Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1987-02-17 yY FILED TOWN OF ITHACA Date TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD Clerk • � FEBRUARY 17 , 1987 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday , February 17 , 1987 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York , at 7 : 30 p . m . PRESENT : Chairman Montgomery May ( arrived late ) , Vice Chairman Carolyn Grigorov , James Baker , William Lesser , Virginia Langhans , David Klein , Robert Kenerson , John C . Barney , Esq . ( Town Attorney ) , Robert R . Flumerfelt , P . E . ( Town Engineer ) , Susan C . Beeners ( Town Planner ) , Andrew S . Frost ( Town Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer ) , Mary S . Bryant ( Recording Secretary ) . ALSO PRESENT : Larry Phillips , Jerold M . Weisburd , Harison Rue , Norbert H . Schickel Jr . , William J . Schickel , Thomas R . Salm , Lawrence Hoffman , Pamela Clermont , Edna Clausen , Vice Chairman Grigorov , acting as Chairman , declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 30 p . m . and accepted for the record the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on February 10 , 1987 and February • 12 , 1987 , respectively , together with the Sec-retary ' s Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice upon the various neighbors of each of the properties under discussion , as appropriate , upon the Clerk of the City of Ithaca , upon the Building Commissioner of the City of Ithaca , upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning , and upon each of the applicants and / or agent , as appropriate , on February 12 , 1987 . APPROVAL OF MINUTES - June 3 , 1986 MOTION by Mr . Robert Kenerson , seconded by Mr . James Baker : RESOLVED , that the Minutes of the Planning Board Meeting of June 3 , 1986 , be and hereby are approved as written . There being no further discussion , the Vice Chair called for a vote . Aye - Grigoroly , Baker , Lesser , Langhans , Klein , Kenerson . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . APPROVAL OF MINUTES - September 2 , 1986 MOTION by Mr . Robert Kenerson , seconded by Mr . David Klein : • RESOLVED , that the Minutes of the Planning Board Meeting of September 2 , 1986 , be and hereby are approved as written . Planning Board - 2 - February 17 , 1987 • There being no further discussion , the Vice Chair called for a vote . Aye - Grigorov , Baker , Lesser , Langhans , Klein , Kenerson . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . APPROVAL OF MINUTES - January 6 , 1987 MOTION by Mr . David Klein , seconded by Mrs . Virginia Lanhgans : RESOLVED , that the Minutes of the Planning Board Meeting of January 6 , 1987 , be and hereby are approved as written . There being no further discussion , the Vice Chair called for a vote . Aye - Grigorov , Baker , Lesser , Langhans , Klein , Kenerson . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . APPROVAL OF MINUTES - January 20 , 1987 • MOTION by Mr . James Baker , seconded by Mrs . Virginia Lanhgans : RESOLVED , that the Minutes of the Planning Board Meeting of January 20 , 1987 , be and hereby are approved as written . There being no further discussion , the Vice Chair called for a vote . Aye - Grigorov , Baker , Lesser , Langhans , Klein , Kenerson . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF MODIFICATIONS TO THE FINAL SUBDIVISION :PLAN OF COMMONLAND COMMUNITY , A 124 - UNIT CLUSTERED SUBDIVISION AT 1459 SLATERVILLE ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 58 . 1 . HOUSE CRAFT BUILDERS , INC . , JEROLD M . WEISBURD , PRESIDENT . Vice Chairman Grigorov declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 7 : 40 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Mr . Weisburd was present . A colored subdivision map of the above - noted lands was appended to the bulletin board . Mr . Weisburd appeared before the Board and explained the modification of the site plan with respect to 8 . 1 acres , noting a distance of 30 feet which is being maintained from any existing building at Commonland and describing the Cluster Regulations which call for a 30 - foot buffer between any building and a property line , Planning Board - 3 - February 17 , 1987 • and indicated that he is doubling the distance to 60 feet . Mr . Weisburd recalled that the site was originally approved for 25 townhouses and stated that they have redesigned for 18 larger , more conventional , zero lot line houses . Mr . Weisburd proposed that the entire road be a Town road and to build a sewer to Town specifications which would :become Town - owned . Mr . Weisburd stated that all of the units would have direct frontage on the Town road , pointing out that he did not show an access road off Penny Lane or Penny Drive mainly because there are quite a few options . One possibility would be to put a connecting road to line up with Towerview Drive which goes into the Grandview Subdivision . Another possibility would be to extend Penny Lane out directly to the west . The other possibility would be to extend Penny Drive out to the end . Mr . Weisburd stated that even though the original access was approved by the Board , it was not heavily favored by Mr . Fabbroni . The road was changed to follow the City right of way . Mr . Weisburd described some of the problems with the change . ( 1 ) It is offset about 100 feet - from Towerview Drive . ( 2 ) there seem to be some legal snafus connected with that intersection . The City has a right of way which extends from Slaterville Road all the way to Penny Lane and beyond . His [ Weisburd ' s ] right of way does not go far enough . ( 3 ) An access road that would line up with Towerview Drive has a problem in that it would line up right next to Mrs . Marion ' s house , within 30 feet of the building itself or less . ( 4 ) In this plan [ indicating on the map ] all the land would be deeded over to the Town . The same would be true of option ( 5 ) which would be the extension of Penny Drive . A right of way could easily be deeded over which would extend to the property line for future expansion . One other possibility would be to maintain it as it is , using Abbey Road as the main way in and out . Mr . Weisburd said that Abbey Road originally was going to come directly down from Slaterville Road to Penny Lane , and because of NYSDOT requirements , he had to make it a longer road and less of a gradient , and , in order to have the radius , it became a much wider road - - quite a bit wider than the Town standard . Mr . Weisburd stated that he was proposing three four - plexes and a six -plex , with each of them separated by full fire walls . Mr . Weisburd described the two types of units , noting that one would be one - story with a full basement , with the basement being available for partial finishing , The siding would be dark brown clapboard siding similar to what is at Commonland now . The end units would be larger units with two fully- finished floors plus an unfinished basement . Mr . Weisburd stated that he was asking for preliminary and final approval conditional on the engineering drawings for the road and sewer being satisfactory to the Town Engineer before any certificates of occupancy are issued for any units on that road , noting that this would allow him to procE! ed with working drawings , submit them to Mr . Frost , proceed with some of the earth work , and , at the same time , work on the engineering drawings . Mr . Weisburd pointed out that Penny Lane is already built but is not fully surfaced yet , adding that at least half of the grave_ has been put on