Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1977-09-20 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD TUESDAY , :~'SEPTEMBER 20 , 1977 The Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca met on Tuesday , September 20 , 1977 , in the Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , N . Y . , at 7 : 30 p . m . PRESENT : Chairman Liese Bronfenbrenner , Henry Aron , Montgomery May , . James Baker , Jonathan Bradley , Lawrence Fabbroni ( Town Engineer ) , Robert Bonnell ( Assistant ) . ALSO PRESENT : Gust Freeman , Evan Monkemeyer , Mrs . Rose Monkemeyer , David B . Gersh , Carol Eisenberg ( Ithaca Journal ) , Joel Meltzer ( WTKO ) . The Chairman opened the meeting at 7 : 38 p . m . APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION by Mr . Henry Aron , seconded by Mr . James Baker : RESOLVED , that the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca approve and hereby does approve the Planning Board Minutes of March 15 , 1977 , June 7 , 1977 , and July 5 , 1977 , as written . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Bronfenbrenner , Aron , May , Baker , Bradley . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . REPORT OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR Mr . Fabbroni reported that in August he issued permits for one -large industry , two one - family homes , and seven accessory buildings , for a total of $ 831 , 344 . 00 , _ as opposed to three one - family homes and five accessory buildings in August 1976 for a total of $ 124 , 900 . 00 . He noted that the only biased figure is the $ 750 , 000 . 00 addition to the Eastern Artificial Breeders , REPORT OF THE TOWN ENGINEER Mr . Fabbroni reported that he has been deeply involved in Federal paper work . He said that the Town has not heard officially about the sewer grant: , but we expect .to hear from them soon . Mr . Fabbroni reported that the Town is pursuing getting its money back from the flood work it did last year . Mr . Fabbroni reported on a proposed park budget that the Town sub- committee on parks has been working towards . He stated that he worked up a quick 10 -year plan of costs and improvements which will be refined in the next weeks and which somewhere along the line the Planning Board will be tied into . In the first five years projections the plan takes the recommendations that this Board made and put them into an implementa - tion stage . He said that he was referring to , for example , the Coy Glen study done by Dennis Colliton , where the plan shows the acquisition of Planning Board - 2 - September 20 , 1977 Coy Glen and the development of the Tareyton Road site , These were in the first two years of programming , The acquisition of sites in Forest - Home , South Hill and west Hill were in the latter part of the five -year program . Mr . Fabbroni passed out the first draft of a . five -year plan for priorities , Mr . Fabbroni stated that the Planning Board should have input for the long - range planning . REPORT OF COUNTY PLANNING BOARD Mr . Fabbroni read , on behalf of Councilwoman Raffensperger , her summary report of the September 14 , 1977 , County Planning Board meeting wherein she refers to an historical study presented by the County Planning staff and noted that regional boards should receive input from this Board ( Town Planning Board ) , COMMENT FROM MR . MAY Mr . May noted that the Sandra Place park does not appear on the Park Priorities plan presented by Mr . Fabbroni , REPORT OF THE PLANNING BOARD CHAIRMAN Mrs . Bronfenbrenner reported that she and Mrs . Hoffmann attended the Town of Dryden meeting in connection with properties owned by Rocco Lucente on Sapsucker Woods Road . She stated that it was clear that the intersection needs to be improved on the Dryden side . Mr . Bradley agreed . Mrs . Bronfenbrenner reported that at the Town Board Meeting of September 12th possible uses for Revenue Sharing Funds were discussed and one of the possible uses is for bicycle paths , walkways , jogging paths , to be installed with this money and , additionally , improvements in Northeast drainage and a constable were mentioned . She commented that Forest Home people are particularly interested in a constable . REPORT OF THE PARK COMMITTEE Mr . Fabbroni reported that the Coy Glen public relations report is just about finished up at the printer ' s . The Town Board will use this report to approach the landowners . The Comprehensive Park and Open Space Plan has - been up - dated and will be printed up for distribution . He noted that the priorities as far as implementation are to purchase Coy Glen and for further discussion with the Schools to go ahead with the DeWitt Junior High park . He noted that certain projects should . be done through " force account " as per the priorities report . Referring to the East Ithaca walkway from Honness Lane to Maple Avenue which this Planning Board , or the Planning Board before the presently constituted one , approved , Mr . Fabbroni stated that it was up to him to follow up and discuss acquisition with Cornell . He stated that Mr . James Yarnell had said that we should discuss the matter with Mr . Robert Matyas , but it now seems that we should discuss it with Mr . Yarnell , as per a statement from Mr . Matyas ' secretary . Mr . Fabbroni noted that the Eastern Heights Park was changed as a result of input from this Board and was put into a 10 - year program . REPORT OF SIGN ORDINANCE COMMITTEE ( Mr . May , Mr . Aron , Mr . Bonnell ) Mr . Aron stated that the Sign Ordinance Committee has not met yet . They will meet in the very near future . Planning Board f - 3 - September 20 , 1977 e PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION OF MONKEMEYER PROPOSAL FOR REZONING OF MONKEMEYER LANDS IN THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT OF KING ROAD AND DANBY ROAD INTERSECTION Attorney David B . Gersh , on behalf of Mr . Evan Monkemeyer , stated that after some prolonged discussions with Mr . Fabbroni and Mr . Buyoucos about how this proposed combination use could best be made a part of the Zoning Ordinance , he and Mr . Monkemeyer have put together a proposed amendment to the Ordinance which is very simple and very succinct . Basically it adds an additional permitted use to the Business C zone permitting exactly the type of project that Mr . Monkemeyer is proposing . Mr . Gersh commented that he had recently attended a seminar in Owego on land use planning and at this seminar he had spoken generally about this proposal . The gentleman in charge . .was surprised . . that the .