Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1979-10-23 40 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD TUESDAY , OCTOBER 23 , 1979 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday , October 23 , 1979 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street ( second floor ) , Ithaca , N . Y . , at 7 : 30 p . m . PRESENT : Chairman Henry Aron , Montgomery May , Edward Mazza , Carolyn Grigorov , Barbara Schultz , Liese Bronfenbrenner , James Baker , Bernard Stanton , Barbara Restaino ( Planner ) . ALSO PRESENT : Town Councilwoman Shirley Raffensperger , E . Frederick Holst , Bev Schmidt , Robert Schmidt , E . L . Hollister , Robert I . Wright , Donald Riker , Helen Riker , Elizabeth B . Meiczinger , Delphine E . Redline , T . G . Miller , Charles A . Foote , Pat Brazo , Bill Brazo , Evan Monkemeyer , y' Michele VanBuren ( WTKO ) , Kathy Kaplan ( WHCU ) . Chairman Aron declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 40 p . m . AJOURNED PUBLIC HEARING : MONKEMEYER MATTER , 5 - LOT SUBDIVISION , EAST KING ROAD . Since neither Mr . Monkemeyer nor anyone to respresent him was present at this point , the Board agreed to set this matter aside until later in the meeting . ADJOURNED PUBLIC HEARING : WRIGHT MATTER , REZONING FROM R - 30 TO MULTIPLE RESIDENCE AND COMMERCIAL , 1319 MECKLENBURG ROAD . • The Chair declared the Adjourned Public Hearing ( adjourned from October 2 , . 1979 ) duly opened at 7 : 45 p . m . Mr . Aron read a letter received from Lois D . King , 181 West Haven Road , dated October 23 , 1979 , as follows : " Mr . Henry Aron , Chairman Members of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Because I cannot be present at this evening ' s meeting of the Town Planning Board , I submit to you my statement in writing . Mr . Robert Wright has requested a change in zoning of the property known as 1319 Mecklenburg Rd . His request consists of two parts : 1 ) that the property on which his house is located be changed to Multi - family , to enable him to put into the house an additional apartment ; 2 ) that the remainder of the 6 . 69 acres of property be zoned commercial . I am deeply concered about these requests , and ask that the Board consider the total zoning plan for the Town as the guiding factor . 1 ) The house in question appears to have once been a beautiful homestead . The exterior of the house is currently in dire need of attention . Does • Mr . Wright propose to the Planning Board that he would guarantee to fix the exterior of the house , if in fact he is permitted to add another apartment to the interior ? 2 ) I am unalterably opposed to the spot - rezoning of the remainder of the property to commercial use . While Mr . - Wright states that he would continue the present non - conforming usage should a zoning change be made , there is Planning Board - 2 - October 23 , 1979 no guarantee of any future use of that property . Once the change has been made from its current non - conforming usage , there can obviously be any - thing situated there that would fit the requirements of " commercial " . The neighborhood in which the property lies is a residential one , not a commercial one . I have seen what havoc spot - zoning can produce in a well - planned community , having lived on Long Island for many years , and having witnessed the demise of many a once beautiful , old neighborhood . I urge you , members of the Board , to take my concerns into your considerations , when it comes time to make your decision regarding Mr . Wright ' s requests . Thank you for your attention . Respectfully , ( sgd . ) Lois D . King 181 West Haven Rd . Ithaca , New York " Mr . Aron turned now to the matter of Board discussion of the Environ - mental Assessment Form ( Short Form ) , the Planning Board being the lead agent in this matter . Mrs . Bronfenbrenner asked , before discussion began on the EAF what the size is of each of the proposed zones . Mr . Wright stated that he is requesting that 240 ' x 300 ' be zoned multi - family , which is approximately 1 . 7 acres , or 72 , 000 sq . ft . ; the balance , approximately 5 acres is re - quested to be zoned commercial . Discussion began' - . on the EAF with Mr . Stanton questioning Items # 11 and # 12 and stating that there could be considerable change depending on the commercial use that might happen in the future . Mr . Mazza asked if this EAF goes for both the proposals . Mr . Wright replied that it did . Mr . Mazza stated that a lot of the answers ( all " No " ) are questionable in terms of both proposals . Mr . Stanton commented that he took it that no building is implied . Mr . Aron described the benefits of the EAF in terms of the Board , the neighbors , the Town , and the area . Mr . Mazza asked Mr . Wright why he wanted it zoned commercial if he is not going to build anything there and variances have been granted ever since this was a farm for various types of activities . Mr . Wright replied , basically because that is the present use - - it has been a commercial hatchery . Mr . Mazza described the meaning of " non - conforming " . He stated that it was his opinion that Mr . Wright has been very fortunate and the Board of Appeals has been very permissive . It was commented that essen - tially non - conforming uses are supposed to just fade away . Mr . Mazza added that insofar as the multi - family request , Mr . Wright can keep it as it is because it was prior to zoning , and that such a rezoning would be contrary to the zoning intent . • Mr . Wright pointed out that with a multi - family designation he could then do some of the things that have been suggested , such as painting the house . Mr . Mazza asked Mr . Wright when he purchased this property . Mr . Wright replied , a year ago , June . Planning Board - 3 - October 23 , 1979 Mr . Aron asked if there were a report from the ad hoc committee that toured the property in question . - - Mr . Stanton , Mrs . Grigorov , Mrs . Bron - fenbrenner , Mr . Stanton reported that the group went last Tuesday , October 16th , to visit the site . He commented that they went unannounced and the Wrights were very cooperative . He stated that it was raining and they looked across the Lake . He stated that they walked the property and it was clear that it was a very large farm . He noted that there was a very substantial fire there about two years ago ( indicating on map presented by Mr . Wright ) . Mr . Stanton stated that part of the remains of the fire have been taken away - - the valuable metal has been taken away - - the area not properly bulldozed , and is not very attractive . He stated that there are a number of out - buildings . He indicated on the plan the area that has been used commercially and includes a variety of sheds . Mr . Stanton stated that the properties . immediately ,. behind . it . . _ andto the east are used for farm purposes and are in a good state of farm cultivation . He noted a good crop of alfalfa on both sides and some livestock quartered almost immediately behind this 6 + acre plot . Mr . Stanton stated that the tenant house is occupied and is immediate - ly adjacent to the main residence . Mr . Stanton commented on one other thing that is not on the map , that being that the main driveway leading back to the area now used for antiques ( first driveway ) is a paved macadam unit . Mr . Stanton concluded his statement noting that they did not go into the house itself . Referring to the EAF , Mrs . Bronfenbrenner asked in connection with Items # 10 and # 11 , how many units there are there now . ( Secretary ' s Note : See Official Minutes of this meeting - - attachment thereto - - Planning Board Note of 8 / 13 / 74 . ) Mr . Wright replied : 1 . Tenant :- House .` " one .- unit . 2 . Main House = 15 rooms , 4 baths - three apartments now , including the Wrights . Mrs . Bronfenbrenner inquired about fire escapes . Mr . Wright stated that there is an outside exit . Mr . Aron asked what uses Mr . Wright was planning . Mr . Wright replied that he what , he '_ would like is something for storage - - small wood manu - facturing . Mrs . Bronfenbrenner pointed out that under the ordinance one cannot go back to a less restrictive use which is commercial " A " , " B " , or " C " . Mr . Wright stated that he was not aware of that . Mr . May stated that he did not feel that the short form EAF is • appropriate . MOTION by Mr . Henry Aron , seconded by Mrs . Liese Bronfenbrenner . RESOLVED , that the Planning Board feels that further environmental review is necessary requiring the long form EAF , therefore , said Board hereby resolves that Mr . Wright present to the .- Planning Board a long form Environmental Assessment Form . Planning Board - 4 - October 23 , 1979 By way of discussion , Mr . Stanton commented that if it is the sense of the group ( Planning Board ) that Mr . Wright may not be granted this request , then filling out this form will just delay the process . Mrs . Restaino stated that in this case , a short form is appropriate since he is not proposing to build anything - - a long form would be necessary in that case . Mr . Aron pointed out , however , that Mr . Wright is not sure of what he is going to do . Mr . Wright stated that he is not sure what he is going to do ; he would like to have a tenant in there . Mr . Aron pointed out that the Planning Board is working for all the people including Mr . Wright . Mr . Aron stated that once rezoning takes place , then someone could purchase it and do most anything . Mr . Wright stated that basically they have always gone to the Zoning Board of Appeals and there have been no major changes - - except that Varaxon has left . Mr . Wright stated that Mr . Fabbroni recommended that perhaps it is time to put this parcel into what it is being used as . . Mr . Aron asked Mrs . Restaino if she were satisfied with the short form . Mrs . Restaino indicated that she was . At this point , Mr . Aron and Mrs . Bronfenbrenner agreed to withdraw their Motion asking for a long form EAF . Mr . Aron stated .