and was inspected by Mr . Fabbroni and • the highway superintendent . Mrs . Langhans asked if these would be single family units , with Planning Board - 4 - February 17 , 1987 • Mr . Weisburd responding , yes . Town Attorney Barney inquired as to the reason for going to the " Edgewood " mode as opposed to continuing the common area under the homeowners ' association . Mr . Weisburd responded that in the financial institutions they call this either " minimus PUD " or " maximus PUD " and come under " FANNIEMAE " regulations . Mr . Weisburd stated that , in order for the units to get financing , a developer has to go through a considerable amount of expense and effort for classification as a " minimus PUD " , adding that if that is rejected and it is classified a " maximus PUD " , then an enormous amount of time is involved as well as a very expensive application in order to obtain approval , including financing restrictions . Town Attorney Barney asked if all the other Commonland units have been financed in this manner . Mr . Weisburd stated that each time another phase is to be constructed , another approval has to be secured as a " minimus PUD " or " maximus PUD " . Continuing , Mr . Weisburd described certain problems with the tax structure , offering that the people at Commonland are really paying double tax , and adding that they are trying to organize and petition to change that . Mr . Weisburd stated that what is happening now is that they own all the common facilities and instead of assessment: looking at that , they are actually being charged a higher tax because the policy of the assessment department is that this is undeveloped land . Mr . Weisburd stated that undeveloped land has a certain potential and is taxed higher than someone ' s back yard , but , in fact , should be taxed lower . These people are paying thousands of dollars a year in taxes . Mr . Weisburd said that the main item here is that this is a low density project - - less than three units per acre . On a higher density project , e . g . , Mr . Schickel ' s project - - or those in New York City - - the density can easily take care of it bE! cause you have much more intensive use of the land . In this project , discussion is on standard subdivision density - - clustered instead of spread out . Town Attorney Barney asked Mr . Weisburd how he controlled the maintenance of the backyards when , basically , each one is individually owned . Mr . Weisburd responded that this is zero lot line development , with the devE! loper offering the people a maintenance package - - an optional package , and the people would either maintain their own house and grounds , or sign up for the package . Mr . Weisburd stated that just the area right around the house would need maintenance . Ms . Beeners asked Mr . Weisburd how he can guarantee that someone might not come down and plant a row of poplars along their property line and the open space . Mr . Weisburd said he did not think there was any airtight guarantee in any situation , adding , however , basically , you put in deed restrictions . Mr . Klein asked if the economic viability of the homeowners ' association was affected by not adding another 25 families or houses . Mr . Weisburd stated that this has been presented to the homeowners and , also , that he gave them budget breakouts . The vast majority of the expenses , like 80 % of the expenses that the current homeowners in Commonland pay , is proportional expense , meaning that it varies with the number of people • and things such as parking , clearing the walks and mowing . Only 20 % is fixed expense like the community center , ballfield - - things that do not vary with more people . The homeowners felt quite content Planning Board - 5 - February 17 , 1987 knowing that they do not have to redo their budget next year ; they now have a fixed amount of maintenance and so far there does not seem to be any opposition . On the developer ' s part they essentially have a 20 % interest in the common facilities which they would normally be allowed to pass on to the buyers of the new area , but are foregoing that . HowevE! r , an idea has been expressed to offer a facilities - use membership . Mr . Klein asked Mr . Weisburd if the homeowners have gone on record that they do not oppose this change , with Mr . Weisburd responding , no . Vice Chairman Grigorov , noting that this was a Public Hearing , asked if there were anyone who wished to speak . No one spoke . Mr . Kenerson asked who owned the property shown on the map in light blue . Mr . Weisburd stated that this property is not tied in with Commonland and he has no interest in it at this point . The property directly adjacent to Commonland Two is 15 acres owned by Mrs . Marion . There are several other large parcels including some that tie right into Slaterville Road . Vice Chairman Grigorov asked again if there were any questions or comments from the public . No one spoke . Vice Chairman Grigorov closed the Public Hearing at 8 : 10 p . m . and asked for questions or comments from the Board . [ Chairman May arrived . Vice Chairman Grigorov continued as Chairman . ] Mrs . Langhans expressed concern about putting the access road up by Towerview Road - - which looks like a short cut to Honness Lane , Mr . Flumerfelt was concerned as to how steep the grades were on any three of those optional access roads . Mr . Weisburd , indicating on the map , stated that the grade on one was 10 % . Mr . Flumerfelt noted that the profile liras done with the idea that it would be one -way downhill into the project . Mr . Flumerfelt said it would have to be steeper if it were designed as a two -way traffic roadway , and would have to have a leveling -out place at the top and the grade level brought to 120 - 13 % . Mr . Flumerfelt commented as to the grades for the other two locations . Mr . Weisburd offered that he did submit a design profile for one location with the last phase , which was approved by the Board , and it did show a fairly steep section . There were two problems to contend with at that location , one being the sewer line and the other being the gradient . Mr . Weisburd stated that the Board said he could go to 15 % which is beyond the normal Town specifications . Ms . Beeners asked if the original road - - farthest west - - was 10 % , with Mr . Weisburd responding , yes , assuming a one -way . Chairman May asked Mr . Weisburd if he wanted to make this a one - way or two -way at this point . Mr . Weisburd stated that the problem is that , first , it is narrow and , second , if you make it two -way , it would have to be steeper . Town Attorney Barney wondered what happened to the original proposal with respect to the road going in . Ms . Beeners stated that in November of 1985 , the Board approved the relocation of the service road to the easternmost location , and it was to be a one -way entrance only . Also , it was former Town Engineer Fabbroni ' s opinion that any two -way access on any of those locations Planning Board - 6 - February 17 , 1987 • was pretty much ruled out because of the grades . Town Attorney Barney asked Mr . Weisburd if it were moved easterly at his request . Mr . Weisburd , commenting that it was a combination of things , stated that Mr . Fabbroni was happier with the road by Marion ' s and Mrs . Clausen did not particularly want it between her two properties . Mr . Weisburd stated that when he first proposed it he did not realize that Towerview was going to be offset , and suggested that one possibility for the Town is that the developer pass