-. Town- zoning ordinance did not permit this type of use . The type of use that is made of the Ithaca Commons is apparently quite general . Mr . Gersh noted that under the Town zoning ordinance , in a residence zone you could only have a residence and in a business zone only a business , except in R- 15 you can have a business . Mr . Gersh stated that he hoped that there is not a feeling that what Mr . Monkemeyer is proposing is something radical and new - - it is not . Mr . Gersh stated that they are proposing an additional appropriate use to the Business C zone . He said that he needed the Board ' s help in delineating to them precisely what parts of the Monkemeyer tract are Business C and what is R- 30 . Mr . Fabbroni stated that there is an area about 500 ' x 700 ' that is Business C - - the 700 ' being along Danby Road . He noted that the confusion arises from the realignment of King Road which used to be south of Sam Peter ' s and now comes north of it . He suggested that if the Board discusses the amendment as it pertains to Business C , then at the next hearing it can be determined whether they are asking for additional Business C area on that corner . Mr . Fabbroni stated that if Mr . Monkemeyer ' s first presentation is still valid , then there is definitely additional area involved . Mr . Gersh presented the general plan dated January 27 , 1977 , and Mr . Fabbroni noted that it is definitely beyond the presently zoned Business C . Mr . Gersh stated that the section proposed describes the proposed uses making it clear that the commercial services are to be of a type that is compatible with a Business C use , which means there could not be a Business D type of use which are less compatible with a residential use . Also , the uses are those which primarily service the residents of this area . Mrs . Bronfenbrenner said that they would have to comply with the uses of Business C . Mr . Gersh stated that none of the uses could be on the same floor as the residential and the ingress and egress would be entirely inde - pendent of the residential locations as well . He asked if he could answer any questions , which he would be glad to do . Mr . Fabbroni pointed out that the proposed ordinance amendment notes multi - story buildings and stated that no structures will exceed two stories above ground level as required by the ordinance . Mr . Fabbroni asked , in terms of the building they showed the Board - some time back , • Planning Board - 4 - September 20 , 1977 if this would impose some constraint upon their architect ? Mr . Monkemeyer stated that they envisioned one story commercial and per - haps a story and a half for residential . He said that detailed site plans could be considered at the appropriate time . Mr . Fabbroni pointed out that the first story , however much it is put into the ground , is considered the basement level and not con - sidered one of the two stories from a zoning viewpoint , so , in essence , they are talking about three stories . Mr . Aron asked for a definition of " multi - story " . Mr . Gersh said it would be governed by the rules of the Business C zone , otherwise two story maximum . He said that Section 37 of the Zoning Ordinance sets forth the height requirement in Business C as two stories , unless they got special permission , for example , for the clock tower or stipulate by the roof line . Mrs . Brorifenbrenner stated that she would like to see it read " two story " and not " multi - story " . Mr . Gersh stated that if the substance of the definition of this proposed combination residence - business structure meets with the Planning Board approval , they could refine it further with Mr . Fabbroni , Mr . Fabbroni asked if they were proposing that the area and yard limitations be the more restrictive of either multi - family or the business requirements of1the Zoning Ordinance ? He stated that open space is important to the multi - family aspect . Mr . Gersh said that he thought , if this is acceptable , that in order to meet the legal obstacle that right now there is no mechanism for this use , then they could read this in conjunction with the other documents or covenants . Ue continued stating that putting the horse first , this would have to be a part of the zoning ordinance and once what we are talking about' is a legal permitted use , then we would polish it and make it accieptable . Mrs . Bronfenbrenner expressed her concern that the open space wording .- does not appear in the zoning ordinance amend - ment and the covenant . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the covenant is more restrictive than this document . He said that the 30% coverage is something that is not covered in the commercial part or yard require - ments , otherwise there isnot much different and so they really should be in this amendment . i Mrs . Bronfenbrenner noted that if there should ever be another owner , this amendment is important . i Mr . Aron noted that the Board is saying that this proposed amend - ment would become a part of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance . Mr . Aron , reading from the proposed paragraph 31 , stated that he would like to add - - " in compliance with Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance Section 37 " . Mr . Fabbroni stated that that is automatic , and added that Sections 28 and 29 also apply for consideration of the site plan as pertains to multi - family . Mr . Bradley brought up the matter of parking which would involve both multi - family requirements and commercial parking along with the -. Planning Board - 5 - September 20 , 1977 open space . He added that you cannot just overlap the two and take the most restrictive . Mr . Gersh asked if it were reasonable to say that in determining the approval of the site plan , the Board should consider Sections 28 and 29 and decide whether to have twice as much parking or one - and - one - half times or whatever ? Mr . Gersh felt that an amendment should be general enough to apply to not only Mr . Monkemeyer but to others as well . Mr . Fabbroni suggested that they could say in addition to the applicable sections of commercial , sections 28 and 29 of the multi - residence are considered with regard to the additional requirements these sections might impose for any of the appurtenances related to _ multi - family occupancy , then we cover applicable parts such as sidewalks - - you do not need two sidewalks . He noted that there is always the flexibility for the Planning Board within that guideline to say that they do not need quite that much here - - one valid reason for that on the Planning Board ' s part is that you estimate that a certain amount of the residents will patronize these establishments . Mr . Aron commented that some of the shop owners might park there taking away parking from the residents . Mrs . Bronfenbrenner asked if there were any further comments . Mr . Gersh requested that they could work out the final wording of the proposed amendment , it being his understanding that the words " multi - story " be deleted and be replaced by " not more than two stories " , and further adding , perhaps , " in addition to the already applicable sections for commercial that also Sections 28 and 29 . respecting . multi - ple residence districts shall also be considered by the Planning Board upon considering site plan approval . Mr . Fabbroni suggested that an approach might be the establishing of this " F " as a permitted use in a Business C and propose rezoning any part that is in R30 to Business C . Mr . Fabbroni asked if Mr . Monkemeyer ' s proposal for the Public Hearing is going to be all of that area within the " loop road " ? Th -ere . are( iR30 and R9 . lands which would have to be rezoned to Business