HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1989-02-07 f
FILED
TOWN OF ITHACA
��
Date
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
Clerk._.
FEBRUARY 7 , 1989
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on
Tuesday , February 7 , 1989 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street ,
Ithaca , New York , at 7 : 30 p . m .
PRESENT : Chairman Montgomery May , James Baker , Robert Kenerson ,
William Lesser , Carolyn Grigorov , John C . Barney ( Town
Attorney ) , Erik Whitney ( Assistant Town Engineer ) , Susan
Beeners ( Town Planner ) , George Frantz ( Assistant Town
Planner ) .
ALSO PRESENT : Georg F . Gerstenfeld ( WVB R NEWS ) , David Herrick , George
C . Schlecht , Michael Welch , Francis Paolangeli , Jim
Ainslie , S . Ainslie , Fred Schramm , Douglas Pokorney ,
Gene Ball , John Tilitz , Peter Trowbridge , Scott Lucas ,
G . J . Vignaux , Celia Bowers , A . M . Chambliss , Lenny &
Phyllis S . Joyce , Jack Ryan , Bob Shaw ; Lee Schafrik ,
Joseph Fitzgerald ,
Chairman May 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 January 30 , 1989 , and February 2 , 1989 ,
respectively , together with the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Service by Mail
of said Notice upon the various neighbors of each of the properties
under discussion , upon the Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , upon both the
Clerk and the Acting Building Commissioner of the City of Ithaca , upon
the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning , and upon the applicants ,
and / or agents , as appropriate , on January 31 , 1989 .
Chairman May read the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled ,
as required by the New York State Department of State , Office of Fire
Prevention and Control .
NON -AGENDA ITEM
Andrew Frost distributed to each of the members of the Board a
copy of his January 1989 Report of Building / Zoning Activities ,
PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE
PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF A 15 , 714 SQ . FT . LOT FROM TOWN OF ITHACA TAX
PARCEL NO . 6 - 58 - 1 - 8 , LOCATED AT 1345 SLATERVILLE ROAD AND CONTAINING
AN EXISTING DWELLING , AND FURTHER , CONSIDERATION OF FINAL SUBDIVISION
APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED CLUSTERED SUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF TOWN
OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO , 6 - 58 - 1 - 8 AND OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS
NO . 6 - 58 - 1 - 7 , - 10 . 2 , AND - 11 INTO SIX � LOTS OF 22 , 013 SQ . FT . TO 87 , 400
SQ . FT . FRANCIS J . PAOLANGELI , OWNER/ APPLICANT .
• David Herrick of T . G . Miller Associates , P . C . approached the
Board and stated that at the January 3 , 1989 Planning Board meeting he
Planning Board - 2 - February 7 , 1989
• had presented , for preliminary review and approval , the subdivision
which incorporated quite a few comments that were received on December
61 1988 , Mr . Herrick noted that Preliminary Approval had been granted
on January 3 , 1989 , but that the Restrictive Covenants needed
additional work . Mr . Herrick remarked that Mr . Paolangeli ' s attorney ,
Mr . David DuBow , has put together a new set of Restrictive Covenants ,
along with the Town Attorney , John Barney .
Mr . Herrick was advised by Attorney DuBow that the Board should
give attention to paragraphs # 1 , # 13 , # 14 , # 15 and # 21 . Mr . Herrick
added that those were the areas that were modified considerably . Mr .
Herrick stated that it was his opinion that the intent of those
revisions was to make the restrictions for duplexes and exterior
appearance of buildings more complete .
Chairman May noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if
anyone present wished to speak . No one spoke . Chairman May closed
the Public Hearing at 7 : 40 p . m . and brought the matter back to the
Board for discussion .
Chairman May wondered if Erik Whitney , Assistant Town Engineer ,
was satisfied that everything met all the requirements . Mr . Whitney
responded that , from an engineering standpoint , everything meets , and
in most cases , exceeds the Town requirements .
• Susan Beeners , Town Planner , commented on the drainage easement ,
in that there is a little uncertainty as to what exactly the policy
should be on drainage easements . Ms . Beeners said that it probably
should go to the Town Board for an approval before any building
permits would be issued . Secondly , Ms . Beeners noted that there had
been a discussion on what the nature of the compaction was of the
fill , and whether or not it would be necessary to put the extra wide
footers in , because of the fill that has been placed there . Mr .