over to the Town whatever rights they have for those various roads . Mrs . Langhans wondered if a decision about a road could be postponed . Ms . Beeners responded that one concern to think about would be a fire truck coming down a 100 - 15 % slope into an. area where there are limited shoulders for pulling off . Ms . Beeners Spoke of weighing that kind of access over a very ample Abbey Road access , which has been constructed and approved , and posed the question as to the service road being an essential thing . Chairman May stated that he had some concern with a road through Mrs . Clausen ' s area - - the westerly road - - a road with a 10 % slope and one which might be 15 % . Chairman May felt that in this day and age a 15 % slope is not very wise . Mr . Flumerfelt said that , perhaps , if a secondary access road is deemed necessary or desirable , it might be well to make it temporary , and , if the public road should continue on to the northwest , that could serve as a two -way access back out to Slaterville ]toad and form a loop . Mr . Flumerfelt offered that , perhaps , the service road , one - way - in , could then be abandoned . Mrs . Langhans submitted that that could be 10 - 15 years . Vice Chairman Grigorov wondered if the temporary road would serve a useful function . Town Attorney Barney suggested that the function of it would be to give you an alternative method of getting in if something happened to Abbey Road . As an example , Town Attorney Barney described a subdivision in the Village of Lansing where there was an emergency gravel road only , which was not built to Village specifications , with a chain across it , adding that it was not used for any purpose except for emergency fire or medical services in the event the main access was unusable for some reason . Vice Chairman Grigorov suggested that the road should be decided upon before approval . Ms . Beeners stated that when you. consider the design of Penny Lane down to the cul de sac , which was approved by the Highway Superintendent and the Town Engineer , if the Board could determine that the current access is adequate for at least an initial phase of this phase , such as the eight units that are on Penny Lane , then , perhaps , the Board could allow Mr . Weisburd to get the building permits for the first eight units , but rE!quire that prior to a certificate of occupancy being issued , or , to any further building permits being issued , that an access road be completed in a location suitable to the Planning Board and the Town Engineer , Ms . Beeners suggested that , at least , that would permit Mr . Weisburd to begin on a road that is basically approved . As far as an actual location of an access road , Ms . Beeners stated that the one she preferred was the one that goes between the Clausen properties , even though it is disrupting some old buildings that have been there a long time . With respect to the easternmost • access that i ,� on the City right of way , there is an offset problem j with Towerview Drive . Ms . Beeners suggested that , perhaps , there would be a way to go with the original location between the Clausen Planning Board - 7 - February 17 , 1987 • properties and make it such that it would be usable by emergency vehicles with a chain on it , and , also , there could be the possibility of abandoning that at a future date , if that road were extended through that stub , or if Penny Drive were extended . Mrs . Langhans suggested that the Board could inform Mr . Weisburd to proceed with four units , with the decision on where to put the road coming later . Mrs . Langhans expressed her concern that a " temporary " road oftimes becomes a " permanent " road . Mrs . Langhans inquired about the legal ramifications of putting a road in with a chain across it . Town Attorney Barney responded that this can be done with the consent of the owner , adding that only a Town road has to be a certain number of feet wide and built to Town specs . Mr . Klein asked if it is not a Town road , who is responsible for plowing and salting for emergency situations . '.Gown Attorney Barney indicated that , generally , the Town would if they wanted to keep it available for emergency service . Town Attorney Barney offered that the only problem here is that , if there is no homeownersassociation or something of that nature , realistically , the only entity to keep the road open would be the Town . Mr . Weisburd pointed out that there would be hydrants in the subdivision , coo you would not need to get a tanker in there . Mr . Klein stated that the Board was concerned with a second access to the whole area , once the development was at full occupancy . Mr . Weisburd mused , what if there were a road that was one -way going out from the middle where there would be a one - way , do not enter , on • each end of the road . Mr . Kenerson asked if something was already approved for access . Mr . Weisburd , indicating on the map , pointed the one way road which was initially approved , adding that the engineering work has been done on it as a one -way road . Mr . Weisburd recalled that the Board. then said to put the road in another location and that was also approved , although it was not fully engineered . Mr . Weisburd stated that , upon reflection , and seeing how it lines up with Towerview Drive , it may not be a move for the better . Mr . Klein offered that if it is truly a limited use road then its location with respect to Towerview may not matter all that much . Vice Chairman Grigorov asked if anyone wished to comment on the design of the project . Town Attorney Barney asked who maintains the exterior of the buildings of Commonland , with Mr . Weisburd responding that the people own the exterior of the building but it is maintained by the residents ' association . Mr . Klein asked if the Town currently maintains any ,sewer lifts , with Mr . Flumerfelt responding , yes , adding that on this project the sewer was originally a private sewer system with lift stations , pumping stations , however , this project is proposed to be a Town sewer with pumping station . Mr . Flumerfelt stated that he felt it should be investigated how far that sewer might be able to serve to the north and west , whether it is feasible to extend the sewer farther that way , and if so , how big a service area there can be . Mr . Flumerfelt stated that , if the Town takes that over as a public sewer , the lift station should be sized large enough to take care of the service area . • Town Attorney Barney asked Mr . Weisburd who was going to construct the sewer , with Mr . Weisburd responding that he would Planning Board - 8 - February 17 , 1987 • construct it according to Town specifications . Town Attorney Barney asked if it would be deeded over to the Town , with Mr . Weisburd stating that he did not know how that actually was done . Mr . Flumerfelt stated that normally there would probably be a 20 - foot easement for maintenance and repairs . Mr . Klein stated that he was concerned with access to the location of the lift station . Chairman May asked where the proposed location of the lift station would be , with Mr . Weisburd indicating same on the map , and stating that the lift station and access is a fairly level drive in . Mr . Klein wondered if it would make any engineering sense to put the lift station between the clusters . Mr . Weisburd stated that it would be a little steeper there because you are going across the contours completely , but it would be closer , and adding that he did not feel it would be a problem to do