C . He noted that right now there is Business C , R9 and R30 included in that proposed area . Mr . Monkemeyer said the public hearing will involve the land within the loop road . He added that the drainage problem at Springwood has been solved to satisfy Ms . Staz and Mr . Whitlock - - a ditch is now in place . He said he will be finishing up the first phase of Springwood . He said that he would like the Town to look at the intersection of King and Danby Roads and to the installation of some traffic control device . Mr . Monkemeyer said that over the summer they have been marketing the site and working with J . D . Gallagher Realty . They have been in contact with several businesses and banks . They are hoping for a fall construction start , but it will probably be next spring . Mrs . Bronfenbrenner stated that the next meeting will be October 4 , 1977 , and the Board will consider the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and the rezoning from R30 and R9 to Business C . • Planning Board - 6 - September 20 , 1977 CONSIDERATION OF SIGN APPLICATIONS 1 . Dairylea Dipper Store , Mr . Fabbroni stated that the proposed sign meets the requirements of the Sign Ordinance in that it does not exceed the linear foor require - ment . He said that he considered the sign as an - extension of the building . He noted that the store is way down in a hole behind Mill - brook_ and Bell ' s Convenience Foods . and it will be difficult to see the sign from Elmira Road . He stated that the front of the building is all glass and door and not suitable for a sign to be affixed thereto . MOTION by Mrs . Liese Bronfenbrenner , seconded by Mr . Henry Aron : _ RESOLVED , that the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca approve and hereby does approve the proposed sign for the Dairylea Dipper Store at 610 Elmira Road , such sign being 5 ' x 3 ' and affixed to a 7 ' pole running perpendicularly out from the building and reading " Dairylea Ice Cream " , as shown on the Application for Sign Permit dated September 12 , 1977 , and further RESOLVED , that said Planning Board recommend and hereby does recom - mend to the Town Board approval of said sign . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Bronfenbrenner , Aron , May , Baker , Bradley . Nay - None . ® The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . 2 . Beaujolais Cafe , Mr . Robert O ' Malley , Owner , stated to the Board that this proposal is for attachments t h s approved sign delineating 4A Mobil rating and American Express? � @ the only signs of this type that he would place on this sign . He said he did not like all those signs hanging - - such as Carte Blanche , BankAmericard , etc . He noted that he is very proud of the Mobil 4A rating and also the American Express is helpful to travelers . Mrs . _ ..Bronfenbrenner asked how big the main sign is . Mr . O ' Malley replied , about 4 ' x 41 . Mr . Aron asked if the entire package complies with the Sign Ordi - nance . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the area still complies - - the maxi - mum ' he can have is 100 square feet . Mr . Aron stated that he could see no objection . Mrd Fabbroni pointed out that this sign has been given a variance for its location because of the two - lane highway . Mr . May stated that it is now 20 " closer to the road . Mr . Aron noted that what is before the Board is the two small signs . Mr . Fabbroni requested that Mr . O ' Malley check to be sure that the signs are positioned so that patrons leaving the restaurant can see clearly up and down the road . Mr . Bonnell will follow up on that . Planning Board - 7 - September 20 , 1977 MOTION by Mr . Henry Aron , seconded by Mr . James Baker : ® RESOLVED , that the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca recommend and hereby does recommend that the Town Board approve the application for sign permit presented by Mr . Robert O ' Malley , Beaujolais Cafe , 602 Elmira Road , for two additional small signs measuring 15 " x 20 " each and referencing the Mobil 4A rating and the use of American Express Charge Cards , as described on Application for -,- Sign Permit dated September 9 , 1977 . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Bronfenbrenner , Aron , May , Baker , Bradley . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . 3 . East Hill Florist and Plant Shop . Mr . Fabbroni stated that this is a request for sign approval for a 36 " x 4 ' - 1 and 1 / 2 " sign reading East Hill Florist and Plant Shop to be placed on the front of Store # 6 at the East Hill Plaza on Judd Falls Road . MOTION by Mr . Henry Aron , seconded by Mrs . Liese Bronfenbrenner : RESOLVED , that the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca shall table the consideration of the application for sign permit submitted by ® Robert P . Fiser on behalf of Groff Assoc . , owner of East Hill Plaza , for the East Hill Florist and Plant Shop dated September 8 , 1977 , until the Board is given more specifics as to the proposed sign ' s location and materials . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Bronfenbrenner , Aron , May , Baker , Bradley . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . DISCUSSION OF PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE / KENDALL AVENUE ALIGNMENT AS IT PERTAINS TO THE HIGHWAY MASTER PLAN . The Planning Board had before it a Memorandum from Town Attorney James V . Buyoucos , dated September 19 , 1977 , entitled Acquisition of Pennsylvania and Kendall Avenue for Highway Purposes , and directed to . Mrs . Bronfenbrenner as Chairman of the Planning Board . Mr . Fabbroni spent considerable time going over this Memorandum with the Board . A lengthy discussion of the history of these roads was held . DISCUSSION OF BICYCLE PATHS / WALKWAYS . During discussion of this matter , Mr . Fabbroni stated that in the Town- wide Bikeway plan that was in draft form , there was a proposal made for the kind of bikeway known as Type 2 , being that it is located along side of the road but is not a part of the road , on Pleasant Grove Road - - the cost involved is the problem . Planning Board - 8 - September 20 , 1977 Mrs . Bronfenbrenner commented that the money is being used to widen roads . ® Mr . Fabbroni described the various kinds of bikeways that can be developed : Type 1 is a separate bikeway ; Type 2 is where a roadway is widened but the bikeway is separate from the roadway ; Type 3 is along an existing road and signs are used denoting bicycle usage . as a bikeway . Mr . Fabbroni described what was discussed by the Town Board - - essentially the filling in of a ditch and providing a bikeway through such a method . with no physical barrier from the automobile traffic . Mrs . Bronfenbrenner reported that the residents of Forest Home feared that widening the road could lead to just a wider road with faster traffic . Mr . Fabbroni said that cost has stalled the whole thing and noted that storm sewers and materials would run about $ 50 , 000 a mile to make that kind of improvement , . at the very minimum . Mr . Aron asked if there is a Master Plan for the Town of Ithaca to develop bikeways ? Mr . Fabbroni replied