Ithaca except in Mbbile Done Packs . The ninimun size for a mobile home park is ten acres . Before a mobile home park district is approved , the sane conditions must be met with regard to the high density versus low density residential and danger to public health and/ or safety mentioned in the section on multiple residences . Planned Residential) Devolopment It is the intent of this Zoning Ordinance to encourage planned residential development to minimize conflicts that may arise from an unplanned combination of high and low density residential ; Before a Planned Presidential bdvelopment is approved , the save conditions must be met with regard to the high density versus low density residential and danger to public health and/ or safety mentioned in the sections on multiple residences and mobile home park districts . Plsinned Unit Development District A complete planned community involving residential , commercial antll industrial land use nay be considered in areas of the Town where sufficient undeveloped land and public services (water and sewer) are available and there is sufficient population to support . ,,, such a large scale development . Preface - Page Six 3 / 20 / 73 • Business _Districts Business District A is intended for use as small neighborhood business areas. Any use which is not compatible with residential land uses or would create severe traffic congestion will not be allowed in this district . Business District B , however , is con- sidered to be for large shopping centers . since this type of business may generate large volumes of traffic , Business B districts will be considered only along existing or planned primary highways . Because of the eg: istence of three large shopping centers within close proximity to the Northeast area , a shopping center in East Ithaca and large areas of land zoned for two ,hopping centers on South HI' ll , it is the intent of this Ordinance that no additional • land be zoned Business B unless it can be shown that ( 1 ) the proposed facility cannot: be accommodated in an existang business zone , and ( 2 ) there is a need for additional business of the type proposed . Industrial There a -e two esting light industrial and one existiiZg heavy . industrial distract in the Town of Ithaca . It is the intent of this Ordinance that no additional areas be rezoned to industrial unless it can be clearly demonstrated that a proposed industrial plant cannot: fit into an already existing industrially zoned area without undue hardship , Agricultural It is the intent of this section to remove from farm land the pressures of development and to prohibit the uncontrolled development of Preface - Page Seven 3 / 20 / 73 agricultural land for residential purposes . In the past , lots in agricultural zones fronting on the major streets have been sold for residential use . This has created large interior tracts of land which become inaccessible from established roads . Future residential development may take place provided that the agricultural land is rezoned and a subdivision is approved . Land zoned agricultural is intended for agricultural purposes , not residential . If a conflict should arise in an agricultural zone between the agricultural use and a residentLal use , then the agricultural use is considered the . primary use • Public Use Districts ( P- 1 ) The intent of establishing a P- 1 District is to recognize formally • the existence of land owned by tax exempt , non - profit institutions in the Town of Ithacan Over 25% of the land in the Town of Ithaca is owned by tax exempt organization , , such as Cornell University , Ithaca College , Finger Lakes State Park Commission , Tompkins County and the City of Ithaca . Land in this category is generally not used for residential purposes ( except for dormitories ) , commercial or industrial purposes and hence is designated Public Use . The purpose of Planning Board review of building plan , in a P- 1 District is to ascertain if there will be any adverse impact on adjacent properties , The Planning Board may make such reasonable requirements of a tax exempt organization as are needed to insure the health , safety and environmental protection of Town of Ithaca residents . • 8 iTIiACA JOUi NAS Wednesday:, tr 9. 111338 > � , y N ' Multiple Reslder��' f Recom - - . - 14 L 41 n ezo. By SUE STRANDBERG buildings were ."cgldel^ed, with Journal Staff Writer two.parking spaces*. r . t f::P'lannt` ng Board nantmous y Pecnm Boar ed recommendadon for the zoning' Tuesday night "t the Town :.c6ange ' was conditional on , Board re-lone from farm to 'incorporation of road, wbictr . multiple residence 17'/s acres 't the town plana't throitgti file Steven W. illiam_ Barnes property - rnes `.proPe1t3','.andis, part of;_ ', northeast of, home- on E1Ls :the reset tly� approved Vroposed road s stem tnhih world' . Hollow Rd;;across from ' Pine ; :. : y, • Tree;Itd'. intersection where .provide a new route beam ;. units. . are proposed by Gro{; Slatervtlle ' Warren Rd, '- Associates of Ithaca andlmirabypass►ng Forest:Home. . The recommendation ' ' came after a brief public .;'hearing "The hoard also recommet ed attended by three persons, none ` t the developer takefA of whom spoke against the re consideration triose aspects'` of zoning. the :neighboring bull farm of The 17 'h acres recommended°Eastern Artificial Inseminator' for rezoning ' are east of ariInc, which might ; not -' bed , : with residential adjacent to 26 acres of Barden' coinpatible ; property, which was ' receatly deYelopment; : and that the rezoned from ' farm . to :P oners would not consider commercial for a shopping complaints by .future residents center. against the breeders. .The acreage proposed for Robert Willm iason, attorney multiple residence zoning . was. ,representing EAI, read a letter,. originally figured at 11 '/z acres:4o the board from EAI general ' !Yewcc��Iculations show there.are manager Charles Krum , which,. 171/z Cording to Ben Boynton,- warned the planners of possibl local representative ' of . Grof dangers of children wandering Associates . into the barns, and of possible odor, despite the "high standards Multiple residence zoning of cleanliness" maintained- by would allow -305 : units, 48 more EAI . than Grof propose for "We hopefully do not want to the . 17.5. acres, according to find ourselves in a position Planning . Board chairman . :wherenew " neighbors might Walter Schwan ., consider us - a nuisance and they In September; . the Town -i n turn ,. from their Planning Board turned down 'a dissatisfaction , constitutea similar zoning change request. nuisance to us , " said Krum , for 22 acres of Eastern Heights 'adding that planners should property .on Snyder Hill Rd. and , realize that - EAI had "an said it would reconsider its' Investment of considerable decision only if the ;developer. magnitude on' this- property and proposed *10 units per dere on the could not economically consider tract which is about a mile east a physical move . " . of where Grof Associates In other business : proposes 15 units per acre . . — Town Planners. . n . " Boynton said that though no. recommended that Morse Chain ' -plans -were definite , two-story, Co., build a storm sewer'. along six to 12-unit apartment the shoulder of a road'=which the firm . proposes to constriteE and tarn . over to .the town .on its 4. property on the 900 block ' of S. . �Avrora St., . ' between ; land' of,'. N National • Cash Register *Co. and the' home of Rodney L. Maxwell , . 9241Danby Rd. The proposed Wfoot wide, 4206 ' f*t '.long road .would. connect Rte. 96B with 20 acres. of !Norse Chain land: ivhiCh 'the company tentatively plaos 'tq 9t;X41Jv1de in the future. Ti!!e compan7 sttught glr 'tniag ° board recomrr.wndation an the