- that the discussion would now return to the short form EAF and noted again that everything is marked in the negative . He noted that at this point it appears to indicate a negative determination with no effect on the environment . MOTION by Mr . Bernard Stanton , seconded by Mrs . Liese Bronfenbrenner : RESOLVED , that the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca , acting as lead agent , accept and hereby does accept the Short Form Environmental Assessment Form as presented by Mr . Robert I . Wright , dated September 18 , 1979 , insofar as it applies to the proposal presented by Mr . Wright , and makes a determination of negative impact requiring no further environmental review . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Aron , May , Schultz , Bronfenbrenner , Stanton , Baker . Nay - Mazza Abstain - Grigorov . The Chair declared the MOTION duly carried . Mr . Stanton commented that the Board is talking about a form essentially before it takes the case . A lengthy discussion followed on need for the proposed uses . Mr . Mazza stated firmly that he continued to maintain that if re - zoning takes place a new use can be environmentally impacting . Mr . Aron asked for comments from the public . Planning Board - 5 - October 23 , 1979 Mrs . Bev Schmidt , 177 West Haven Road , asked if this were a package deal , or are there two different things here . She noted that it appears to be one way on the house and one way on the land . It was noted that Mrs . Schmidt was essentially correct in her understanding of the proposal . Mr . Donald Riker , 1385 Mecklenburg Road , stated that this septic field is going to be taking on four apartments , it has three now , and he would question the usage of that now as being against the environment . He stated that it is very questionable whether the field would stand it or not - - one - third more usage . Mr . Aron pointed out that that decision would come from the Tompkins County Health Department when approval is sought . Mrs . Pat Brazo , 1393 Mecklenburg Road , questioned why Mr . Wright wants to make this commercial property when he has nothing in mind to do with it , unless there is something she did not understand . Mr . Mazza stated that he thought that what Mr . Wright wants to do is keep from going back all the time for a variance . Mrs . Elizabeth Meiczinger , 1375 Mecklenburg Road , asked if Mr . Wright puts the fourth apartment in is he going to clean up the yard . Mrs . Meiczinger pointed out that Mr . Wright had another fire up there today . Mr . Wright agreed that there was another fire today . Mrs . Meiczinger asked again if Mr . Wright would clean up the yard , paint , fix the gutters , etc . Mr . Wright stated that he planned . to clean up and make improvements if allowed to make the change . Mr . Wright commented on the fire on December • 31 , 1977 , and the fire today which was in the old milk house . Mr . Aron read from the Zoning Ordinance , Section 73 , as follows : Any building substantially destroyed by any cause shall be rebuilt or demolished within one year . Any excavation or cellar holes remaining after the demolition or destruction of a building from any cause shall be covered over or filled by the owner within one year . " Mr . Wright stated that he was not aware of that . Mrs . Pat Brazo stated that she repeated what she said last time . There being no further comments from the floor , the Chair declared the Public Hearing closed at 8 : 40 p . m . Mr . Aron stated that it was his opinion that he could not see that the Board should recommend rezoning this commercially as there is at this point no need for it . 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 to the Town Board that the request for change in Zone at 1319 Mecklenburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 28 - 1 - 26 . 6 , presently zoned R- 30 , an approximately 5 acre portion thereof being pro - posed for rezoning to Commercial , be denied . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Aron , May , Schultz , Bronfenbrenner , Stanton , Baker , Mazza , Grigorov . Nay - None . The Chair declared the MOTION to be carried unanimoulsy . Planning Board - 6 - October 23 , 1979 Mr . Aron asked Mr . Wright if he were in a hardship situation and does that apartment improve the building . Mr . Wright replied , referring to • the second part of the question , that the proposed apartment does not improve the outside ; it is internal . Mr . Aron . . stated _ , that . the house _ apparently needs a paint job . Mr . Stanton commented that if the present owner made another apart - ment and then sold it or then sold it plus the tenant house , or even if he retained it , there would be five families on approximately 1 . 7 acres in essentially an R - 30 zone . Mrs . Grigorov stated that she thought :: that the Board would have to have an awfully good reason for spot zoning such as this . Mrs . Bronfenbrenner commented that talking economics is very difficult , and talking about someone else ' s is even more difficult . She stated that many people need additional income , but adding another apartment is not necessarily the answer . Mrs . Schultz queried that if it goes to multi - family , are there not many more stringent requirements as to Building Code requirements . The Board agreed that there certainly were . Mr . Aron led a discussion of the matter of income , building requirements , costs , etc . Mr . Mazza cited Section 78 . of the Ordinance as follows : " In making recommendations to the Town Board and the Board of Appeals , the Planning Board shall determine that : ( 1 ) There is a need for the proposed use in . the proposed location . ( 2 ) The existing and probable future character of the neighborhood in which the use is to be located will not be adversely affected . ( 3 ) The proposed change is in accordance with a comprehensive plan of development of the Town . " Mrs . Bronfenbrenner asked Mr . Wright if he had made any check of costs involved in bringing this up to the Multiple Residence Code , Mr . Wright replied that he had and he knew that there were going to be some expenses . MOTION by Mr . Edward Mazza , seconded by Mrs . Liese Bronfenbrenner : RESOLVED , that the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca recommend and hereby does recommend to the Town Board that the request of Mr . Robert I . Wright for the rezoning of an area of his land at 1319 . Mecklenburg Road , 240 ' x 300 ' approximately , a portion of Tax Parcel No . 6 - 28 - 1 - 26 . 6 , from R- 30 to Multiple Residence , be denied , said Planning Board having deter - mined that there is no need for the proposed use in the proposed location ; that the existing and probable future character of the neighborhood in which the use is to be located will be adversely affect ; that the proposed change is not in accordance with a comprehensive plan of development of the Town . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Aron , May , Schultz , Bronfenbrenner , Stanton , Baker , Mazza , Grigorov . • Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR 3 - LOT SUBDIVISION , 1698 SLATERVILLE ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 56 - 3 - 14 , CHARLES FOOTE . Planning Board - 7 - October 23 , 1979 Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 9 : 00 p . m . , and presented for the record the Clerk ' s • Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearing in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on October 15 , 1979 , and October 18 , 1979 , respectively . Mr . T . G . Miller and Mr . Charles A . Foote appeared before the Board and proceeded to discuss the various documents that had been mailed to the Board members , which included a Survey Map of the Robert Flinn Property , Slaterville Road , dated July 17 , 1961 , amended April 17 , 1969 , and amended July 19 , 1979 to show Lots B & C ; a Plan for Proposed Driveway dated July 27 , 1979 ; a portion of Tax Map No . 56 indicating Lot " B " and Lot " C " and a proposed future access to Foote ; and a short form EAF dated October 18 , 1979 , prepared by Mr . T . G . Miller , Consulting Engineer , representing Mr . Foote , Mr . Miller stated that the property originally purchased by Mr . Foote on Slaterville Road contained roughly 44 acres and is partly in the Town of Ithaca and partly in the Town of Dryden . Mr . Miller stated that the Dryden parcel has been sold off , and that Mr . Foote also sold the farm house lot , known as 1702 Slaterville Road . Mr . Miller stated that Mr . Foote has subdivided two lots in the Town of Ithaca as shown on the amended Survey Map , Lots " B " and " C " , 7 / 10 of an acre and 8 / 10 of an acre each , and in the westerly part of the Town portion . Mr . Miller noted that the area is zoned R- 15 and stated that the size of the lots are : " B " 74 ' frontage by 208 ' at the rear , approximately 30 , 500 sq . ft . ; and " C " 104 ' frontage by 193 ' at the rear , approximately 34 , 800 sq . ft . Mr . Miller stated that public water is already available and sewer is included in the proposed 1979 Sewer Extension . He noted again the the two lots are entirely in the Town of Ithaca . Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov stated that she has driven up to the site and has looked at it . Mr . Stanton commented with reference to access to the road , he notes on the plan a driveway , and asked if the lot would ever be accessed by the same road that is Mr . Foote ' s . Mr . Miller stated that there is one entrance out on to the Slaterville Road and there would be joint usage . He said there would be one driveway into Slaterville Road for the three lots . Mr . Aron asked if there were any questions from the public . There appeared to be none . Mr . Mazza wondered why the lots were proposed as they are . Mrs . Raffensperger asked if she had heard correctly that one of the lots does not meet the 100 ' frontage requirement for R- 15 . There followed a discussion of the lot size . Mrs . Bronfenbrenner asked , in reference to Lot " C " , does the topo - graphy give a problem with moving the lot line over 301 . • Mr . Mazza stated that the house could be set back 100 ' , and added that the ordinance is designed to allow for other lots than 100 ' by 1501 . Mr . May stated that he would like to see 100 ' frontage . Mr . Aron suggested that we discuss this with the Town Engineer and the Board . Mr . Mazza asked if a delay would cause a hardship . Mr . Foote stated ' Planning Board - 8 - October 23 , 1979 that he had someone interested . Mrs . Restaino wondered if a 100 ' frontage would cause difficulty with the driveway and force two driveways . Mr . Miller pointed out that there was considerably more depth and considerably more square footage than required . Mr . Stanton noted that there is about 2 / 3 of an acre in each case . Mr . Aron suggested that the Board consider the short form EAF as presented , noting that all answers were in the negative . MOTION by Mr . Henry Aron , seconded by Mr . Bernard Stanton : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , acting as lead agency in the review of the proposed 3 - lot Subdivision , 1698 Slaterville Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 56 - 3 - 14 , Charles Foote , owner , approve and hereby does approve the Environmental Assessment Form as completed ; and FURTHER RESOLVED , that pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act , Parts 617 , this action is classified as Unlisted ; and FURTHER RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , has determined from the Environmental Assessment Form and all pertinent information that the above -mentioned action will not significantly • impact the environment and , therefore , will not require further environ - mental review . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Aron , May , Schultz , Bronfenbrenner , Stanton , Baker , Mazza , Grigorov . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . MOTION by Mr . Henry Aron , seconded by Mrs . Liese Bronfenbrenner : RESOLVED , that the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca grant and hereby does grant Preliminary Subdivision Approval to a 3 - Lot Subdivision , 1698 Slaterville Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 56 - 3 - 14 , as pro - posed by Mr . Charles Foote , and as shown on Survey Map entitled " Robert Flinn Property " , Slaterville Road , N . Y . S . Route 79 , dated July 17 , 1961 ) amended April 17 , 1969 , amended July 19 , 1979 , and stamped by Thomas G . Miller , P . C . , L . S . By way of discussion , Mr . Mazza stated that the only way he will approve this is if the condition is added that the deeds conveyed with these lots are subject to and granted for the rights of way over the existing driveway . This condition was accepted by both Mr . Aron and Mrs . Bronfenbrenner . and it was agreed to add a condition to the Motion . The Chair called for a vote on the following MOTION : RESOLVED , that the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca grant and hereby does grant Preliminary Subdivision Approval to a 3 - Lot Subdivision , 1698 Slaterville Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 56 - 3 - 14 , as pro - Planning Board - 9 - October 23 , 1979 posed by Mr . Charles Foote , and as shown on Survey Map entitled " Robert Flinn Property " , Slaterville Road , N . Y . S . Route 79 , dated July 17 , 1961 , amended April 17 , 1969 , amended July 19 , 1979 , and stamped by Thomas G . Miller , P . C . , L . S . , with the condition that the deeds conveyed with these lots are subject to and granted for the rights of way over the existing driveway . Aye - Aron , Schultz , Bronfenbrenner , Stanton , Baker , Mazza , Grigorov . Nay - May . The MOTION was declared to be carried . At this point , Mr . Miller brought up the matter of access to Mr . Foote ' s backland . He stated that many years ago he was promised access to his property using an access from Eastern Heights property . Mr . Miller noted that now the Park is in . . there where Mr . Foote thought a road was . Mr . Miller stated that Mr . Foote would like to have this matter cleared up and access to be there as promised . It was the consensus of the Planning Board that Mr . Miller should set forth the matter of access to the Foote property in a letter to the Board for consideration at the next meeting at which the Foote subdivision is discussed . Mr . Miller agreed to do so . ADJOURNED PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR 5 - LOT SUBDIVISION ON EAST KING ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 , 6 - 43 - 1 - 3 . 3 , A PORTION THEREOF . EVAN N . MONKEMEYER . ( Adjourned from October • 2Y 1979 Mr . Monkemeyer now being present , the Chair declared the Adjourned Public Hearing duly opened at 9 : 30 p . m . Mr . Monkemeyer stated that he has decided to go with complete ser - vices - - water and sewer . He stated that water has been developed and the sewer he had just received from the engineer . Mr . Monkemeyer stated that the problem is a time lag here . He said he hoped he can get the final sewer plans in a timely manner . Mr . Aron asked for comments from the public . There were none . There were no comments from the Board . Mr . Monkemeyer stated that the site plan remains the same except that the services are public . He noted the hydrants and manhole . He said the services will serve the frontage and will come back to serve the fifth lot . Mr . Monkemeyer said he did not see what will be accomplished by continuing the Hearing at this point since he is pursuing Health Department approval . Mr . Aron asked if any of the lots were sold . Mr . Monkemeyer said that one had been sold and one is under contract . Mr . Monkemeyer stated that he has a map to show a 20 ' drainage easement at the back . MOTION by Mr . Henry Aron , seconded by Mr . Bernard Stanton : RESOLVED , that the Public Hearing in the matter of consideration of final subdivision approval for 5 - lot subdivision on East King Road , Town of Ithaca Tax . Parcel No . 6 - 43 - 1 - 3 . 3 , a portion thereof , as proposed by Evan N . Monkemeyer , adjourned from October 2 , 1979 , be and hereby is further adjourned until Tuesday , November 6 , 1979 , at 7 : 30 p . m . Planning Board - 10 - October 23 , 1979 There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Aron , May , Schultz , Bronfenbrenner , Stanton , Baker , Mazza , Grigorov . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . It was indicated that the restrictive covenants should be submitted and shown on the plan . APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION by Mr . Bernard Stanton , seconded by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov : RESOLVED , that the Planning Board Minutes of October 17 , 1978 , be and hereby are approved as submitted . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Aron , May , Bronfenbrenner , Stanton , Baker , Grigorov . Nay - None . Abstain - Schultz , Mazza . The MOTION was declared to be carried . REPORT OF THE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD REPRESENTATIVE , COUNCILWOMAN SHIRLEY RAFFENSPERGER . • Mrs . Raffensperger stated that she had a report from the County Planning Board meeting of October 10 , 1979 , which was quite a long meeting and from which there were many things of interest . 1 . Carpooling and Park - and - ride Plan : Mrs . Raffensperger reported that several park - and - ride locations have been suggested in the Town of Ithaca . They have not figured out exactly where and there are some questions as to the locations and how the Town feels . Municipalities will make arrangements for these locations and will be responsible for insurance , liability coverage , etc . Maintenance could be arranged between the municipality and the owner of the facility ; if the facility is owned by the municipality , then no additional policy for maintenance or insurance would be required . 2 . Industrial Site Development Strategy ( Satisfaction Survey ) : Mrs . Raffensperger reported that the Industrial Satisfaction Survey was presented by the Planning Staff . She noted that 51 industries were surveyed . and pointed out that there are 7 , 000 jobs which are considered to be in this industrial category . Mrs . Raffensperger stated that one of the objectives of the survey was to determine what satisfies industry and what does not . Mrs . Raffensperger stated that " taxes " was the category that received • the most negative comments , however , not in relation to local taxes - - there were no complaints there - - but the negative comments had to do with the corporate franchise tax and State income tax . Mrs . Raffensperger noted that what the industrialists liked the most were the recreational facilities and environmental quality . Mrs . Raffensperger stated that second in the unfavorable comments Planning Board - 11 - October 23 , 1979 was " transportation " - air , bus , road patterns , truck deliveries , etc . 3 . Multi - county Solid Waste Recovery Study : Mrs . Raffensperger reported that the Planning Department is requesting from Tompkins County $ 65 , 000 as its share of the preliminary design phase out of a total of $ 210 , 000 . Mrs . Raffensperger noted that the Phase 2 report has not yet .been received from the Engineers . She reported that they are asking for funding of Phase 3 . Mrs . Raffensperger reported on the discussion of the problems involved in this project , such as location - - both in the Town of Ithaca - - amount of traffic , land - fill impact , air quality , cost . She stated that there is a great deal of disagreement . Mrs . Raffensperger commented on concerns about the mixing of two different sizes of trucks , also the local disposal system of trucks . She noted that many people take their own pick - up trucks and take their own garbage to the dumps around - - and so all that traffic comes in too . Mrs . Raffensperger touched upon the landfill aspect of this project . She commented that whatever % you have , you could burn , but what does it mean if all of it goes into Tompkins County . Mrs . Raffensperger commented on the high technology requirements of such a project , noting the shredding aspect . Mrs . Raffensperger mentioned a very unfavorable article on waste - fired • plants which appeared in the New York Times on September 8 , 1979 . She said that the report described the health hazards related to the Hempstead , L . I . , plant and highlighted some of the environmental problems arising from the plant ' s operation . Mrs . Raffensperger stated that one of the proposed sites is close to the Cornell University heating plant and the other one is farther out in the Orchards . Mr . Aron stated that he had seen a mock - up of such a project when he attended the Planning and Zoning Institute in Monticello . He described the use of large furnaces burning on low oxygen ; the gases are picked up from the top and then used for heating systems or factories . Mrs . Raffensperger said she thought that the process proposed here is somewhat different . She commented that you can burn garbage every day , but you can only sell heat a part of the year . Mrs . Raffensperger added that this would be a very expensive proposition - - $ 9 , 000 , 000 . local share if all funding comes through . Mrs . Raffensperger stated that the Phase 2 report may answer some of these questions . 