in the affirmative , and added that at this time it is unrealistic cost wise . Mr . Bradley voiced his opinion that some of the current paths that are used for bicycles , the Town cannot maintain now so why build any more . Mr . Bradley commented that in the Northeast the path is 15 feet from his bedroom window and it is a pain in the neck - - it is not feasible . He stated that cars drive right now on the Northeast walkway . ® He said that he felt strongly that the most important consideration is maintenance and control . There was no further discussion . DISCUSSION OF PLANNING BOARD VACANCY , Mrs . Bronfenbrenner noted that there is an adjourned meeting of the Town Board scheduled for. Monday , September 26 , 1977 , and she would like to have names to give the Board to consider for the Planning Board vacancy . Unfortunately no names were forthcoming . Mrs . Bronfenbrenner will so report to the Town Board . COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT PROPOSAL FOR ACCESS TO THE PROFESSIONAL BUILDING ON TRUMANSBURG ROAD . Mr . Fabbroni said that he would like to briefly discuss a proposal from the County Planning Department as designed by Mr . Harry Missirian of that Department . He stated that this is a proposal encompasses access to the Professional Building in conjunction with the Town ' s proposal and alignment for the new Route 96 . He described the proposal as being for the existing driveway to be used for right turns in and right turns out . He said that people coming from Trumansburg would continue on down to another entrance . Mr . Fabbroni pointed out that when the Professional Building people agreed to the proposed Town alternative for the relocated Route 96 , they made it contingent upon the development of this new road system into and out of . the Professional Building complex . Mr . Aron commented that he would like to see those right turns eliminated entirely . Mr . Fabbroni wound up the discussion stating that the driveway to # . , Planning Board - 9 - September 20 , 1977 the existing Route 96 would .be totally eliminated and that he would pretty much go along with the proposed accesses . ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion , Chairman Bronfenbrenner declared the September 20 , 1977 , meeting of the Planning duly adjourned at 10 : 05 p . m . Respectfully submitted , Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary . A G E N D A TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD ® TUESDAY , SEPTEMBER 20 , 1977 7 : 30 P . M . Routine Business Approval of Minutes - March 15 , 1977 June 7 , 1977 July 5 , 1977 Report of Building Inspector Report of Town Engineer Report of Planning Board Representative to County Planning Board ( Hoffmann ) Report of Planning Board Chairman Report of Park Committee ( Fabbroni ) Report of Sign Ordinance Committee ( May , Aron , Bonnell ) 7 : 35 P . M . Preliminary discussion of Monkemeyer proposal for rezoning of Monkemeyer Lands in the Northeast Quadrant of King Road and Danby Road intersection 7 : 55 P . M . Consideration of Sign Applications - Dairylea Dipper Store Beaujolais Cafe East Hill Florist and Plant Shop 8 : 00 P . M . Discussion of Pennsylvania Avenue / Kendall Avenue alignment as it pertains to the Highway Master Plan 8 : 15 P . M . Discussion of Bicycle Paths /walkways 8 : 25 P . M . Discussion of Planning Board vacancy 8 : 30 P . M . ADJOURNMENT NOTE : IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD CANNOT ATTEND , PLEASE CALL ME IMMEDIATELY AT 273 - 1721 . Nancy M . Fuller Secretary 1 COU14TY PLINNING BOARD September lh , 1977 Raffensperger East Ithaca-Freeville railroad right-of-way may be available soon. County has made offer. Amendment to the County Charter , outlining membership , duties of the County Planning Board , presented by Committee on Structure , Jim Yarnell , Chairman . Discussion as to change in representation; committee will reconsider . Historical Study presented by staff, County Planning Board , Inventory explained. (Town of Ithaca does not have Town Historian, as required by lair. Volunteer from Planning Board? ) Emphasis of County Planning Staff for coming year will be " economic development . " They will undertake , with the establishment of several advisory boards , an ' analysis of economic conditions in TC , projections of economic development , and recommend public/private policy in this area. Under Section 208 , Water Quality Management Plan , a regional agency will be set up to implement law ; eventually all funding requests re water must go through this agency. This agency will probably be composed of a Regional Planning Board , a Technical Advisory Board (water plants ) and a . Citizens Advisory Board. On agenda , October : Lehigh Valley Right -ofWay Fall Creek Management Plan (EMC ) ` 01 4k F6910ft ,ext Jf§tubids Barry Lieberman, one ofi Long Island's out- The Hayloft Art Studios attempt to do for standing painters and he4jd of an art depart- ment in a Long Island ScM central New York artists of all kinds what liool. Carnegie Hall has done for the world's artists Lenora Rousseau Monkemeyer died in 1976 at and dancers - providing a place of inspiration Tompkins County Hospit;1al but her family has and a place for the performance of resident carried on and improved iupon the artistic work artistic productions. The studios were conceived she began. In her memojy a modernization of and founded by Lenora Rousseau Monkemeyer, the art barn was carrieiIll out to make the an artist and ballet performer from Norwalk, Hayloft Art Studios the lost attractive art barn Connecticut, who was active in the art barns in the central New York area. It includes seven and art colonies around Silvermine and West- contemporary style vertii�ally-oriented multi- port, Connecticut in the 1930's and 1940's, and level studios, well-lighteid and soundly and also participated in the organization and staff of artistically constructed, UI eluding circular stair- some of the ballet and modern dance groups in cases and transcendent Oiews of Cayuga Lake Carnegie Hall. and the valleys and hills to the west and farm Lenora Rousseau Monkemeyer chose the big lands to the east. The studios have fireplaces red hip roof barn at 1059 Danby Road in 1943 of native field stone, and skylights. The beauties as her own art barn and over the years with of the old red hip roof barn have been preserved her husband, Herbert N. Monkemeyer and her —the hundred year old axe-hewn beams—the daughter, Lenora Ann Monkemeyer, a dancer old hay track and carrier—and choice agricul- and pianist developed it into the modern art tural implements of yesteryear are on display center it is today, drawing artists from all over along with the paintings in the central gallery— the state. Over the years the resident artists an atrium 35 feet in height with delightfully have included, Leo Rybb, first violinist with the designed "flying staircases" and interior studio New York Philharmonic, Mildred Sherman balconies. Haight of the Auburn fine arts center, and one The central gallery is one of the largest of its of the state's leading portrait painters, and kind and is available both to the resident artists and the general public for art shows, music and dance productions of contemporary interest. The executive director of the Hayloft Art Studios is Evan N. Monkemeyer of Ithaca, N. Y., and arrangements for use of the studios or the gallery may be arranged through him. Artists in Auburn and Syracuse may contact Lenora Ann ,I Monkemeyer of the College of Fine Arts, I;I Syracuse University, and often acting conductor of the Syracuse Orchestra, and organist and choir director of the Grace Episcopal Church ? ~' of Syracuse, N. Y. ® a ® Kathleen Ruckdeschel Art Director, 1976-77 of �� The Hayloft Art Studios 0 P Ftgl.of# Arl"l" StUbi.u,� 1059 Danby Road Ithaca, New York' 14850 t A0 WILLIAM DOWNING ASSOCIATES , ARCHITECTS ®WI L L I A M S . DOWN I N G , A . I . A . T H E D E W I T T 8 U I L D I N G , I T H A C A , N E W YORK 1 4 8 5 0 6 0 7 - 2 7 3 - 6 4 2 7 ,r ' s N SIGN & o o . o LIGHT BIKE ' PATH SWALE CROWNED ROAD SURFACE SWALE EARTH BERM ` 5, 24 . 