Paolangeli stated that Lot # 1 is a cut situation from what was
originally there , Lot # 6 is existing ground , Lot # 2 has had fill put
in it , Lot # 3 is half fill and half existing ground , Lot # 4 is mostly
fill , and Lot # 5 to the west has a lot of fill . Mr . Paolangeli said
that when all the fill was put in , at all times on board , was an 84 "
drum dirt roller , adding , the fill was put in by layers , rolled in
12 " - 18 " layers , plus it was tracked in with an 850 bulldozer , which
weighs in the vicinity of 30 tons , plus all the truck traffic was
concentrated on where the road was going to be constructed . Mr .
Paolangeli stated that the only area that was not compacted was the
slope on the back side of Lot # 4 , but that slope will be seeded .
Chairman May stated that he was not sure that he understood the
concern as far as the drainage easement to the Town . Ms . Beeners
responded that her concern was that there are several proposed
drainage easements , and noted that she was not sure what the Town
policy was on accepting drainage easements . Ms . Beeners stated that
the drainage easement did appear on the plat , which was looked at by
• the Town Board in their approval of proposed roads and other
facilities . Attorney Barney noted that it seemed to him that there
should be some sort of an easement that grants to the Town the
Planning Board - 3 - February 7 , 1989
a
privilege , if necessary , of going in there to maintain the property .
Attorney Barney stated that , rather than tie up the project , it should
be cited as a condition and to grant final approval conditional on the
Town Board accepting the drainage easement , so that it does not have
to come back to the Planning Board . Attorney Barney stated that the
Town Board needs to address the entire question of how to handle the
drainage easements and the retention pond .
William Lesser commented on the Restrictive Covenants , No . 1 -
RESIDENTIAL USE . Mr . Lesser said that it was not necessary , but he
thought it would be helpful if it was mentioned that , indeed , more
than one was limited to Lots # 1 , # 3 , and # 4 . Mr . Lesser noted that it
has been restricted for two separate living units for Lots # 1 , # 3 , and
# 4 . Attorney Barney stated that the only ones he was aware of were
the " duplex " configuration . Mr . Lesser was concerned about the last
sentence in the paragraph , which reads : " In deciding whether to grant
such approval , the Planning Board may consider whether the design
provides an exterior appearance resembling a single family house . "
Mr . Lesser said that , obviously , the Board can do that , and are not
bound by it , but he felt that somehow this was implying that the Town
Board will make such a decision , commenting that he did not know why
that needed to go into the Restrictive Covenants . Attorney Barney
noted that , normally , the Planning Board , when reviewing these types
of things , is not permitted really to consider aesthetic
consideration . Attorney Barney offered that this is a special deal
• where it is a cluster type of situation , adding that he understood one
of the principal concerns was that to make sure , if there was a
two - family side -by - side , that the exterior was going to not give the
typical duplex appearance with two separate entrances . Mr . Lesser
remarked that he was trying to understand what the Planning Board has
committed itself to . Attorney Barney stated that it was his
understanding that the Planning Board was concerned about having the
side -by - sides not look like side - by - sides .
Robert Kenerson asked about access to the Sweet property . Ms .
Beeners responded that the access was not to be paved , and Beth
Mulholland was pursuing , with Mr . Sweet , the granting of an easement
for Circle Greenway . Ms . Beeners offered that signage for the trail
would , at the most , be some kind of a little blaze .
At this time , Attorney Barney stated that he wanted to remind the
Board that Mr . Paolangeli is a client of his office , but was not being
represented by his office for the application before the Board .
There appearing to be no further discussion or comments from the
Board , Chairman May asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion .
MOTION by Dr . William Lesser , seconded by Mr . James Baker :
WHEREAS :
1 . This action is the Consideration of Final Subdivision Approval
for the proposed subdivision of a 15 , 714 sq . ft . lot from Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 58 - 1 - 8 , located at 1345 Slaterville Road
Planning Board. - 4 - February 7 , 1989
• and containing an existing dwelling , and further , Consideration
of Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed clustered
subdivision of a portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No .
6 - 58 - 1 - 8 and of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 6 - 58 - 1 - 7 , - 10 . 2 ,
and - 11 into six lots of 22 , 013 sq . ft . to 87 , 400 sq . ft .
2 . This is an Unlisted action for which the Planning Board , acting
as Lead Agency for environmental review , has , on January 3 , 1989 ,
made a negative determination of environmental significance and
granted Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the proposed
subdivision , with certain conditions .
3 . The Town Board has , on January 9 , 1989 , approved the proposed
roads and other public facilities for this subdivision .
4 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on February 7 , 1989 , has
reviewed the proposed final plat and restrictive covenants for
this subdivision .
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED %
That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Final
Subdivision Approval to the subdivisions as proposed , with the
following conditions :
• 1 . Approval of the final site drainage and revegetation plan by the
Town Engineering and Planning Departments prior to the issuance
of any building permits .