4 . Agricultural District No . 8 : • Mrs . Raffensperger reported that Ag Dist . # 8 is in process ; public hearing will be held . She stated that it contains approximately 38 , 000 acres and will make a total of 157 , 803 acres of land in Ag Districts or 50% of the County . and . from a '. planning point of . view it has . an , impact . She commented that Ag Dist . #8 is not in the Town of Ithaca . Planning Board - 12 - October 23 , 1979 5 . Route 13 : Mrs . Raffensperger indicated that the big reason she waited during a lengthy Town - Planning Board meeting was to report on the Route 13 improve - ment . She stated that the County Planning Board will certainly be consi - dering a resolution . She stated that she relayed the Town Planning Board resolution to the County Planning Board and also the Town Board resolution . She said there is a resolution from the Environmental Management Council and one from the Ithaca - Tompkins County Transportation Commission . Mrs . Raffensperger reported that the County Planning Board resolution is on the table and will probably come off the table and be voted on . She stated that the one that is on the table would not be acceptable to the Town of Ithaca . She said that the thing shen- . would most like to have from the Planning Board is some kind of consensus about Route 13 , so that she can , be consistent . Mrs . Raffensperger noted that the Transportation Commission Resolution will probably be the way it will go and she read that resolution in its entirety , as follows : " WHEREAS , the existing Route 13 facility between the Airport area in Tompkins County to Interstate 81 at Cortland cannot safely handle the present or projected future traffic , and WHEREAS , from a transportation point of view , it is highly desirable that there be continued . formal planning for a new limited access corridor throughout as much of the corridor as is possible and feasible , and WHEREAS , the corridor generally known as the Tompkins County Department of Planning ' B - 1 ' alternative has received good consensus in the county , and does provide for a limited access corridor throughout most of its length and is selected to accomplish good transportation objectives to insure the most good with continuing due regard to the impact on adjacent landowners and the natural and human environment , within the existing constraints , therefore be it RESOLVED , that NYS DOT be asked to continue upgrading of the existing Route 13 facility as the immediate interim solution to improve safety , and RESOLVED , further , that the Ithaca - Tompkins County Transportation Commis - sion does endorse the ' B - 11 , concept as a first phase two - lane , limited access facility and does urge that the corridor be introduced into the formal planning processes of NYS DOT , and RESOLVED , further , that NYS DOT be asked to provide an updated study and report on the impact of a complete reconstruction of the existing corridor as a possible alternative to meet future long - range needs , and RESOLVED , further , that alternative alignments within the corridor and the interchanges be studied by NYS DOT as part of the planning process to minimize impacts on farmlands , the natural and human environments , and maximize transportation objectives , and RESOLVED , further , that NYS DOT be asked to include as part of the future studies a connector linking Route 13 in the vicinity of the Airport to Route 366 in the vicinity of Cornell University . " Mr . May stated that this connecting link is really the key to the • whole thing . Mrs . Bronfenbrenner noted that coming from the airport there is only one way to come - - goes right down Warren Road . Mrs . Raffensperger replied , no , she thought the implication is a new route - - and commented that that is an interesting point . Planning Board - 13 - October 23 , 1.979 • Mrs . Raffensperger suggested that if this resolution is suggested and this connector , or perhaps a new connector , is in the resolution , she would like to see , simultaneously , planning , land acquisition , and funding , be in there . Mr . Baker commented about going into Dryden and noted that the light at the College ( TC3 ) is disastrous . He said that he was in a truck and it is quite difficult in a truck - - different from being in a car . He pointed out that there are so many trucks . The Planning Board Resolution of October 2 , 1979 , was discussed and its meaning as it relates to B - 1 . Mr . Aron thanked Mrs . Raffensperger for this excellent discussion and Mrs . Raffensperger expressed her thanks to the Planning Board , APPLICATION FOR SIGN PERMIT - PALEONTOLOGICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTION . Mr . May stated that the sign permit application as presented by the Paleontological Research Institution was not valid , it appearing to be a 50 sq . ft . sign with payment in terms of a 25 sq . ft . sign . MOTION by Mr : Henry Aron , seconded by Mr . James Baker : RESOLVED , that the matter of consideration of application for sign permit requested by the Paleontological Research Institution be tabled and referred back to the applicant for correction . • There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Aron , May , Schultz , Grigorov , Bronfenbrenner , Baker , Mazza . Nay - None . Abstain - Stanton . The MOTION was declared to be carried . ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion , the October 23 , 1979 , meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board was declared to be duly adjourned at 10 : 15 p . m . Respectfully submitted , Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary . • TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD TUESDAY , OCTOBER 23 , 1979 A G E N D A 7 : 30 P . M . ADJOURNED PUBLIC HEARING : Monkemeyer Matter , 5 - lot Subdivision , East King Road . 7 : 45 P . M . ADJOURNED PUBLIC HEARING : Wright Matter , rezoning from R- 30 to Multiple Residence and Commercial , 1319 Mecklenburg Road . 8 : 00 P . Me PUBLIC HEARING : Consideration of Preliminary Sub . division Approval for 3 - lot Subdivision , 1698 Slaterville Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 56 - 3 - 1. 4 . Charles Foote . 8 : 20 P . 1,1 . Report of the County Planning Board Representative , Councilwoman Shirley Raffensperger . . 8 : 35 P . M . Approval of Minutes - October 17 , 1978 . 8 : 40 P . M . Work Session r 9 : 00 P . M * ADJOURNMENT Nancy M . Fuller Secretary NOTE : IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD CANNOT ATTEND , PLEASE NOTIFY ME IMMEDIATELY AT 273 - 1747 . M AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING TOWN CLERK ' S OFFICE • ITHACA , N . Y. I , Edward L . Bergen being duly sworn , say that I am the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County , New York , that the following notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca and that the . notice has been duly published in the local newspaper : ( Ithaca Journal ) Notice of Public Hearings to be held by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca on Tuesday , October 23 , -. 1979 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , ( second floor ) , Ithaca , N . Y . , commencing at 7 : 30 P . M . , as per attached . Location of sign board used for posting : w Date of Posting : October 15 , 1979 Date of Publication : October 18 , 1979 ���:L'/j�-off /� • Edw d ' Bergen Town 'Clerk Town of - Ithaca State of New York County of Tompkins SS . Town of Ithaca Sworn to before me this — — day of 1.9 �Lo NOTARY CONSTANCE E. ALLEN Notary Public, State of New . Yorh \o. 55- 1306613 Qualified in ToinpkiusCount I " erin Expires March 30, 19 Thurf3day, October 18, 1979 ITHACA JOURNAL 19 Deadlines for ClassIfied Display Legal Notices _ —For advertising to appear in proper working order on each win- - the Ithaca Journal, all copy dow that is capable of being must be in by deadlines listed ) opened . All windows, locks, MONDAY deadline : frames, and hardware must be of THURSDAY, 3 P.M. sound construction and in ,proper TUESDAY deadline : working order . FRIDAY, 4 P,M. Section 2. This ordinance shall take . WEDNESDAY deadline : effect immediately and . in ac- NOON MONDAY cordance with law upon publica- THURSDAY deadline : tion of a notice as provided in y3. 11 NOON TUESDAY ( B ) of the Ithaca City Charter. FRIDAY deadline : By Authority of the Common Coun- NOON WEDNESDAY cil SATURDAY deadline : of the City of Ithaca, New York , THURSDAY, 10 A,M. Joseph A. Rundle ' City Clerk , SET SOLID: ( ads without October 18, 1979 borders or artwork ) — 2 p.m. TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING for next day publication. BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC ( SPECIAL SECTIONS L HEARINGS, TUESDAY, OCTO- HOLIDAYS may change BER 23, 1979 deadlines, Please call our of. By direction of the Chairman of fice for further information, the Planning Board, NOTICE IS 272.9300. OPEN : Monday- HEREBY GIVEN that Public Friday, 8 a. m.