00 UNDERGROUND UTILITIES TYPI CAL 3PARKWIAY .SECTION , OWNERS � DEVELOPERS SCALE SKYRISE ASSOCIATES 1 ' i I ! ' PROPOSED ORDINANCE f EVAN MOI\KC I EEYER It MULTI-USE DISTRICT j i An Ordinance Amending ( Article VI entitled "Multiple Residence Districts " it and ) Article VII entitled " Business Districts " of the Zoning Ordinance , ! ' ! Town of Ithaca . BE IT ORDAINED ASID ENACTED by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca , � Tompkins County , New York , as follows : SECTION 1 . Article VII of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of ! Ithaca , is amended by adding an additional permitted use to Section34 , ! 1 ; ; to read as follows : " 31 . Combination residence - business structures , which are o story buildings containing retail sales and customer service establishments ! 1 of a character consistent with the other permitted uses in Business Districts " C " , incidental to and located within a multiple -family structure or } apartment building , primarily to serve, the needs of the residents of such I i structure provided : ( a ) none of such retail sales and consumer service ! ! i ' establishments are located on the same floor as any of the dwelling units ; and (b ) such retail sales and consumer service establishments have access i i ' i from areas which do not serve as common residential , recreational or access i I ways . " SECTION 2 -his ordinance shall take effect immediately upon publication DAVID B . .GERSH i ATTORNEY AT LAW ! OR TH YO ST. R, NEWW YORK , (607) 277-3300t ! I ! � I 1 PROPOSED ® PROTECTIVE COVENANTS FOR MOUNTAIN PARKWAY BUSINESS CENTER PREA1•`BLE . Mountain Parkway Business Center will be a park of not less than 30 acres for offices , art studios and other facilities for professional and business use including convenience services for the neighborhood . It will be located at- the northeast corner of the intersection of Danby Road ( State Rt . 968 ) and King Road East , in the Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County , New York . The Park will be surrounded by prestige residential areas to diminish the necessity for extensive auto travel by executives , employees , customers and neighbors . ® The ' Park will be a landscaped campus for businesses seeking attractive , beautiful , agreeable locations which are already provided with roads , water ; sewer , and other utilities . The Park will include vast grass areas , groves of trees , brooks and a large pond , bicycle paths , an art gallery and related facilities for artists , and . other features designed to attract desirable business and residential users . The .Park will not be . a producer . of traffic problems because it will not utilize the . frontage on existing highways for additional curb - cuts and all parking will be without charge and within the Park itself . to avoid parking on public . highways . Traffic within this Park will be limited because executives , employers , and customers will be encouraced to live within , or within walking or bicycling distance , of the park itself . . 2 - The operation of the Park will be designed to insure permanence in quality of construction and maintenance and the prevention of adverse influences . This will be achieved by continuity in developer/ owner control . The land has been in one family for 35 years and the current developer is a native Ithacan . In order to accomplish the foregoing objectives , Evan N . Monkemeyer , being the owner of the above described premises , hereby establishes the covenantsjp . conditions , reservations . and restrictions upon which and subject to which all lots and portions .of such lots shall be improved , leased or sold and conveyed by him as owner thereof . 1 . Prior approval of plans . No building shall be erected , placed or altered on any lot until the construction plans and specifications and a plot plan showing the location of the structure and ® landscaping of the plot have been approved by the Architectural Review Committee as to quality of workmanship and materials , harmony of external design with existing structures , and as to location with respect to topography and finish grade elevation . 2 . Height of building . No building may be constructed on land leased or sold , having a height of more than two stories above a basement , if any , or above the ground level . This restriction may be waived and a building with basement and not more than three stories permitted with prior written approval of such increased height by said Architectural Review Committee . 3 . Size of. building . No building shall be erected which covers more than 25 % of the area of land leased or sold . 4 . Location of building . No building shall be located nearer than 20 feet to any right of way or nearer than 15 feet to any boundary of land leased or sold . No building shall be located nearer than 30 feet from Danby Road and King Road East . . 3 - 5 . Nuisance . No noxious or offensive activity shall be carried on upon any lot , nor shall anything be done thereon which may be or may become an annoyance or nuisance to adjoining owners , ' their employees , tenants or customers . 6 . Garbage and refuse disposal . No land leased or sold shall be used or maintained as a dumping ground for rubbish . Trash , garbage or other waste shall not be kept except in sanitary containers inside the building or under cover . All incinerators or other equipment for th.e . storage or disposal of such material shall be kept in a clean and sanitary condition . 7 . Signs permitted . No sign or other advertising electrical display may be erected or permitted on any land leased or sold or buildings thereon except that a sign may be constructed and maintained carrying name , business and directions of such size , design and colors and at such locations as may be approved by the Architectural Review Committee . ® B . Off - street parking . Each building erected on any land leased or sold shall be located so as to provide ample space on the remainder of the land leased or sold for off - street parking for the convenience of executives , employees and customers , and such parking space must be maintained and used for parking purposes exclusively except as permitted by the Architectural Review Committee . Unless otherwise permitted by such committee , the minimum standards shall be the total of the following : a . ' One parking space for each 300 square feet of gross floor space in office use . b . One parking space for each 1 , 000 square feet of gross floor space in storage use . c . One parking space for each 150 square feet of gross floor space _ in commercial retail or service use . d . One parking space for each 600 square feet of gross floor space in light industrial use . . 