2 . Approval of the final intersection design by the New York State
Department of Transportation .
3 . Only Lots 1 , 3 , and 4 may have side - by - side duplexes constructed
on them subject to approval of a site plan and schematic
architectural plans and elevations for any such duplexes by the
Planning Board prior to the issuance of any building permits for
such dwellings , such approval to be denied unless the exterior
appearance of the duplex is that of a single -- family residence
with a single front entranceway and with any garages to be
located on only one side of the building .
4 . The proposed footpath shall not be surfaced but shall be reserved
for future pathway purposes if suitable arrangements can be made
for appropriate connections across the Sweet premises .
5 . Approval of proposed drainage easement by the Town Board and the
Town Attorney .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Baker , Grigorov , Kenerson , Lesser .
• Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Planning Board - 5 - February 7 , 1989
® Chairman May declared the matter of the Consideration of Final
Subdivision Approval for the " Winner ' s Circle " Subdivision duly closed
at 7 : 59 p, . m .
PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR
THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 23 - 1 - 29 , 9
ACRES TOTAL , LOCATED AT 1445 TRUMANSBURG ROAD , INTO TEN LOTS , WITH ONE
PROPOSED LOT CONTAINING AN EXISTING DWELLING ._ GUY 13URRELL AND HELEN
E . NATHAN , OWNERS ; JOHN TILITZ , APPLICANT .
Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted
matter duly opened at 8 : 00 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of
Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above .
Mr . George Schlecht , Engineer , Planner and Surveyor , for the
project , approached the Board and appended maps to the bulletin board .
Mr . Schlecht stated that Mr . John Tilitz is the owner / developer
of the proposal .
Mr . Schlecht said that the property in question is currently
owned by Mr / Mrs Guy Burrell , and they live on the property ,
commenting , the total property , including the Burrell ' s house lot , is
9 . 8 acres . Mr . Schlecht said that the property is to be conveyed to
Mr . Tilitz and subsequently subdivided into approximately 9 acres .
• Mr . Schlecht noted that the property is located on Route 96 ,
approximately 1600 feet north of DuBois Road , and approximately 3000
feet south of the Town of Ulysses line . Mr . Schlecht stated that the
zoning on the site is currently R - 30 , and added that the plan meets
all the requirements of an R- 30 zone , noting , there are no requests
for any variances . Mr . Schlecht stated that the set - back requirements
reflect the latest changes to the Zoning Ordinance recently enacted .
Mr . Schlecht remarked that the tighest house on the plan is Lot # 2 ,
yet there is ample room for a reasonably sized home . Mr . Schlecht
offered that the site itself has very uniform slopes , averaging 5 % - 6 %
with the maximum slope 8 % .
Continuing , Mr . Schlecht stated that the proposed road would
connect to Trumansburg Road , where there are excellent: site distances ,
adding that the total length of that road is approximately 900 feet ,
terminating in a turnaround circle , and would be constructed to Town
specifications . Mr . Schlecht noted that an allowance has been made
for future extension to the north via a 60 - foot wide portion of
property which would be dedicated to the Town for future extension ,
commenting , water lines will be public which are along Route 96 and
will be available to the site . Mr . Schlecht said that the present
configuration of the storm drainage on the site is strictly sheet
flow , noting , the amount of increased run - off is small to begin with ,
and by providing for retention will eliminate any significant increase
in the ultimate downstream run - off . Mr . Schlecht explained that there
would be a ditch constructed along the east property line , the bottom
of the ditch will actually have a bed of 4 " - 6 " cobble rocks , and
volume between those rocks will be enough to equal_ the amount of
retention volume , adding , the advantage of that approach as opposed to
Planning Board - 6 - February 7 , 1989
trying to do some kind of detention basin is that , by having this
gallery , the sheet flow that presently exists will be duplicated ,
water will flow into that and infiltrate into the ground . Attorney
Barney asked about the maintenance , with Mr . Schlecht answering , it
will be as maintenance free as these things get , remarking that it
will be a bed of rocks that the water runs down into . Attorney Barney
wondered about undergrowth or vegetation . Mr . Schlecht said that the
top of it will have topsoil and grass growing on it , noting , it is
similar to a french drain . Attorney Barney wondered if this was an
accepted engineering mechanism , with Mr . Schlecht responding , yes , but
it has not been widely used in this area , because it would only apply
to relatively unique situations . Ms . Beeners wondered if it would be
necessary to line it with any kind of soil cloth to prevent the
sedimentation . Mr . Schlecht commented that the fabric: Ms . Beeners was
referring to was largely meant to keep material silt , primarily , from
pumping up into a granular of sub - base .