-S p.m. Hearings will be held by the Plan- ning Board of the Town of I thaca on Tuesday, October 23, 1979t in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street ( sec- Legal Notices and floor ), Ithaca, N . Y ., at the following times and on the follow- in matters : 7; 30 P.M; Adjourned Public Hear- ing MonkemeyerMatter, 5-lot Sub- division, East King Road. 7 : 45 P.M. Adjourned Public Hear- ing Wright Matter, rezoning from . R-30 to Multiple Residence and Commercial, 1319 Mecklenburg Road . 8 : 00 P.M. Consideration of Pre-ai liminary Subdivision Approval for 3-lot Subdivision, 1698 Slaterville Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-56.3-14. Charles Foote. Said Planning Board will at said times and said place hear all per- sons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons mayl appear by agent Edward L. Bergen Town Clerk . Town of Ithaca Dated October 15, 1979 October 18, 1979 M TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS TUESDAY , OCTOBER 23 , 1979 By direction of the Chairman of the Planning Board , NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that. Public Hearings will be held by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca on Tuesday , October 23 , 1979 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street ( second floor ) , Ithaca , N . Y . , at the following times and on the following matters : 7 : 30 P . M . Adjourned Public Hearing Monkemeyer Matter , 5 - lot Subdivision , East King Road , 7 : 45 P . M . Adjourned Public Hearing Wright Matter , rezoning from R- 30 to Multiple Residence and Commercial , 1319 Mecklenburg Road . 8 : 00 P . M . Consideration of Preliminary Subdivision Approval for 3 - lot Subdivision , 1698 Slaterville Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 56 - 3 - 14 . Charles Foote , Said Planning Board will at said times and said place hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto . Persons may appear by agent or in person . Edward L . Bergen Town Clerk Town of Ithaca Dated : October 15 , 1979 Publish : October 18 , 1979 �eoke. f-G 44 . - - - -- __ � - - - - - - ---- - --/-313 - - - -- - ---- - - - -- - - - - 1 � " 7/ - - . Ate _ ch ,f .✓ �° 3 A( 6�4 - - - - - - _ - _ -�� ��_. l l � r i d L tcw4I I let ;1 b • rf!lr � t ��sR��ea�! ell�lallil■IIISN®�� s L C � a 6 J L� G :l r TOWN OF ITHACA SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM AhkNSTRUCTIONS : ( a ) In order to answer the questions in this short EAF it is assumed that the preparer will use currently available information concerning the project and the likely impacts of the action . . It is not expected that additional studies , research or other investigations will be undertaken . ( b ) If any question has been answered Yes the project may be significant and a completed Environmental Assessment Form is necessary . ( c ) If all questions have been answered No it is likely that this project is not significant . '( d ) Environmental Assessment 1 . Will project result in a large physical change to the project site or physically alter more than 10 acres of land ? Yes No 2 . Will there be a major change to any unique or unusual land form found on the site ? Yes No 3 . Will project alter or have a large effect on an existing body of water ? Yes No . 4 . Will project have a potentially large impact on groundwater quality ? Yes No 5 . Will project significantly affect drainage flow on adjacent sites ? YesX No 6 . Will project affect any threatened or endangered plant or animal species ? Yes No 7 . Will project result in a major adverse effect on air quality ? Yes No 8 . Will project have a major effect on visual character of the community or scenic views or vistas known to be important to the community ? Yes No g . Will project adversely impact any site or structure of historic , pre - historic , or paleonto logical importance or any site designated as a critical environmental area by a local agency ? Yes ,� No 10 . Will project have a major effect on existing or future recreational opportunities ? Yes -No 11 . Will project result in major traffic problems or cause a major effect to existing transportation systems ? Yes No 12 . Will project regularly cause objectionable odors , noise , glare , vibration , or electrical disturbance as a result of the project ' s operation ? Yes No Shdrt Environmental Assessment Form Page Two 13 . Will project have any impact on public health or safety ? Yes No 14 . Will project affect the existing community by directly causing a growth in permanent population of more than 5 per cent over a one - year period or have a major negative effect on the character of the community or neighborhood ? Yes No 15 . Is there public controversy concerning the project ? Yes No PREPARER ' S SIGNATURE . 9, �✓ TITLE . REPRESENTING . DATE . Form adopted by Town Board Resolution April 9 , 19790 TOWN OF I THACA SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM INSTRUCTIONS . r ( a ) In order to answer the questions in this short EAF it is assumed that the preparer will use currently available information concerning the project and the likely impacts of the action . It is not expected that additional studies , research or other investigations will be undertaken . ( b ) If any question has been answered Yes the project may be significant and a completed Environmental Assessment Form is necessary . ( c ) . If all questions have been answered No it Is •likely that this project is not significant . ( d ) Environmental Assessment 1 . Will project result in a large physical change to the project site or physically alter more than 10 acres of land ? Yes No 2 . Will there be a major change to any unique or unusual land form found on the site ? Yes l� No 3 . Will project alter or have a large effect on an existing body of water ? Yes No ! 4 . Will project have a potentially large impact on groundwater quality ? 4 Yes No 5 . Will project significantly affect drainage flow on adjacent sites ? Yes c/ No 6 . Will project affect any threatened or endangered plant or animal species ? Yes Pe"INo 7 . Will project result in a ' major adverse effect on ` . air quality ? Yes �No 8 . Will project have a major effect on visual character of the community or scenic views or vistas known to be important to the community ? Yes `�No 9 . Will project adversely impact any site or structure of historic , pre - hlstoric , or paleonto- logical • importance or any site designated as .a / critical environmental area ' by a local agency? Yes v No 10 . Will project have a major effect on existing or future recreational opportunities ? Yes No ll . Will project result . in major - traffic problems or cause a major effect to existing transportation systems ? Yes No 12 . Will. project regularly cause objectionable odors , noise , glare ,! vibration', or electrical disturbance as a result of the project ' s operation ? Yes 40001 No ; t� . •A ; Short Environmental Assessment Form Page Two 13 . Will project have any impact on public health or safety ? Yes . &**�No 14 . . Will project affect the existing community by directly - causing a growth in permanent population ' of . more ' than 5 per cent over a one - year period or have a major negative effect on the character of the . community or neighborhood ? Yes No 15 . Is there public controversy concerning the project ? Yes �No PREPARER ' S SIGNATURE : TITLE : REPRESENTING : l.. �� °�� DATE : i ' 11 . i . • ♦ . . . . \. . � It . '1 1 • . - I 1 Form adopted by Town Board Resolution April 9 , 1979 • r a to �p %I o\`' ' ` r ` ', • , '! o c _ R p _ '+, • ' W. ,O 1DIr •'\ O,() Gy t OL4 •'• .w •.• • M1 •_ � •1 •� • I. •• •r ' (ti , tn: o ro , i 7 o �•s y�c . . . . _— . • t •• . 4cT , ., .. • � ' taco° : op° c \oY - _ `- .. 1 4y) OL\Y vW Owl EAST yh6 w•. ir n• r• • f p J O•pt � '•" r• , .. ,ry 1*:Icriru C Iy� rn. •os G , I No wo ea two ese VA. oO, gwo j: n _ CI t o\= t - i , 1p•llq . Com' - .' - C • OC-1 Ot-a 012 (.. � • g�i? • . Dlow !q t .' •. - ` , : • , • •• • • . • O(7� . Qw; •: - .. - ...., lele— n ONE • • - �6 �� ' O��T' - `µ1L OMv[ .c. , O`'\ \ .0 GC ` •w> is Or. rl , a . oa9 .•• .rG ... rn . .•. • o ON O _ 4\4 OPO ic ( goo I 1111 :1F, or ..• ► "• f n wow Vgo ol4a we ; moarmf /�lY C •1 \ gR,,.' Olst Ot.•• • .•• •�• -a✓�^,. CiGG� � • YM1 '.. \i0 `—"���y'�' \ — t( al - • • _ �( , `.•:�mop �`L�d ` `.L I ^.• �y_�a,Z .L• '. f ' .� • �r • ,...L C`' S` Yl���. a ^ . 0 ' wood, w, G ✓ 4 �GS'- i r A � .wow y . . . N ' \ \ Er , O �/IJ-. SIt . ••wo -•. t 4 r . •• ol :�.�. • 1 -..: ' . • • ' - , + Oloo 4 op � - woo V� r� • ,atcV. . ✓" ay i�C ��` " //J • tom .js�i aQ mom to N Room wo POO,m woo OR 0000o a Woo woo am oil OP opa mow • No r•t•�.a. . . t .1 - ';.1 '�i.,l�,�" �• • , ' t'j ''•'. I. .' . i, t• i� 7 ;7 wo i . ��` • .\c L •� ♦•. ,C' . .. . . • .• , • M � :. 8 * 1 : i %., #. . . L.: �: +:•t. •.• 1i _ ( 't,r [• ►•ICL• I �• • � . • •- •i •l• . . " ••,•.• •%:• �1:: �'•` •r.o. '•.. . , w • •,, .• • •,• '�- '(\ • AfI'� �i� % .♦.-c_t- Y". v5. x.14• •• `•t • , ' _ _ • • • • •• • f . ' • .•�'1•' . ••r: :ter• '/: (t , . ,, .,-r ' . •1 , ,�/ LC • r• w. � -. F •\ . • a \ ,� ' • • .. Im•\ • '' • ,/ • ':1•, lt • :•• a ". .!��� -.y✓) wo Woo wo POO. a mo woo Ow I to •. •� � • ., ' � . i . : . `• cop �'' • • • l: SO •�' • .t .: '. ,.amp . " t '• .r•• , • , 'i. /w" Ift woo. No owl ow- �(. ow, / p .' .. LTJ Y � lmomocY Q • top Woo I 0 lo t • ` `PowU mml • L'4 ' . • 0 :. "s• \�.�� 1 ' ` C �. �Q J r' goo wom . , { • • li • r , , ,`- \I �' � 4 ` , 4Y �� "ao. y • - t n � / ,ome A i ' 1 t . t e r/ i woo OR woo Dow It so lot .� V t �• Poo.` T + + .. � \ \ f 04'Coallm ' LL o, 1 - owl So go • ( (Dow F- ows ff i t: r J low a 6 Rom La to al v 1 ow o' Op wal wo lo oft to OP *go owl wo owe wool o" oLow- o woo mom so \ . 00 00 a .% a testi- •• ' •• • . . t \ om t_ � i . 1. rwoo- ` It Ifa • ll ' tom " ,\•- 1 00 some am W c [ owl - 116 • • ::.I • • • .•lt` I• \ •" r • •': • L- 1 i.•• r .;•Y.�-(; � YJ�I ' �.1i:•. . _ : J ••/ " ,.•J. n.',.�•ti. . . •'► • - • :r •001 t % . ' 1 •(�,1 .•v..C•_=.::1 - 1 -: •'�L:�. L .. t w .a 014 Op Ot {I . � ' • .: . .� t • , i' I : 1 . � r' .• �. .,./1 " �. " t 1 S o y.r Vii: / J7 j1 • ISL, . . . ' . . . � . '. t . ✓• ,. . \ �•, - _ ! C'n wo o I SIGN APPLICATION AND PERMIT FEE : $ 5 . 00 - APPLICATION PLUS $ 1 . 