4 - 9 . Traffic Circulation . Each owner or tenant of land leased or sold shall also provide adequate space for the circulation of traffic in the parking areas , which shall not be a part of the off - street parking space required in the above paragraph . 10 . Multiple occupancy . The owner or tenant of a building . located on any land leased or sold shall have the right to build for multiple occupancy of tenants , provided the lessees of such space shall meet and comply with all of the restrictions , conditions and provisions hereof , and provided approval of the Architectural Review Committee is obtained . 11 .. Access Roads . A single curb - cut on Danby Road and on King Road East shall be permitted . No additional access roads through land leased or sold to Danby Road or to King Road shall be permitted . Interior access roads between Danby Road and King Road and opening to such roads will provide the sole access to land leased or sold . 12 . Architectural Review Committee . The Architectural Review Committee shall be composed of three members, ® as follows . ( a ) Monkemeyer , Inc . acting by and through one of its officers designated for that purpose , or in place of such officer , Evan N . Monkemeyer , ( b ) a registered architect selected by the person named in ( a ) above , and ( c ) a neighbor , tenant or owner of land leased or sold , selected by the persons named in ( a ) and ( b ) above . These three shall serve for a period of five years , or until their successors are duly chosen and . qualify as herein above set forth . The members of said committee shall serve without .- compensation for services performed pursuant hereto . The - committee shall function# by majority vote , and may make their own rules and regulations regarding procedure , notice of meetings and other matters not covered hereby . In the event some question or problem should arise , the solution of which is not provided for or authorized hereby , same shall be decided by the then Chairperson of the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca , acting as an arbitrator , and the decision . of said Chairperson , if not inconsistent with any of the above restrictions , covenants or provisions , shall be final , conclusive and - binding on all parties concerned . . 5 - 13w Variances . The Architectural Review Committee may , in the exercise of fair and impartial discretion , and solely in order to relieve hardship cases , . amend the provisions of Section 4 hereof , with respect to any land sold or leased . 14 . Enforcement . Enforcement shall be by proceedings at law or in equity against any person or persons violating or attempting to violate any covenants , whether to . restrain violation and/ or to recover damages , and such proceedings may be maintained by any . owner or other person having a special interest therein . 15 . Severability . Invalidation of any one . of these covenants by judgment or court order shall in no wise affect any of the other provisions , which shall remain in full force and effect . 16 . Duration . These covenants are to run with the land and shall be binding on all owners and tenants or persons claiming under them of. the land leased or sold until January 11 2002 , and shall terminate and be of no further effect. on January 1 , 2002 . However , at any time prior to that date , the then owners of a majority of the area in square feet within Mountain Parkway Business Center may , by written declaration signed and acknowledged by them and duly recorded in the Tompkins County Clerk ' s Office , extend such provisions for a period of ten additional years , and this right to extend for additional ten year periods by the then owners shall exist - as long as the owners of a majority of the area in square feet within such Park affirmatively vote to so extend them . 17 . Amendment . Any and all of the provisions herein may be amended or rescinded at any time by written declaration of the +,'en owners of a majority of the area in square feet within Mountain Parkway Business Center , signed and and acknowledged by them and recorded in the Tompkins County Clerk ' s Office . 18 . Conflict . In the event any of the foregoing provisions conflict with any rule , statute or regulation of the Town of Ithaca now in effect , or if any amendments to these provisions conflict with any rule , statute or regulation of the Town of Ithaca in effect at the time of such amendment , the more restrictive provision shall control . PET ' . SIGN APPLICATION AND • k y - APPLICATION PLUS $ 1 . 00 PER SQ • FT • AREA OF EACH SIGN . PERMIT: DATE ' � i'L,ZCAT ION DATE • _ TAX MAp PARCEL _ Y D ISTR - r - r . £ yING ZCT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - lam. - ;- - - - - - - - - - - - �> i -� TELPH0 t APPLICANT If 1" , / p 11 ADDRESS1111 / > t � . I PROPERTY i - a OWNER { TELPHONEIf I l� Lj LOCATION OF SIGNS ) qpq vt SCALE - DRAWING - OR - ATTACHED - OR . BLUEPRZNT . - - - - - 1 ^ vhc � _ C. I � . it 1114.az ;� ,. j ;t -t- f VIIJ X77 SIGNATURE / ^ _ DATE ^ - - - - DATE k _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - PLp,NNING0BD : - ACTION - - zo 7 � — ( ) APPROVED BY DATE— ( ) DENIED UNDER SEC . TOWN BD . ACTION 2NDo PLANNING BD . ACTION PATE 'PEAL ACTION DATE OF APPEAL. DATE_ 2NDo TOWN BD . ACTION . DATE OF HEARING $ 25 . 00 DEPOSIT FOR ADVERTISEMENT OF HEARING . SIGN APPLICATION AND PERMIT . R �jl It birj, yMtir $ 5 . 00 - APPLICATION PLUS $ 1 . 00 PER SQ . FT . AREA OF EACH SIGN . °4t PERMIT DATE y ° PPLICATION4 DATE : TAX MAP PARCEL Y ONING DISTRICT - - - - TELPHONE APPLICANT NX ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER o TELPHONE - ADDRESS �nQ 2 EI irc� %�� c�cl 7 'I— nL� 3 — LOCATION OF SIGN (S ) i4J1 - I o,� � fFS� nf sr4ltf� C�' F ` -' � nJk - ( (Ylob � ( a � ty� Si ►� ^ FE ^ ^ ^ SCALE - DRAWING - OR - ATTACHED . OR . BLUEPRINT . _ - - - - - _ - - -- - PIP 'TPL mo8zL " , Wncs rt135 O I/. . tet . t ° Full Cou, 50 I5 ,t CAsu�I Dross �I ►•4'or ma.l �^ - OPEN Ti t 1 _ 1 = DATE 9 OfLIIIIIIIIIIII, SIGNATURE IIIIIIIIIIIIIII, will. 11 11 1 11111 11111 1 111111 1 1111111 _ - - ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - PIANNING ' BD : - ACTION - - - a - ATE ' ( '! ) APPROVED BY ( ) DENIED UNDER SEC . TOWN BD . . ACTION : DATE 2ND . PLANNING BD . ACTION DATE ACTION " ATE OF APPEAL - 2ND . TOWN BD . ACTION _ DATE DATE OF HEARING $ 25 . 00 DEPOSIT FOR ADVERTISEMENT OF HEARING . SIGN APPLICATION ` AND PERMIT . . FEE :- $ 5 . 00 APPLICATION PLUS $ 1 . 00 PER SQ . FT , AREA OF EACH SIGN. APPLICATION DATE : PERMIT:: DATE TAX MAP PARCEL � NING- DISTRICT - - - - - - - - - -.