that . Chairman May wondered , if the Town were going to maintain that lift staton , would it not want a minimum of a temporary road to it . Mr . Flumerfelt concurred with Chairman May , Mr . Weisburd stated that the road between the buildings is fine with him . Vice Chairman Grigorov asked Mrs . Clausen for her comments . Mrs . Clausen stated that she did not think the road was a 10 % grade , adding that it was 15 in other areas and she suspected it is 15 in her area . Mrs . Clausen stated that it is not exactly level and is a narrow strip which has been a driveway to her house since before she moved in , adding that there is a , garage in back of her house which she does not use . Mrs . Clausen stated that there is a way for service vehicles to • get in for deliveries . Town Attorney Barney asked who owns the strip now . Mrs . Clausen stated that it passed to Mr . Weisburd with the sale . Mrs . Langhans asked who owns the land to the east of the garage and barn , with Mrs . Clausen responding , Mr . and Mrs . Zichetella . Mr . Kenerson inquired about the Department of Transportation in regard to their approving access to State highways . Mr . Weisburd stated that the intersection has to be submitted to DOT for approval of the engineering drawings , adding that they did not go completely through the approval process with DOT because construction was not going to take place for a while , and a bond was not taken out . Mr . Weisburd , noting that his engineering drawings submitted for one -way entry has radii on it that meet DOT specs , stated that there would be a problem with a two -way , but as a one -way it would be okay . Mrs . Langhans wondered what is actually across from Towerview Drive , with Mr . Weisburd responding , Mrs . Marion ' s house and indicating on the map that it is very close to that alignment , and adding that the other parcel has the City right of way which he does not own . Mr . Weisburd offered that , in any case , nothing could be deeded over , and it is even questionable whether the right of way could be given over in its entirety . Mrs . Langhans asked about the legality of the City right of way with respect to why the Town could not use it as an emergency road . Mr . Weisburd noted that even if they did have a right of way which connected Penny Lane to Slaterville Road , and if it were improved , the Town would still be taking over that road which is on someone else ' s property . Mr . Weisburd stated that they do not have the land and cannot deed it to the Town , adding that he can only give to the Town the rights for a right of way , and that is somewhat questionable . Mr . Weisburd stated that the only land Planning Board - 9 - February 17 , 1987 • he owns is the land between Mrs . Clausen ' s properties . Town Attorney Barney stated that when they talked about moving the access to the easterly side , it was conditioned on the developer obtaining title to the land . Chairman May asked Mr . Weisburd if he had made any attempt to obtain title . Mr . Weisburd stated that they made a considerable attempt and negotiations did not go anywhere , adding that he felt that Mrs . Marion was not prepared , and is not prepared , to sell land at this point . Vice Chairman Grigorov asked if there were any further comments or questions from the Board . There being none , Vice Chairman Grigorov asked for a motion . MOTION by Mr . Robert Kenerson , seconded by Dr . William Lesser : WHEREAS : 1 . This action is the consideration of modifications to the Final Subdivision Plan of Commonland Community , with respect to the proposed development of 18 townhouses on an 8 . 1 acre site for which 25 townhouses were originally approved , and which proposed development would represent the completion of the Commonland Community cluster development . 2 . This is an Unlisted action for which the Planning Board is acting • as Lead Agency for environmental review . The Tompkins County Health Department and the New York State Department of Transportation are potentially involved agencies which are being notified of this action as part of SEQR coordinated review . 3 . A negative declaration of environmental significance is recommended by the Town Planner , subject to certain conditions . THEREFORE , IT :CS RESOLVED : That the Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency in the environmental review of this Unlisted Action , make and hereby does make a negative declaration of environmental significance for this action , subject to the following conditions . A . Approval of the final site plan by Planning Board , to include approval of the final service road location by the Planning Board , and with the service road design to be approved by the Town Engineer and by the N . Y . S . Department of Transportation as a condition of final site plan approval , such road to be a one -way road into the development to be located as originally proposed at the westerly end of the development . Be Any revisions necessary for adequate public or private circulation on the proposed roads , and provision for road extension to serve lands to the west . • C . Any revisions necessary for adequate public or private sewer service . Planning Board - 10 - February 17 , 1987 • D . Approval of the covenants and deed restrictions by the Town Board with respect to which the Planning Board recommends that such covenant : and deed restrictions be modified to include the requirement that no trees or shrubs in excess of eight ( 8 ) feet in height shall be planted in the open space easement . E . Approval and acceptance by the Town Board of the proposed sewer arrangement together with any necessary easements for maintenance and access to same . There being no further discussion , the Vice Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Grigorov , Klein , Baker , Langhans , Kenerson , Lesser . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . MOTION by Mrs . Virginia Langhans , seconded by Mr . Robert Kenerson : WHEREAS : 1 . This action is the consideration of modifications to the Final Subdivision Plan of Commonland Community , with respect to the • proposed development of 18 townhouses on an 8 . 1 acre site for which 25 townhouses were originally approved , and which proposed development would represent the completion of the Commonland Community cluster development . 2 . The Planning Board , at a Public Hearing on February 17 , 1987 , has reviewed the following material : Project description , dated February 4 , 1987 . Commonland II Covenants and Restrictions . Short Environmental Assessment Form . " Corrtmonland Two - Preliminary Site Plan , Drawings No . 7 - R- 1 and 8 - R- 111 , by Jerold Weisburd , House Craft Builders , Inc . , dated February 2 , 1987 . " Commonland Two - Preliminary Street Elevation , Drawing No . 7 - R- 2 " , dated February 10 , 1987 . 3 . This is an Unlisted action for which the Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency for environmental review , has made a negative declaration of environmental significance for this action , subject to certain conditions . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant preliminary approval to the above - referenced action , with further approval • conditional upon the following : A . Approval of the final site plan by Planning Board , to include Planning Board - 11 - February 17 , 1987 • approval of the final service road location by the Planning Board , and with the service road design to be approved by the Town Engineer and by the N . Y . S . Department of Transportation as a condition of final site plan approval , such road to be a one -way road into the development to be located as originally proposed at the westerly end of the development . Be Any revisions necessary for adequate public or private circulation on the proposed roads , and provision for road extension to serve lands to the west . C . Any revisions necessary for adequate public or private sewer service . D . Approval of the covenants and deed restrictions by the Town Board with respect to which the Planning Board recommends that such covenants and deed restrictions be modified to include the requirement that no trees or shrubs in excess of eight ( 8 ) feet in height shall be planted in the open space easement . E . Approval and acceptance by the Town Board of the proposed sewer arrangement together with any necessary easements for maintenance and access to same . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Grigorov , Klein , Baker , Langhans , Kenerson , Lesser . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Vice Chairman Grigorov declared the matter of consideration of modifications to the final subdivision plan of Commonland Community duly closed at 9 : 15 p . m . , and returned the Chair to Chairman May , PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR EASTWOOD COMMONS PHASE III , 66 UNITS AND PAVILION , PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED NEAR HONNESS LANE ON HARWICK ROAD AND SUNNY HILL LANE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 60 - 1 - 25 . 42 , MULTIPLE RESIDENCE DISTRICT . EASTWOOD COMMONS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION , OWNER / DEVELOPEF: ; NORBERT H . SCHICKEL JR . , PRESIDENT . ( ADJOURNED FROM JANUARY 20 , 1987 , WITH PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT THAT TIME . ) Chairman May declared the above -noted matter duly opened at 9 : 16 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Mr . Schickel was present . Chairman May noted that Town of Ithaca Local Law No . 4 - 1987 with respect to Eastwood Commons was before the Board . Chairman May asked Mr . Schickel if anything more had been done as far as drainage is concerned . Mr . Schickel stated that he had done • nothing more as far as calculation of water runoff . Chairman May stated that he had a great deal of concern in the area of drainage . Ms . Beeners stated that it was her belief that the drainage plan for Planning Board - 12 - February 17 , 1987 • the new phase was essentially similar to what was originally approved , after extensive drainage studies , together with the fact that there are requirements for approval of a revised drainage plan with the Town Engineer approving the installation of it , all built into the draft resolution with respect to the project , and also , there is a condition that the Town can go back in and require Mr . Schickel to make improvements anywhere in the development at any time if drainage is a problem . Ms . Beeners recommended to Mr . Schickel that he not spend any more time in doing detailed site planning work until there was some kind of approval on the concept for the revised plan . Mr . Flumerfelt stated that , in reviewing the new site plan , the basic drainage arrangement going in each direction was essentially the same as approved in the original development plan and that there might be minor modifications necessary once the final arrangement of buildings and area coverage are approved . Mr . Flumerfelt stated that culvert sizes and ditch sizes could be checked at that time . Referring to Local Law No . 4 - 1987 , Chairman May stated that the Town Board is requiring that presently - named Sunny Slope Lane be completed from Harwick Road northwesterly to a point 280 feet from the intersection of Harwick Road . Chairman May also referred to the section of the Local Law which indicates that the Planning Board must find that the clusters are compatible with the overall design , density , and character of the earlier phases . Referring to the Local Law , Chairman May noted that " Prior to the application to the Town Planning Board for final site plan approval for each phase , the applicant shall submit his plans to the Town Planner who shall review the same and make recommendations to the Town Planning Board . " Chairman May stated that he felt final site plan approval should not be given tonight as the recommendation from the Town seems quite specific . Ms . Beeners referred to the preliminary subdivision phasing plan map on which Mr . Schickel has indicated basic delineation between different clusters and has also labeled the plan with a number of parking spaces that would be allocated for each cluster . Ms . Beeners stated that a final subdivision plan would be one that would be an as built of the foundations as they have been poured . Ms . Beeners stated that there are also revisions as far as making jogs in a couple of lines to indicate these specific parking spots that would be transferred to the homeowner . Ms . Beeners discussed the site drainage plan and the site water and sewer plan which the Board had received previously . This was based on the original proposal of 70 units . Mr . Fabbroni approved the drainage plans for the 70 units . Ms . Beeners recommended to Mr . Schickel that , until some of the things were straightened out with the Town Board and the Planning Board as to this number of units , he not put any time in printing utility and drainage plans up to date . The plan before the Board was 30 feet between buildings and 1. 5 feet between the garages and the actual dwellings . Ms . Beeners said there were some adjustments made from the plan that was submitted in November as far as building 35 units . The open space between the existing phase and the new units has been improved . Town Attorney Barney asked about the phasing of these units . Ms . Beeners • responded that the Town Board requirement was that Harwick Road be completed to the point just beyond the 30 units and that building permits could be issued for three buildings . Planning Board - 13 - February 17 , 1987 • Mr . Schickel stated that the same pattern for building is being followed as in the past . Continuing , Mr . Schickel stated that when he is ready to build a three or four unit building , there is a construction loan . When the building is in place there is a survey made with a survey map which is presented and filed before the first unit of that cluster is conveyed . The land around the unit is conveyed to the residents ' association . Mr . Schickel asked Town Attorney Barney what concerns the Board has . Town Attorney Barney responded that the Board needs plans in accordance with the subdivision regulations which specify a final site plan plat . Town Attorney Barney saw a problem with that coming up to the inch , but did not see a problem with coming up with an approximate plan . Mr . Schickel stated that he outlined an area to go with each building , and , there are some slightly larger units . Mr . Schickel stated that , in the past , on the final in -place survey made by a licensed surveyor , the actual dimensions were shown and that is what he proposed to do with this plan . Mrs . Langhans , commenting that there have been other developers with less site plan information , stated that she felt Mr . Schickel has ,sufficient plans . Chairman May asked Ms . Beeners about the 30 - foot height and the western site boundary visible from Slaterville Road and if that adjoining property should be developed in the future . Ms . Beeners responded that the principle views from the adjacent Clermont