00 PER SQ . FTo . AREA OF EACH SIGN*. -ov/o� 129 APPLICATION DATE . October 19 / 79 PERMIT . # DATE - -�NING DISTRICT R- 30m TAX MAP PARCEL fir` 6 - 24 - 3 - 3 . 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- APPLICANT PALEONTOLOGICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTION TELPHONE 607-273-_6623 ADDRESS 1259 TRUMANSBURG ROAD , ITHACA , NEW YORK 14850 PROPERTY OWNER PAL EoN� TOT oGTc_& RF�FAR� A TI�T� (1TTTTIT TT ADDRESS 1259 TRUMANSBURG ROAD , ITHACA , NEW YORK 14850 TELPHONE 607-273-662,3 a LCZATION OF SIGN ( S ) AT LEAST 15 FEET FROM STATE HTC WAW ROUTE 96 RIGHT-OF-WAY r �_ _ . ._ . _ ._ ._ _. �Tc7Z . � -_ n n n •. n I\ I\ i\ h n n n h h h •. Q /\ .\ h h n n n h h n h n n n n h *-OTC h n n h h n n Il h /\ h h n •\ I\ n h h h h h •\ h A n h n h n h .\ h n n .• n n h /. / SCALE DRAWING - OR�ATTACHED, OR BLUEPRINT . - - _ - - _ _ - - - - - - - - - - .Q._. , a . zo/A v c � Y J , DATE 10 / 19 / 79 SIGNATURE m DIRECTOR LJ .L.J- .W�r—t.J. t.J-.1.J._LJ,J J.JJ.J J.J t-,},��.}^J-J-J..LJ-_�J.J-J..L_t..t.J 4._ J r n h ♦ ♦ h i• ♦ h /� •\ n h /� n ♦ h n I\ IC ri h n I\ A /\ n n •\ I\ I\ I\ h •\ I\ !\ h •\ I\ /� A I\7\ h I\ I\ n n I\ I\ h Il h I\ •\ •\ n h n I• \ / A n h Vito\ I / •\-�\ �I\ E IT - - - - - . - - - - - PLANNING BDo ACTION - - - - - - - - - - " - - - - - DATE - - - - - - - ( ) APPROVED BY ( ) DENIED UNDER SEC . TOWN BD , ACTION DATE ARWA ACTION 2ND • PLANNING BDo ACTION DATE TE OF APPEAL DATE OF FlEARING 2ND • TOWN BD , ACTION DATE Town $ 25 . 00 DEPOSIT FOR ADVERTISEMENT1; �s , � � � , k OF HEARING . 4 New ar14860 y<: 7i 1NO 0 i } - O 0 NO JOa II, -'' i4 . T-, ' f r °rv - . . . . .. . . NO 0 NO I . , .: tNO Y ' NO .. . . . .. . NO I 010 . . . I )1 :. .: , 1 NO 01 1 NON;NO1 ' V ON .. NO 0 t £ ' ' �+ . -. . . - It 11 NO. 0 ON , r < '. ON I ON No 1. NO NO NO No NO 0 ONO NO ONNONIN 0. NO NO NO o ON I ON I ON 4 ON N, 1 i j +s . .NO Nib r•1 . . NO o NO ON, ..•.: . C .. Or. [ _.. f ��ff;.. ` . ? 7 a NO o f 0 NO NOl\' �.! ...ON I . . 4 . .. � . - i . . . l - • NO k I . - - . �..` + NO i0 ON, ON _ f - . _ ! s j2 .� } / . . ~ t lNO L - . . --NN, !V _ t 4 w NO 0 0 10 Fn• - . . NO ON - N. :. r' _ s , ON. 4NO 1, . . S'r.n.^.,.....,rs..- tN _ x a....a. +�_d+ownr�t ..•aa.w+w++�: , t, - . ,. - NO V Ni NO. NO o �. R NO 000 NO Qij Wa�•wc._.... -.L} .e ., r,., .•.. ,w•.� HNO . sMNr+. :1t ,t . -. . .0. y L. Lr NO ( NO IN ON 6 P . .-0 �.. +... NO .. _. Lwr�-+�r•�.tun JTFi+'!.n'7W.14..�..yyy�l� � ♦ . . t .. NO •y ... > NO NO 4 Or r� I - - c 5 : i . . h +L 0 •- t ?� - ; ` Irl NO 16 �t - b i - -S til C �r + . . 'Z Y 5 i °! 11 i0., ON t "`' [ : S-IN NO _' L .. - . -\1'4 l I It ' t NO . - \i \ Y y ys� r 'NON, F NO i 0 ON. NNI It it N. ...... n T "��t t' ,� VV� r• _.. 1 ..4 . , n A � . IN l �v �. -N i IN ' `. - - NEXT MEETING : WEDNESDAY , NOVEMBER 14 , 1979 , COUNTY PLANNING of 7 : 30 P . M . TOMPKINS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING Frank R . Liguori PE Commissioner of Planning E_ S U M M A R Y tt COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MEETING 1: E OCTOBER 10 , 1979 7 : 30 P . M . ,. �. The meeting was called to order by the Chairman , Gould Colman , a quorum being present . Guests were introduced . An attendance record is attached , h The following corrections were made in the September 12 summary by Eleanor Bayley . s Page 3 , second line , should read , " University traffic as it affects Freeville Village . " Also on the same page , sixth line from bottom , should read , "K . Marquis said the Village of Freeville Board will be holding another meeting on Rt . 13 . . " r 4 The summary was accepted as corrected . RR Privilege of the Floor E! Millard Brink expressed concern that funds the City of Ithaca has expended in ,. N ` planting trees along Rt . 13 at the southerly entrance of the city are being wasted E ' due to lack of maintenance of the trees . Furthermore , the appearance on the C:. approach to the city has suffered . ``t 6s M Shirley Raffensperger reported the Town of Ithaca has prepared a draft revised zoning ordinance which the Town Board will soon be considering . 1 Jim Warren asked if an township will be responding to the Y P p g proposed Indian lands rj settlement . He suggested the Planning Board might want to consider the implications of transferring Connecticut Hill to federal control . In relation to discussions on the improvement of Rt . 13 Gould Colman said that £-� since the Transportation Commission and the Economic Advisory Board have not -gent i' their recommendations to the County Planning Board , it would be well to leave the Rt . 13 resolution tabeled until next month . He read that resolution and observed that during the last meeting of the Board, D . Enichen reported that a special EMC Committee was not convinced a new corridor is needed and that if it is needed , an alignment other than B- 1 is preferable . Colman read the EMC resolution and asked whether the two resolutions- - the EMC ' s and the Planning Board ' s could be reconciled . Liguori observed that by using the word " perceived " the EMC did not grant that there `; is a safety and traffic congestion problem . He also stated that at no time did the County Planning Department advocate the construction of a four- lane limited access ' i highway . Rather it had consistently suggested a two - lane construction with a four- lane right -of- way for possible future use . .Robert Brown asked if farmers could use the right - of-way . Liguori said it could : x be done with special arrangement . � Liguori said that since it is not possible to have a count, y -wide . referendum on the Rt . 13 issue , the only logical way to determine whether or not a consensus exists is by the Motions of municipal and other bodies . Viola Miller said that she had left the last Board meeting , as well as the 128 East Buffalo Street , Ithaca , New York Telephone (507) 274e5286 / 274 % 5287 - 2 - Transportation Commission meeting , feeling that we are lingering on taking action on something which the community has needed for a long time . She said that the Lansing community has been impacted the most and this impact had to some degree • precipitated the formation of the Village . She reminded the Board that the Town of Lansing had accepted the original Rt . 13 project from the Department of Transportation on the assurance that Rt . 13 would connect to Rt. 81 and that there was a real need , at the time , to do so . As for the most recent happenings , she reported that both the Planning Board and Town Board of the Town of Lansing had approved the B- 1 concept . Referring to the EMC Rt . 13 report she said there was nothing in the report addressing traffic from outside of Tompkins County . What about trucks , busses , and other thru traffic which have been using our highways and aggravating our traffic situation ? A four- lane road concept is a definite need from the Airport to where it rejoins the existing facility , somewhere past TC- 3 ; it would improve access and help our economic well-being . She said the EMC Rt . 13 report has not spoken about the future . She observed that the EMC was becoming activist rather than performing its proper role by selling to other municipalities and the Farm Bureau its point-of -view . She said the county needs help to strengthen its transportation network and improve the local economy . As to the Octopus design , she pointed out that the Department of Transportation had not designed it , but had in fact dissaproved it ; neverthe- less , it was constructed . with the approval of the City of Ithaca . R . Booth replied that , because of the different characteristics and interests of the members on the EMC , it could not be said that it is an activist group with a single point of view . The report prepared by the EMC took the entire summer and no one else had produced a comparable report . Furthermore , the report was pre - pared by volunteers . He said that because of the energy crisis mass transportation would become more of a necessity . He also said that consensus cannot be defined as limited to elected officials . He also commented on the word "perceived " , saying that by its usage EMC was reacting to public opinion rather than passing judgment about the existance of a problem . George Totman said that a few months ago the County Planning Board had asked its Chairman to seek from the County Board of Representatives clarification of the relationship between these Boards and their responsibilities . He wanted to know what the outcome was . The Chairman said discussions are continuing . Shirley Raffensperger reported that in its consideration of the B - 1 alternative , +± the Town of Ithaca Planning Board and Town Board had discussed adverse traffic " impact to the northeast . She requested that the Board delay action on the Rt . 13 resolution until such matters can be clarified . Leonard Miscall said that the EMC was not created by the Board of Representatives , it was created by the State . He said the EMCs comment on the Rt . 13 alignment was beyond its scope and it was making decisions in a professional field . He pointed out that the responsibility lay with the Tompkins County Department of Planning . However , he said that EMC still could make a critical contribution . Paul Komar , representing the Chamber of Commerce said that there is a need for improved access so that commerce can continue to improve in Tompkins County , not only for businesses already located in the area , but for those which might desire • to establish here . He also said that the Chamber of Commerce has resolved to support the B- 1 alternative . . 3 - Eleanor Bayley said there seems to be a feeling that all of this is going to be done very soon which actually will not be the case , so what about the existing conditions and accidents on the existing facility ? Shouldn ' t this be improved ? • Liguori pointed out the Department of Planning has consistently supported the upgrading of the existing facility as an interim measure . He said that in 1973 the Department of Transportation charged our community with the responsibility of selecting a new corridor . They would not consider a new corridor project them- selves . If no new corridor is designated , the upgrading of the existing facility will be the long- range solution . This is where the problem lies . In fact , Liguori pointed out , the first resolution by the Rt . 