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - TEIFrHoNE APPLICAA{ . f+— i � - / / • ! ; - • a•` a r'. ♦ r 4' w*, - is - _. tvLl r[� �+ _ }Y Oyt1 U ADDRESS .4c.f // / �/ ' f L.• i L `� V`�lll� Gl �f [:r�7 J <4 (� PROPERTY OWNER S``.Q („1 e}t2T I �l•'L.t i ! t ADDRESS. V TELPHONE LOCATION OF SIGN (S ) y .. ` IIIII, . IIIII - - - SCAIE _ DRAWING OR _ ATTACHED • OR . BLUEPRINT . - .> ; . 1p JAI It It It h . F 3 • e. .soh ^�`'^*s n . _ .. . FVIII ` AP1lD PLANTsmo rt lt I al 041 pz • ' - . . .. c�<�`'��-.. lam - �� DATE SIGNATURE - - sm, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - PIANIQIPG BDo - ACTION �iA � �-®R `7 - DATE ( ) APPROVED BY 'k, ( ) DENIED UNDER SEC . TOWN BD . . ACTION ATE A . ACTION 2ND , PLANNING BD . ACTION PATE — OF APPEAL 2ND . TOWN BD . ACTION DATE DATE OF HEARING 25 . 00 DEPOSIT FOR 9ADVERTISEMENT F HEARING . i ; ® 1 ' 1 � i ' � ! 4 ff MEMORANDUM f If , I TO : LIESE BRONFENBRENNER , CHAIRMAN DATED : September 19 , 1977 i TOWN PLANNING BOARD i i ; � 11' t I ` FROM : JAMES V . BUYOUCOS SUBJECT : Acquisition of Pennsylvania! I ; i and Kendall Avenue for � ! This memoranda is submitted in the hope that it may be of some assistance to the Planning Board . 1 - A Town can acquire a highway by purchase . The maximum amount i ( it can Pay is up to $ 5 , 000 . 00 to any one landowner and $ 10 , 000 .00 to all I . j landowners ., f 2 . A Town can acquire title to property by dedication . The Planning Board is familiar with this method . The owner of the property makes an ' offer to the Town that he will give the land to the Town and the Town accepts it subject to such conditions as may be imposed or suggested by the Town f I Planning Board ( Town Law 278 ) - and by the Town Board . I ° ! 3 . A Town may acquire a title to a highway by public user , but f r this is often a complicated matter from a legal point of view , although it !! j� ! I appears to be simple . The land must not only have been used by . the public - I for 10 years but it also must have been maintained by the Town for 10 years . j I ! ! ! � 4 . There exist in the Town many private roads along which houses ! � have been constructed in the past in a haphazard manner . Ingress and egress � j over these roads is legally possible by legal implication of a private ij easement . The Planning Board has not had anything to do with the construction of houses , the laying out of lots , and so forth . The Town cannot acquire l title to these Roads because they do not meet Town specifications and I standards . Therefore , these roads have to be improved before the Town will it I ! accept them as highways . There is a procedure for this :in the Town Law , l According to some authorities , the only suitable way to .improve private j it roads is by making the improvement a public project , the cost of which is j i ! to be borne by assessments imposed on the land on a benefit basis in accordance; r ! i with Section 200 of the Town Law , Section 200 of the Town Law has established a procedure pursuant to which the owners of real property fronting on such 1 a road to the extent of at least one -half of the entire frontage may petition i ' the Town Board for the accomplishment of necessary improvements so that the ii 1 ; road will qualify as a Town Highway . If a Town Board wishes , the procedure f can be initiated by the Town Board by adopting a resolution which is subject if to a permissive referendum . This was the way by which a highway was improved ! � and accepted by the Town on ?Jest Hill , if i it it It II i ? f ii i if I f i ; � r f � t I t � � ! I ® i , { TOWN PLANNING BOARD PAGE 2 September 19 , 1977 - -- - - - - - -- - - - -- - --- - - - -- - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - -- -- - -- - - - - -- - - - -- - - -- - - - -- - -- - - - - - - f I ! A . If it is necessary to acquire title to the road � j by condemnation ( which is another method to be discussed below ) , the cost of the condemnation procedure and the cost of acquiring the land are ultimately included in the cost which is assessed to the adjoining property owners on � I a benefit basis in accordance with the requirements of Section 200 of the jTown Law , E B . There is some merit to following the above proceeding 1 � j ; because it cannot be initiated unless 50 % of the owners of the frontage on !tl the road have agreed . This is the " democratic " procedure which is followed , j ii of course , in the establishment of public improvements such as water , sewer !! ( I i ' and drainage improvements . ` 1 � Co It does have a demerit , however , in /Sense that if the j j frontage { majority of the land As own : d by persons who are interested in developing ® li the land for profit , then the owners of existing houses may be compelled to } I � support a public road and pay for it , event if they don ' t want it . D . Pennsylvania Avenue and Kendall Avenue are private i j � roads or " paper streets " . Adjacent landowners , in most cases , own title I � to the center of the road subject to the rights of others who are entitled fi to use the road for purposes of ingress and egress ( a final research will I i � i indicate whether there may be some people who own only up to the right of j lj ( I way line and have only an easement to use the road ) , ! j ! � i 5 . Another method of acquiring title to a road is by condemnation . ji As best as I can determine , no street has been laid out by condemnation in the Town oIthaca or n an n to County ji y other Tow nVas est as i can determine . To hf hi j � the best of my knowledge ,also , the title to no street has been taken by 11 condemnation in any Village in Tompkins County . Although the municipalities have power to condemn land for highway purposes , they are not inclined to 1 jido so unless there is a clear compelling public necessity . In most cases , j ; ! E the municipalities are maintaining streets which have been dedicated to the 41 Town by the owners who were developing the land and such dedication was ' to the best interests of the developer since it enabled him to sell his j land for development , In the case of many Town roads , also , the Town has r maintained them because they were used by the public over a long period of ii time and thereafter maintained by the Town for over a long period of time . i The following are some of the considerations involved in condemnation : ` A . Town Law in the case of a Town having a population of ! i � , i 10 , 000 or more and an assessed valuation of real property of 25 million j '• i i ! dollars or more can pay up to $ 5 , 000 . 00 to any one landowner and $ 10 , 000 . 