lands are going to be to the south and to the west , basically away from the Schickel project . Chairman May also asked what was wrong with the original concept which was a more random • fashion instead of straight line orientation . Ms . Beeners responded that there was not anything wrong with random clustering . Chairman May stated that the original design was far more interesting than the current , adding that he did not like the wall of buildings and the garages in the front . Mr . Schickel stated that they have not built any of the original buildings since the first ones were built , adding that there have been five different building types and , in every case , it was a response to what people wanted , and further adding , that the original units had some very serious drawbacks , one of them being that two of the units did not have cross -ventilation , and one of the units did not have a view and did not get any sunlight . Mr . Schickel stated that the present proposal is a distillation of all of the things they have experienced on the site . It is a way to get cross - ventilation in every unit , and a view to the west and to the south , and to get sunlight in every unit , adding that these things are all amenities that people cherish very much . Mr . Schickel stated that he did not feel this is a wall of buildings , but a road with penetrations through it and with buildings at different angles . Mr . Schickel stated that they did not stay with the original design but moved from it to capitalize on the characteristics of the site . Mr . Schickel offered that this part of the site has different opportunities and different problems than other parts of the site , and that this design is a skillful capitalization of the opportunities to make a beautiful development . Chairman May noted that there were a number of people in the present development who did not think of the project as a beautiful development . • Chairman May asked for any other comments from the Board . Mrs , Langhans stated that she had talked with a person who is a resident of Planning Board - 14 - February 17 , 1987 • Eastwood Commons and asked her about this and she has no objection to it at all . Ms . Beeners stated that at the last Town Board meeting there was no :real discussion except for a couple of details about the bicycle path and when it was going to be constructed . Also , there was less concern from the public about the density or the change in design than what was initially brought forth from the public at the December 31st Town Board meeting . The same people , only in smaller groups , have been coming to further Town Board meetings . Ms . Beeners offered that she felt the public has accepted the plan now . Mr . Klein stated that he felt this is a radical change from the initial concept , noting that Mr . Schickel has had a chance to experience the market and , obviously , has learned from his experiences . Mr . Klein stated that he would like to see more articulation in these units rather than their rather rigid layout on the site , adding that he has , however , modified it to a certain extent , particularly the group to the east . Mr . Klein stated that his biggest concern from a visual point of view was really on the east with clusters 26 - 29 where they are three stories in height , adding that the most negative comments have been voiced in this area . Mr . Klein offered that the landscaping in that buffer zone is important , it is also a drainage swale , so it cannot totally be covered by vegetation . Mr . Klein stated that he felt the Town Planner should look into the kinds of landscaping proposed and try to soften the appearance . Mr . Schickel stated that they are trying to come up with • the best development within the constraints of the site . Chairman May asked if there were any further comments or questions from the Board . There being none , Chairman May asked if anyone cared to make a motion . MOTION by Dr . William Lesser , seconded by Mr . David Klein : WHEREAS : 1 . This action is a consideration of Site Plan Approval and Preliminary Subdivision Approval for Phase III of Eastwood Commons , 66 units and pavilion , proposed to be located in a Multiple Residence District near Honness Lane on Harwick Road and Sunny Slope Lane , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 60 - 1 - 25 . 42 . 2 . The Town Board on February 26 , 1973 resolved to establish a Multiple Residence District and a Cluster Development therein on Honness Lane , such District also known as Eastwood Commons . A Local Law Amending the Zoning Ordinance Requirements for the Eastwood Commons Multiple Residence Zone was adopted by the Town Board on February 9 , 1987 [ Local Law No . 4 - 1987 ] . 3 . The Planning Board , at a Public Hearing on January 20 , 1987 , and on February 17 , 1987 , has reviewed the following plans : • " Eastwood Commons - Phase III , Honness Lane , Ithaca , New '17ork " , by Schickel Design Company , Inc . " Site Development Plan " , Sheet S - 1 , dated November 12 , Planning Board - 15 - February 17 , 1987 • 1986 . " Pavilion Working Drawings ( Elevations ) " , Sheets A- 3 and A - 4 , dated September 24 , 1986 . " Building # 39 and Townhouses , Elevations " , Sheets A- 6 and A - 7 , dated May 1 , 1986 . " Site Development Plan " , Sheet S - 1 , dated November 12 , 1986 , revised for January 20 , 1987 to show " Preliminary Subdivision Phasing " . " Site Storm Drainage " , dated September 17 , 1986 , revised October 10 , 1986 . Long Environmental Assessment Form , dated October 13 , 1986 , revised January 14 , 1987 . 4 . The " Site Development Plan " , Sheet S - 1 , dated November 12 , 1986 , revised for January 20 , 1987 , to show " Preliminary Subdivision Phasing " , and the Long Environmental Assessment Form , dated October 13 , 1986 , revised January 14 , 1987 , show revisions and new information in response to input from the Planning Board and the public at a November 4 , 1986 Planning Board Public Hearing on the project . 5 . The Town Planner , on January 20 , 1987 and February 17 , 1987 , has recommended that the Planning Board act as Lead Agency for the environmental review of this Type I action , and has recommended a negative declaration of environmental significance for this • action , subject to certain conditions which are part of the Local Laws pertaining to this development and which are part of this Planning Board Resolution . The Tompkins County Health Department. , the Tompkins County Highway Department , and the New York State Department of Transportation are potentially involved agencies which have been notified as to the Lead Agency recommendation . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : I . That the Planning Board act as Lead Agency in the environmental review of the Site Plan and Subdivision Plan for Phase III of Eastwood Commons , as a Type I action . II . That the :Planning Board make and hereby does make a negative determination of environmental significance for this action , subject to certain conditions which are part of the Local Laws pertaining to this development and which are part of this Planning Board Resolution . III . That the Planning Board waive and hereby does waive the following requirements , having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board . • 1 . The 30 - foot distance requirement between buildings , as required in Article V , Section 6 , of the Town of Ithaca Subdivision Regulations , is hereby waived to require instead Planning Board - 16 - February 17 , 1987 • a minimum distance of 15 feet between dwellings and the associated garages appurtenant to each unit . 