13 Task Force was for upgrading the existing facility as an interim measure . He strongly urged that. Tompkins County deserves something better than an upgraded existing Rt . 13 for the long- range . Paul Komar said that two people were killed in front of NYSEG recently . He asked if it were possible to project how many people would be killed if this facility was to be keptas our long- range solution . He moved that such a projection be done to indicate what saving of lives can be made . This was seconded by Gust Freeman . It was carried by a 12 yes votes and 2 abstaining . . Don Enichen pointed out that the word "perceived " was not intended to mean that the EMC believes there is no problem . He said that upgrading of the existing facility would in many portions , result in a four- lane facility . For instance , from Warren Road to NYSEG would be a four - lane facility . As to the matter of consensus , Enichen said that Forest Home had joined the group opposing B - 1 , as did many farmers who may be expected to take the matter to court . He said that ' consensus was about fifty- fifty if George Jr . Republic were deleted from the group . He further pointed out that traffic is expected to increase , but not enough to need a four- lane facility . As to a connector between Rt . 13 and Rt . 366 , he said DOT would not build it and that it would be . a drawback of the B - 1 project . As to staff support , Enichen said that the EMC had one-half person and that not much time was spent on the Rt . 13 study by the staff . Typing of the report was done elsewhere . He said that given time and economic constraints , the county could not plan for a thirty-million dollar project and face an uncertain future of greatly increased costs . Liguori said that the Town of Ithaca could still be opposed to the improvement of the existing facility if it did not provide a connection to Rt . 366 as well as + ' the Ellis Hollow/ East Hill Plaza area . Planning Department Reports Carpooling and Park- and - ride Plan Handouts were distributed on gasoline conservation programs : the - Ridesharing Program and the Park- and - ride Facilities Program . Missirian gave a brief pre- sentation on these programs and particularly highlighted the second one , the park- and - ride facilities program . He showed a map which delineated the distri- bution of the various population concentrations throughout the county and their commutation characteristics . He further described a map showing suggested locations for park- and- ride sites : about 16 sites in Tompkins County outside of the urban area but located at population concentrations , and five sites located around the Ithaca Urban Area . He said that suggestions were madefor potential sites in the surrounding counties such as the Cortland and Richford area to the east , the Candor and Spencer area to the south , the Alpine and Horseheads area to the southwest , and the Mecklenburg area to the west . A copy of the map showing park- and- ride sites is attached . - 4 - Missirian showed a mark -up model of a sign with a park -and -ride logo . He said that the county is considering providing signs . to local municipalities for ' erection at sites which are agreed upon by each community and the county . Missirian also presented a draft memorandum to local municipal officials from James Mason , Chairman , Ithaca- Tompkins County Transportation Commission . This . memorandum addresses the two programs which directly address the energy crisis through . the con - servation of gasoline , the *ridesharing program , and the park -and -ride facilities program . Also with the package Missirian explained matters relating to insurance of park -and-ride facilities , liability coverage , and other considerations . Robert Brown asked about the maintenance of these park -and -ride sites . . Liguori said maintenance could be arranged between the municipality and the owner of the facility . If the facility is owned by the municipality , then no additional policy for maintenance or insurance would be required . Multi - county Solid Waste Recovery Study Liguori reported that the feasibility plan for incineration refuse from four coun - ties to provide heat for Cornell is completed . He pointed out that environmental impacts would be mitigated . The facility would be located near the Cornell University heating plant and the heat sold to Cornell University . He said the plan will now be submitted to the four counties for collective approval . He said the final report will be published in three weeks or so . He said the report has a rather complete section on environmental assessment . It points out some potential environmental impacts most of which could be mitigated . In terms of cost to the participating counties , he said that initial bottom - line costs will be about equal to present costs , but savings are expected in the future . The overall cost of the final report , he said , would be approximately $ 210 , 000 . James Warren asked if the plan was contingent upon Cornell University ' s needs . He said , What if Cornell University decides not to use it ? And if we were to meet Cornell University ' s schedule , how could we speed up the activity ? Liguori said that Cornell University had in fact given a deadline for the study and its recommendations . He further pointed out that if none of the counties continue with this package there is still a possible fallback , but not a very attractive one . Cornell ' s participation is absolutely necessary for the project . Gould Colman pointed out a report in the New York Times , September 8 , 1979 , on the Hempstead , Long Island plant describing health hazards in the waste - fired plant . The report highlights some of the environmental problems arising from the plant ' s operation . Industrial Site Development Strategy (Satisfaction Survey ) Liguori reported that the Economic Advisory Board had been working on a draft identifying industrial sites throughout the county for development purposes . He said the results of the surveys were presented to the Economic Advisory Board , a summary of which was presented for the Board ' s information . Joe Gentili reviewed the results of the Industrial Site and Industrial Satisfaction surveys . - 5 - �rt He said there are five major components of the historically - stable Tompkins County economy , namely : ( 1 ) industry , ( 2 ) commerce , ( 3 ) higher education , ( 4 ) agriculture , and ( 5 ) government . The survey on Industrial Sites was begun one year ago with the municipal Chief Executive Officers ' Attitude Survey . The Attitude Survey revealed that all of the municipalities except the . Village of Trumansburg and Cayuga Heights , and the Town of Enfield would welcome light industry . Many of the municipalities have undeveloped industrial zoned land . A summary of the presentation is attached . Southern Tier East Regional Planning Board and Appalachia 1980 Investment Plan Carl Cox offered to prepare a statement describing the plan which could be distri - buted to the Board members with the minutes . The offer was accepted with thanks . Agricultural . District No . 8 Gary Evans gave a presentation on the formation of the Agricultural District No . 8 . A map of existing Ag Districts No . 1 - 7 and proposed No . 8 is attached . Liguori requested that a Committee be formed from the Board to help prepare a recommendation relating to the proposed District No . 8 . The Chairman will be appointing a Committee for this purpose . The time being late , the rest of the agenda was tabled for the next meeting . The meeting was adjourned . NEXT MEETING The next meeting of the Board will be on Wednesday , November 14 , 19795 7 : 30 p . m . at the County Planning Office . Respectfully submitted , Harry A . Missirian Acting Secretary SURVEY RESULTS NOTE : The following is a distribution of first preference for preferred dates for County Planning Board meetings . A total of 23 members responded to the survey . M T W T lst week of month 2nd r 3rd � � �► :R, I - 4th it ' I SUMMARY OF THE INDUSTRIAL SATISFACTION SURVEY . FINDINGS FACT SHEET • 1 . Number of industries . contacted : 51 2 . Number of industries surveyed : 44 3 . a . Number of jobs gained , 1974-79 : 680 b . . Number of jobs lost , 1974- 79 : 732 C . Net loss : 52 4 . . Amount of floor space added , 1974- 79 : 552 , 124 square feet + - 5 . Increase of floor space forecast , 1979 - 84 : 76 , 500 square feet 6 . Industries lost , 1974 - 79 : 1 Agri- Bio ( Babcock ) , 1979 . 7 . Industries gained , 1974- 79 : 6 Data Machines International Direct Page Communications Ithaca Theater Lighting Lindemann Laboratories Precision Filters Varaxon 8 . Satisfaction Responses : ( + ) represents satisfaction ; ( - } dissatisfaction a : Access - egress : + 8 , - 8 1 . Env . Quality : +34 , -none b . Parking : + 12 , - 8 m . Recreation : +40 , -none c . Drainage : +11 , - 3 n . Education : +31 , -1 d . Neighborhood relations : +17 , - 2 0 . Entertainment : + 28 , -2 e . Outside transp . PUB : + 33 - 15 P . Housing : + 8 , - 16 ( .,ee-at x . f . Outside transp . PVT : + 7 , - 12 q . Health care : +16 , - 4 g . Roads : + 7 , -12 r . Training : +14 , -10 h . Water/sewer :. + 8 , - 7 s . Crafts : +18 , -none i . Energy : +9 , - 3 t . Inside transp . PUB : + 55 -14 j . Taxes : + 1 , - 23 u . Inside transp . PVT : +45 -11 k . Finances : + 7 , -4 v . Arts : +14 , - 2 9 . Comments : a . Number of jobs lost includes a loss of 475 jobs by NCR . b . "Outside " transportation refers to origins or destinations outside Tompkins County . c . " Inside " transportation refers to origins and destinations inside Tompkins County . d . Level of employee interviewed was chief executive officer - or his designated representative . INDUSTRIAL SATISFACTION SURVEY RESPONDENTS ` REMZIENDATIONS The following recommendations were offered spontaneously and voluntarily by interviewees . They have been categorized and are listed without attribution . The number preceding an item is the number of individuals who offered essen - tially the same recommendation . Education K- 12 1 Improve " survival - skills " training , e . g . , personal finance 1 Operate school system in business -like manner Technical Training 3 Increase training of toolmakers 2 Increase training of general mechanics 3 Increase training of welders 4 Increase training of electronic technicians 4 Increase training of draftsmen and general technicians • 1 Increase training, of binders , printers , and pressmen Government - Taxes 1 Remove sales tax from ut =ility bills 1 Reduce corporate franchise tax Health Care 1 Improve facilities and services East County Housing 5 Improve supply of moderately priced housing 1 Improve supply of mortgage money Industry 2 Foster industrial development (more industry ) 1 Appoint liaison between government and industry 2 Improve lending policy of banks �. Solid Waste 1 Permit private sorting at landfills 1 Improve glass recycling system t RESPONDENTS ' RECO,u•1ENDATIONS Page 2 Transportation Air 12 Improve passenger service ( including number of destinations ) 3 Improve air freight 2 Establish Ithaca to Syracuse shuttle Public Transit (Bus ) . 