00 i ; to all landowners . There are some cases in which these limitations can be exceeded in a condemnation proceeding which need not concern us here at the I : r ; j present time . ' ! i '• B . In the case of Kendall Avenue and Pennsylvania Avenue. , ii � iithe Toum would be condemning land which can be used for no purposes other r { ! ® i iI TOWN PLANNING BOARD Page 3 September 19 , 1977 I i than a public street . A court has recently stated that the owner of a strip Ifof land which is already burdened with a private easement by reason of sale j j ) of lots according to a map ( which is the case here ) is entitled only to ' nominal damages . This is not a statutory matter . It is a decision of a j � court . Its decision seems reasonable and based upon common sense . But each case is decided on its own merits . f C . In the case of Pennsylvania Avenue and Kendall Avenue , I I C the Town Board apparently will authorize the Town Highway Superintendent to proceed with condemnation procedures provided that the cost of constructing ! ( � the road is borne by Mr . Hilker or some other landowner in the area . To this extent the procedure is different than that set forth by Section 200 . The Town saves the cost of constructing the road , but the Town is willing to pay for the cost of the legal proceedings and also for paying any damages to a landowner for taking the land . The cost of the legal proceedings may run into a signficant amount if adjacent landowners attempt to prevent the acquisition of the road by going to court . D . Any person who • erected a house on any of the lots in this area should have been advised that there was a strong possibility that I the streets would become a public thoroughfare . The Town Planning Board i should determine which owners are opposed to the road and what their interests are compared to those of the owners of the land who are in favor of the road being taken . E . The Town Planning Board should also examine Section 280 - a of the Town Law which prohibits the issuance of a permit for the erection of any building unless : a ) a street or highway giving access to I such proposed structure has been duly placed on the official map or plan or ! b ) if there be no official map or plan unless such street or highway is i ] an existing state , county or town highway or ii ] a street shown upon I a plat approved by the Planning Board as provided by Town Law 276 and 277 or � j iii ] if such street appears on a plat duly filed and recorded in the Office I � of the County Clerk prior to the appointment of the Planning Board and the grant to the Planning Board of the power to approve plats , which is also the case here . ; I F . A closer look at the above section of the Town Law j ( Subdivision 1 of 280- a ) would seem to indicate that building permits could f be issued for purposes of construction on a lot on Pennsylvania and Kendall � ! s Avenues . i . �i G . However , before such a permit shall be issued , the highway must be suitably improved to the satisfaction of the Town Board or the Planning Board as adequate in respect to the public health , safety IS ii i and general welfare for the special circumstances of the particular street i or highway . I l 1 fi i L v • ! 1 t it ! ii TOWN PLANNING BOARD Page 4 September 19 , 1977 , i ; , it , I H . Subdivision 3 provides for appeals in special cases I � where a building permit is denied , E i � I ' I ; I . Subdivision 4 provides for the establishment by the Town Board of open development area or areas within the Town where permits i ! I I may be issued for the erection of structures to which access is given by I I I { I right of way or easement upon such conditions and subject to such limitations as may be prescribed by the Planning Board , j � i J . Subdivision 5 of 280 - a provides that the word " access " i means that the lot on which the structure is proposed to be erected directly =ahutS cn such street or highway and has 'sufficient •.frontage thereon to allow ! I � the ingress and egress of fire trucks , ambulances , police cars and other f Ij emergency vehicles and a frontage of 15 feet shall presumptively be sufficient for that purpose , f s 1 ! ! I l ji 6 . The Planning Board should inquire to determine whether or not ! Pennsylvania Avenue and Kendall Avenue are on the offical map , for their i ' entire length . ` t 7 . The foregoing is a brief summary of the law as it may apply i jI to Pennsylvania and Kendall Avenues . There are some qualifications and exceptions which I have not discussed . Not all cases have been , ' -researched , i t � f i } JVB /jkl 1 i Ids ! i i i ' ! i i . ij i ! ! Ei ' - i ! ! I 1 , it ! If jl ! I i Ji j itI � t, ! i ' j , . r� Report of Town of Ithaca Planning Board Chairman6 . . 9 / 12/ 1977 The Planning Board last met on August ' 16 , 1977 . The Board had an - ' informal discussion with the designer for the DeForest Subdivision on DuBois Roadq Tom Niederkorn . Mr . Niederkorn brought the new members up to date on the proposal , which will . be presented at a public hearing in September . This is an estate type development.. with minimum lots of . 2 . 4cres . The topography and gradiant of the,. proposed ' sub—divisio A ere discussed . The steep grade . of the proposed road and possible excessive drainage 'to Taughannock Blvd * will need further study . A public hearing was held to consider the request. of * Johann Gebauer and others to rezond `Oesidence District R -9 to Multiple Residence District . that portion of the Town of Ithaca generally bounded by the City of Ithaca , Ithaca Colleges an old railroad right of way back lot east of Coddington Road , and the Coddington Rdo entrance to Ithaca College . ' A number of residents from the neighborhood . spoke at the meeting .. A petition , bearing 21 signatures ) was presented to . the board : The petition was in opposition to the zoning change . One resident' Mrs . McFall of 235 Coddington Road stated that she did not know it was illegal to rent to more than three unrelated people , at the time ` she was cited ' for violation . It was brought out in the discussion that Mr . Gebauer knew that he was in violation of the ZO when he constructed additional units . Mr . Fabbnoni presented a map that showed that the the majority of the dwellings in the area were family occupied . 'the- Planning Board passed a motion defi* ing the proposed zoning change . An amendment to the motion stated : , ' . . . that spot rgning by special permit or variances be discouraged . k A brief discussion of the sign ordinance followed . A special committee re —write the ordiance was formed . . members : Bob Bonnellq Monty Mayq and Henry Aron . The cgmmittee members would appreciate input from members of the Town Board about desired changes for the sign ordinance . Two members of the Planning Board attended the Town of Dryden Planning Board meeting on August 18th at which the Lucenti proposals for additional houses in the Sapsucker Woods area were discussed . The Dryden board members would like assistance from the Town of Ithaca in solving the traffic problems at the intersection of Sapsucker and Hanshaw roads . Trafficq drainage , and school overcrowding were the main issues of discussion . The underlying fear seemed to be that the new units would in f act become multiple resident units instead of family homes , as stated in the request for approval . The Planning Board still needs a new member to replace Bill Reece . The board has not had much luck in finding a willing replacement . , The following names were suggested to Prof . George Cosler of Christopher Cirri-Ad .: . Prof . Bernard Stanton of Sandra Place , . . . * ' Arthur or Enid Ruoff of Texas Lane Albert Cappucci of Christopher Lane . Liese Bronfenbrenner MA% • %� moo