2 . The 30 - foot height requirement for buildings , as required in Article V , Section 6 , of the Town of Ithaca Subdivision Regulations , is hereby waived to require instead a maximum height of 35 feet . IV . That the Planning Board , finding that the proposed mixture of 4 - , 5 - , and 6unit buildings , as presented on January 20 , 1987 and February 17 , 1987 , is compatible with the overall design , density , and character of the earlier phases of the Eastwood Commons development , grant and hereby does grant Final Site Plan Approval and Preliminary Subdivision Approval to the project , as presented on February 17 , 1987 , subject to the following condition ,:) . 1 . The Planning Board requires submission of a Final Subdivision Plan , suitable for filing in the Tompkins County Clerk ' s Office , to be signed by the Chairman of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , such map to be filed in the Tompkins Country Clerk ' s Office within 10 days of its signing , as each building in Phase III is built , prior to issuance of any certificates of occupancy for units within such building . 2 . The Planning Board requires submission of a Final Site • Drainage , Utilities , and Landscape Plan , for approval by the Town Engineer and the Town Planner , prior to the issuance of any building permits . The Planning Board requires approval of the drainage improvements by the Town Engineer as finally installed . 3 . The Planning Board requires that all Phase III construction traffic shall use the Harwick Road entrance to Eastwood Commons , and shall not use the wildflower Drive entrance to Eastwood Commons . 4 . The Planning Board requires a renaming of the proposed " Sunny Slope Lane " in accordance with the requirements of the United States Postal Service and the Ithaca Fire Dispatching Unit , prior to issuance of any building permits . 5 . The Planning Board requires provision of a 15 - foot right of way between Parcels 19 and 20 to serve Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 60 - 1 - 25 . 1 ( the Orcutt property ) , prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy for Phase III . 6 . The Planning Board requires removal of the 50 - foot road right of way reservation from the Eastwood Commons map and from the Orcutt map , prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy for Phase III . • 7 . The Planning Board requires provision of any easements associated with access and utilities for Town of Ithaca Tax Planning Board - 17 - February 17 , 1987 Parcel No . 6 - 60 - 1 - 36 ( the Robertson property ) , prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy for Phase III . 8 . The Planning Board requires drainage improvements , as requested by and subject to the approval of the Town Engineer , along the northeast edge of Lot 19 , prior to May 31 , 1987 . 9 . The Planning Board requires completion of a path , adequate for use by bicyclists and pedestrians and subject to approval by the Town Engineer and Town Planner , to connect Eastwood Commons with the East Ithaca Recreation Way , prior to September 1 , 1987 . 10 . The approval by the Town of Ithaca Town Board of the Eastwood Commons Phase III declaration of covenants and restrictions . 11 . The compliance by the developer with all requirements of the Local Laws governing the Eastwood Commons Subdivision development . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Grigorov , Klein , Baker , Langhans , Kenerson , Lesser . • Nay - May . The MOTION was declared to be carried . Chairman May declared the matter of consideration of Final Site Plan Approval and Preliminary Subdivision Approval for Eastwood Commons Phase III duly closed at 10 : 05 p . m . PUBLIC HEARINGe SITE PLAN REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WITH RESPECT TO A REQUEST FOR SPECIAL APPROVAL OF A SCHOOL USE AND FOR A VARIANCE TO PERMIT A BUILDING OVER 30 FEET IN HEIGHT , FOR THE PROPOSED NEW SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATIONS BUILDING , TO BE LOCATED ON THE ITHACA COLLEGE CAMPUS , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 41 - 1 - 30 . 2 . ITHACA COLLEGE , APPLICANT ; LAWRENCE HOFFMAN , HOL & T ARCHITECTS , AGENT . Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 10 : 10 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings, as posted and published and as noted above . Mr . Lawrence Hoffman of HOL & T Architects and Mr . Thomas R . Salm of Ithaca College were present . A large map of the proposed Communications Building to be located on the Ithaca College Campus was appended to the bulletin board . Mr . Hoffman addressed the Board and stated that the selected site is north of the Student Union [ Egbert Union ] and on the opposite side • of the existing Campus loop road . There is also proposed a modification of two existing parking lots and the creation of a new parking lot in an area currently utilized as playfields . Indicating Planning Board - 18 - February 17 , 1987 • on the map , Mr . Hoffman stated that the building will be built on the location of parking lot " N " . The site is a gentle slope coming down and the parking lot is just a few feet below the road . There is a 15 - foot drop between the parking lot and Allen Field . The building is being built across that slope so that there is a major new parking area developed on the area where Allen Field is , with grade level entrances coming in to Level I of the building directly from the parking areas . There will be a new major pedestrian spine between the Student Union and the entrance to the proposed Communications Building which is one level up . The building is roughly 240 feet long and 120 feet wide , containing three levels . Mr . Hoffman noted that the first level is partially buried in the ground and above grade on " this " side [ indicating ] , with a portion being single - storied above ground . Mr . Hoffman indicated on the map how the facade one sees is basically a single story facade , and noted how , back into the building , how it becomes a two - :story facade . Mr . Hoffman pointed out that the building is two stories " here " and three stories from the far side - - basically 39 feet to 40 feet in height . They have tried to keep the building as low as possible because of Egbert Union insofar as the view is concerned . Mr . Hoffman stated that the height limitation and the fact that it is an institution of higher learning building in a residential zone are two rla� asons for being at this meeting tonight . Mr . Hoffman stated that the Board ' s concurrence on the proposed building is important because the regulatory agencies at the State level through which this project is being financed asked right up front - - " Do you have any zoning problems ? " Mr . Hoffman commented that they are not quite ready yet for " final " site approval as they are not at that stage yet , adding that , hopefully , preliminary site work will be done over the course of the summer , with construction of the building due to start in the fall . Continuing , Mr . Hoffman stated that the lower floor of the building will house the high - tech areas of the School of Communications - - radio and TV studios . The middle level will have five classrooms and an auditorium along a major pedestrian " street " . The third floor will contain offices and some support space . Because the programs that go on in the building are very sensitive to sound , the mechanical systems for the building are basically located outside the envelope of the building . Mr . Hoffman stated that the first phase , along with the building being built , would be the two parking areas , which will provide a parking area with a modest increase over what currently exists - - adding twenty cars . The facilities that are going into this building are facilities that already exist elsewhere on the Ithaca College Campus - - in Dillingham Center , for example . Chairman May , noting that this was a Public Hearing , asked if anyone wished to speak . No one spoke . Chairman May closed the Public Hearing at 10 : 20 p . m . and asked for comments or questions from the Board . Ms . Beeners asked Mr . Hoffman if the satellite dishes and the • mast that are currently on the roof of Dillingham Center are going to be moved to the new building , with Mr . Hoffman responding , yes . Ms . Beeners asked if there were a need to establish more practice fields Planning Board - 19 - February 17 , 1987 for athletics since two are going to be lost . Mr . Salm responded that , actually , they will only lose one . Indicating on the map , Mr . Salm pointed out that there are additional practice fields which have been basically recreational fields up to this point . Mr . Salm stated that their tentative plans would be to utilize one of those fields for a playing field . Mrs . Langhans asked if it were a fairly level area , with Mr . Salm responding , yes , it is . Chairman May asked if there were any further comments from the Board . There :being none , Chairman May asked if anyone cared to make a motion . MOTION b; Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov , seconded by Mrs . Virginia Langhans : WHEREAS : 1 . This action is the site plan review and the consideration of a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals with respect to a request for Special Approval of a School Use , pursuant to Article IV , Section 11 , Paragraph 4 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , with respect to the proposed installation of two roof -mounted satellite dish antennae , and with respect to a request for variance of Article IV , Section 11 , Paragraph 10 for the proposed new Ithaca College School of Communications Building , to be located on the Ithaca College Campus , Town of • Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 60 - 1 - 25 . 42 , Residence District R- 15 . 2 . This project has been reviewed by the Planning Board at a Public Hearing on February 17 , 1987 . 3 . This project is a Type I action for which the Zoning Board of Appeals is the Lead Agency for environmental review . 4 . A negative declaration of environmental significance has been recommended by the Town Planner , conditional upon the following . a . The final drainage plan is to be subject to the approval of the Town Engineer . b . The installation of the proposed satellite dish antennae is to be certified by a registered architect or professional engineer . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : That the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals that a negative declaration of environmental significance be made for the above - referenced action , conditioned upon the final drainage plan being approved by the Town Engineer . • There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . t Planning Board - 20 - February 17 , 1987 • Aye - May , Gri. gorov , Baker , Klein , Langhans , Kenerson , Lesser . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . MOTION by Mrs . Virginia Langhans , seconded by Mr . Robert Kenerson : WHEREAS : 1 . This action is the site plan review and the consideration of a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals with respect to a request for Special Approval of a School Use , pursuant to Article IV , Section 11 , Paragraph 4 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , with respect to the proposed installation of two roof - mounted satellite dish antennae , and with respect to a request for variance of Article IV , Section 11 , Paragraph 10 for the proposed new Ithaca College School of Communications Building , to be located on the Ithaca College Campus , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 60 - 1 - 25 . 42 , Residence District R- 15 . 2 . This project is a Type I action for which the Zoning Board of Appeals is the Lead Agency , and for which the Planning Board has recommended to the Zoning Board of Appeals that a negative declaration of environmental significance be made , conditioned upon the final drainage plan being approved by the Town Engineer . • 3 . The following materials have been reviewed by the Planning Board at a Public Hearing on February 17 , 1987 : a . SEQR Long Environmental Assessment Form . b . Appeal Form . c . Plans entitled , " A New Building for the School of Communications , Ithaca College " , Sheets 101 , 201 , 202 , 203 , 301 , and 302 , by Hoffman , O ' Brien , Levatich and Taube , P . C . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : 1 . That the Planning Board find and hereby does find the following : a . There is a need for the proposed use in the proposed location on the grounds that the existing School of Communications facilities are inadequate for the needs of the School , and the proposed new site , at the center of the Ithaca College Campus , is an appropriate new building location . b . The existing and probable future character of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected on the grounds • that the project will not represent a significant change in use from current campus land use patterns and is buffered from adjacent residential areas . Planning Board - 21 - February 17 , 1987 • c . The proposed change is in accordance with a comprehensive plan of development of the Town on the grounds that the project is consistent in concept with the general purpose of the zoning ordinance and that the design and type of building and use proposed warrant the granting of a height variance . d . The proposed installation of two roof -mounted satellite dish antennae will serve an educational purpose and will not significantly impact views on campus or in adjacent neighborhood areas . 2 . That the Planning Board report and hereby does report its approval of the site plan for the proposed facility , such site plan approval including the proposed installation of two roof -mounted satellite dish antennae , provided that the requested height variance and special approval are granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals , and further conditioned upon the final drainage plan being approved by the Town Engineer . 3 . That the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals that Special Approval for the proposed use be granted , and that a variance of Article IV , Section 11 , Paragraph 10 be granted for construction of the building as proposed , with the building height not to exceed 50 feet . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Grigorov , Baker , Klein , Langhans , Kenerson , Lesser . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman May declared the matter of Site Plan Review and Consideration of a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals with respect to the proposed new Ithaca College School of Communications building duly closed at 10 : 30 p . m . ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion , Chairman May declared the February 17 , 1987 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 10 : 31 p . m . Respectfully submitted , Mary S . Bryant , Recording Secretary , Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary , Town of Ithaca Planning Board .