9 Provide county-wide service Railroads 5 Restore general service and establish public station and siding at Ithaca 1 Provide scale at Ithaca for gondola car weighing Roads 1 Build "Beltway " 9 Improve Rt . 13 2 Improve access from East County to Hospital 1 Improve Rts . 34 / 96 2 Improve Rt . 96B 1 Improve Rt . 79 1 Improve maintenance of Lansing secondary roads Traffic 1 Improve lane marking , Rt . 96 1 Reduce truck traffic , Rt . 79 - 2 Rostore two -lane streets downtown Urban. Design I Develop Civic Center on Commons ( . Attachment 1 54 lot z h 13ROTON u La Ridge LAtV�SING r1 34B North Lansing ' Groton Cit West Groton Lansingville 34 r S G cFn 22 r ' Ludlawville g Persville McLean r Cort : =g Lansing 13 Area T is S , ansing ; 7 Halseyvi�lle 8 �ysbury 22 o West Dryden F �viils P Waterburg J Song lle Estys �_ _ g® 366 = �a iToAirm ortns co. I� en y1 ULYSSES � j;1 . ' p = Etna 13 I• _ I-} P-J g = Fo est Home Mecklerburg 79 j 1 :s .�Jarna 38 _ ° � AreaIthaca Enfieldl Center 6 ° Q64' ° Ellis Hollow IDRYIDEN F ITHACAe _; terville ENFIELD -- � -� - - ti springs "!y- -- _ - --- ---- -I - - �� - - - - - - - ��� _ 79 , Richfor 1Br ton ale ° n real -•-A Tru�ull Caroline Corners �' e Newfield -ADanby i Caroline Center 96 ° Pony Hollow ' i W st Danby` ®' GAROLIIUE 13 r 30 SopeedusvilI South Danby Potential Sites a Candor Area NEWFIEL ® pANBY Potential Sites Alpine and Horseheads Area Potential Sites 1 Spencer Area MAP -D0M P K1 r\1 S Q O i_.J C`iTY Park-and - Ride Sites Suggested Locations - October 1979 Scale In miles Ir Prepared by O 1 2 3 4 S 6 0 Tompkins County Dept. of Planning ty - • • * ► • A • I . • • f 9 0 1 . . • * Z N, To : THE TOMPKINS COUNTY PLANNING BOARD - - - , ; . The 1979 report on the " SOUTHERN TIER EAST REGIONAL PLANNING for September 30 , 1978 to October 1 , 1979 . DEVELOPMENT BOARD " : r : Multi - County planning in the Southern Tier East Region of New York State was performed by limited functional regional boards to mid 1975 . As programs and functions began to overlap , it became evident that a functionally integrated board would promote efficiency , lessen confusion , and provide more cost/effective operations . On July 19 1975 , STERPDB ( Southern Tier - East Regional Planning Development Board ) was j-. me and assumed the responsi4P bilities of the previous Regional Boards . During its three and half years of operation , the consolidated STERPDB has made solid progress towards effectively involving our eight - county region in a wide range of. Planning/Development activities . . . . The professional staff for STERPDB operates under a Director , his Depiuty , nine Planners , a Manager , several Analysts , and secretaries plus typists - - a total of twenty - two people . STERPDB is composed of five voting members from each of the eight counties in our region . . " " Broome - Chenango - Cortland -Delaware - Otsego - Schoharie -Tioga -Tompkins . . Each county has representatives on the numerous committies functioning within the Board . ARC ( Appalachian Regional Commission ) - A Federal Funding Unit ! FUNDING is the name of the Game . . and the objectives of STERPDB are : to stress the elimination of " Duplication , Overlap and Conflicts of all programs " within the region . . Funded projects within : the region are monitored periodically by committee and staff members . The regional Project Package co ers programs within the region at a total investment of s 2 , 920 , 934 this figure is35 • 2 % of available New York State ARC funding . . . The total operating cost : ( all salaries , rental , maintenance , . contracts for printing , computer use , and the numerous hitt -gritty items necessary to maintain a smoothly functioning staffa $ 501 165 . 27 Each county shares $ 2 , 000 + as a share toward the total 0 C . . o respectfull submitted , October 29 , 1979 . Carl R . Cox- Town of Ulysses Village of Trumansburg T . C . at - large rep . to STERPDB • a ' C C U T Y ��� xi .E4 ..-.+: •'fir�A.+ +^3 +.a9,'S1^-s,>'g. •a jt�.:: - N 6 „ -t �,.>a,.-q " a' i e R�„_t r,..,,•f"„o .t y _ '�*�•• -.'.- �I y •• s �`� � � � J"' �,-�' M1••€ i 7 'z. ♦� 1 „°J Lv v+�..F' Y`' f a_ �� i 4 ?�rSY{•' a, r,.C' -., syi t>`..'z. � ,,,_ �,c "� y ,r'.-..,�+# . ���.•�,;��,.yr. ?�-.rsy7s� �. ,. .. 13� w. .,,t . v 4 - •X' .M `�iW¢ �•'}sf °-.. $Tf cr L' !4.s.•+•` zc yam.. ., � N _ � �,r•rA- �a . y J,'d aE .nw ♦.. .✓�-r� fS� Y y,'A' � +.-S - .t i� .1 '>' .t. .. ��..%S� . �`( d " � -lz:ar+.� -`c.+r-ia tl��r�x`X .C.. yC„ Yjt �...r•� �,t,i�Qa �F'r� a-.c�Yz�' � �,�- n '\ . � � r a..� eF.�f..u' �.}. a-.��. .^'F � . sc..'{ �a� • �'-,�..�`;yt;-�• ''--^ ,z�` i+ c `�23}j;r� ,J,�. •` A �'\• Y'. � r `r� , � < 1 ° � 4 Ya "y ` �•'+y` r }� •y.. i T � _ �f_y.�".t��w., � .C.7? ' ��� .. .� �y 'try -F s • B �. s - 0� t: G sa' :,� : 7 rs `k`.c xk .1' ` ` T ,;� a ..�.-^"1! • t(•t > `'sE•' a'a�Alf..♦Y-`'i+ 'fy�'•dt Z . 111 . _ ...a-,- Y'.n ;'l"f' S.” `'._•„•cam zr m P.'.,. ' - eJ .zg :. wa y\. -a t 4 S'-}; >� T Y< - � s3v�i- f t �,`3♦r3♦r r_� . " ^.�' � ys 1 i. - l' � • - 1 i t v A. . s a 4 ,aF rr �... }s '*' �S`.�.. i +�h;,,,,,,�".9 ,;'f *`i" _ :# `fir _ / �� �� .� r `�1 rs� ' -ate-- *2-4� c •f.K.,s�� � - 's. '� -f'. _'. / \ �:, , 3r � x a to °a•� yt S' ✓ u.4" �-f .tea _. � � y .. n�•c.•-��r.. �•.. 4 .� '- . i 1 • � [- -s,j n`•r e, �yxhYT' .�.e`s_. �'-jw "`ti. 2pO 24. K ^-, J i�" / t.l v '.+ ` ,,. 1+, .r. ,•S' v .. atm -�� �✓jri^ Y:'�r.' ^i�Qvjl n`�i. . '-• -ab• - v .s,G._ C•±=q ir'Yiex2 ..r �M # • Szcr. :{ H . D. 7c..µ„" „ �3 .• a.r, s � ,•�, P ��•-�• '~ ' .s'; -�µr.�'.s�.-�•�t1 ° •. ` ' 4 , - :; 654 ACRES c ° 't � K .''S. # !' a •�k � y .: fir. � _• � ? Ta 'a�l:. t-. `- a''j, I"'+-`�'ne�Y•'•vP,.e/-�.'Tr•�` > �- iil-�-'�_ � � A � i� _ "����.' 3' S '°. K• MY J`""g$C' 5 af.� �` >o., ' i' .�11 .ila7t . r � r -sh•f 3v>G�Pal Y at ��'1 •'•7 r ..p... . .. - r^e, # e...e` yu-,. _"r +4' -mac` ; %.} ter. + ' r. ROM ED A . D, 38244 ACRES . a mss` 2 `- �;�� � ' i . � rr • - s 1�� r J mss. : c�'.r - 3� c.'^` 7 T -k 11 C A ; . 1 _ _� ,t � � -- •• ': Ir ML L III � r-1 2� y i �. s � •t'. .af t tty r'f • j Zr k w >IIIINEr ` --•f ` 1I ` _ ; =`"j".ti Y. , : rk al>' r - t - ; r-c.r c a _ F ♦+.` ' ''c t 7,277 j ♦ r r• .-v t i Y. n '.:s p y"'`l' :4aIZ ` T + • }•' ( ° x Y z -^n ilo N t s ,rl Mi - .-S; F 3 � .. I ` I 4"`.Ss-•� / - If or L .-! �• i•+.r`s .gym � z a X51 �+�""' r. _ 1."y �' A .-.l /-C^ c j � � t Q � L -i' �a _ - •• `'.Ri'-.St i.�c�-t c �f .a��cRf -'_�_ ..-• '�j D� _� e ♦ �/�1 � ~ + x' '� lQ _jaw L j. -c s . . v `¢7 r� ,rc _ . ��`�� r JI,�( 1 Y1_ _—. + • '` I .. � < 'Lt ate Y'd Y- �4 y •G2. h � �.( I • ' �• `' -i _//�Lr.'�",� ..C- �P Lam. s.e� .t h yk Y �•--'" • t: .-. -���.a���' / S >- .-y,?`rs`.,x � .�.. Yom.. •-T� Li I I 7 k L / io A AGRICULTURAL DISTH 'T'S' TO PKINS COUNTY • A . D . TOTAL ACREAGE o OF COUNTY 1 - 7 1195559 380 1- 8 157 , 703 50 % OCTOBER 1979 a ' RESOLUTION ROUTE 13 IMPROVEMENT PLAT WHEREAS , the existing Route 13 facility between the Airport area in . Tompkins County to Interstate 81 at Cortland cannot safely handle the present or projected future traffic , and WHEREAS , from a transportation point of view , it is highly desirable that there be continued formal planning for anew limited access corridor throughout as much of the corridor as is possible and feasible , and WHEREAS , the . corridor generally known as the Tompkins County Department of Planning 11B-1 " alternative has received good consensus in the county , and - . does provide for a limited access corridor throughout most of its length and is selected to accomplish good transportation objectives to insure the _ most good with continuing due . regard to the impact on adjacent, landowners ,and the " natural and human environment , within the existing constraints , therefore be it RESOLVED , that NYS DOT be asked . to continue upgrading of the existing Route 13 facility as the immediate interim solution to improve safety , and RESOLVED , further , that the Ithaca - Tompkins County Transportation Commis sion does endorse the " B - 1 " concept as a first phase two - lane , limited access facility and does urge ' that the corridor be introduced into the formal. planning processes of NYS DOT , and RESOLVED , further , that NYS DOT be asked to provide an updated study and report on the impact of a complete reconstruction of the existing corridor as a possible alternative to meet future long -range needs , and RESOLVED , further , that alternative alignments within the corridor and the interchanges be studied by NYS DOT as part of the planning .process to minimize impacts on farmlands , the natural and human environments , and maximize transpor- tation objectives , and RESOLVED , further , that NYS DOT be asked to include as part - of the future studies a connector linking Route 13 in the vicinity of the . Airport to Route 366- in the vicinity of Cornell University . Adopted October 17 , 1979 • By the Ithaca - Tompkins County Transportation Commission