Indicating on the map , Mr . Schlecht said that the sanitary sewer
would be " here " and would service " these " lots , extend to the east
through a combination utility right - of -way to allow for the sewer , and
a trail , which is part of the open space requirement , noting that the
sewer and the trail would be constructed within that 20 - foot
right - of -way . Mr . Schlecht stated that the sewer is meant to extend
and connect up with the Poyer subdivision . Mr . Schlecht commented on
the open space requirement in that it is proposed within the
• right - of -way that will be dedicated to the Town . Mr . Schlecht said
that an 8 - foot wide trail would be constructed , noting that the
maximum road grade is 6 . 25 % for a short distance , and no place is less
than 1 - 1 / 2 % .
Chairman May noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if
there were anyone from the public who had any comments or questions .
Celia Bowers of 1406 Trumansburg Road spoke from the floor and
asked where the trail would go .
Chairman May stated that the trail would connect up with the
Poyer property trail which will exit on DuBois Road , north of Indian
Creek Road , adding , it will allow people to cut across that triangular
piece of land to get over to the Hospital and the Biggs Complex area .
Ms . Beeners said that , also in connecting with the Poyer trail it
would have the possibility of ultimately connecting up to the Westwood
Hills park site in the Woolf Lane subdivision .
There appearing to be no one else from the public who wished to
speak to this matter , Chairman May closed the Public Hearing at 8 : 15
p . m . and brought the matter back to the Board for discussion .
Robert Kenerson wondered if the new side yard requirements
comply . Ms . Beeners responded that it does comply with the new zoning
requirements . Ms . Beeners pointed out that the existing house would
• really be changing its orientation , as far as where a front yard would
be onto the new road , commenting , the lot dimensions would certainly
Planning Board - 7 - February 7 , 1989
• comply as far as width and depth when measuring from the new proposed
road .
Attorney Barney , referring to the utility plan ,, wondered if Mr .
Tilitz had control over the entire course of where the sewer is shown
to run . Mr . Schlecht responded , no , it is being negotiated with Mr .
Poyer , Ms . Beeners offered that the trail area was labelled as a
20 - foot trail right - of - way , adding , it should be labelled as proposed
to be deeded to the Town for trail and municipal purposes . Ms .
Beeners stated that the map has not been filed , but has been signed .
Attorney Barney stated that it should be denominated for whatever
purpose .
Ms . Beeners , commenting on the general sewer situation , stated
that there is proposed , at the present time , subject to discussion by
the Town Board on Monday , February 13 , 1989 , a rehabilitation project
for the sewermain below the Hospital , which is the main main for West
Hill . Ms . Beeners stated that , at the present time , it is being
recommended that there be a charge for any new lots that would be
going into the hospital main , adding , that charge would be $ 300 . 00 per
dwelling unit . Robert Kenerson wondered if that would be an impact
fee by definition . Ms . Beeners responded that it is a fairly
important mitigation measure to take care of a main that needs
rehabilitation . Chairman May noted that it is really a usage fee .
William Lesser wondered where the amount of $ 300 . 00 came from . Ms .
Beeners replied that it came from looking at what the total estimated
cost of the rehabilitation work would be , commenting , that appeared to
be what a fair share should be . Erik Whitney , Assistant Town
Engineer , asked about the drainage ditches . Mr . Schlecht responded
that there would only be ditches on the uphill side of the road .
There appearing to be no further discussion or comments from the
Board , Chairman May asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion .
MOTION by Mr . Robert Kenerson , seconded by Dr . William Lesser :
WHEREAS :
1 . This action is the Consideration of Preliminary Subdivision
Approval for the proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No . 6 - 23 - 1 - 29 , 9 acres total , located at 1445 Trumansburg
Road , into ten lots , with one proposed lot containing an existing
dwelling .
2 . This is an Unlisted action for which the Planning Board has been
legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency for environmental
review ,
3 . The Town Planner has recommended a negative determination of
environmental significance for this action .
• THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
Planning Board. - 8 - February 7 , 1989
• That the Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency in the
environmental review of this Unlisted action , make and hereby does
make a negative determination of environmental significance for this
action .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Baker , Grigorov , Kenerson , Lesser .
Nay - None ,
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
MOTION by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov , seconded by Mr . James Baker :
WHEREAS :
1 . This action is the Consideration of Preliminary Subdivision
Approval for the proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Road. ,
into ten lots , with one proposed lot containing an existing
Parcel No . 6 - 23 - 1 - 29 , 9 acres total , located at 1445 Trumansburg
dwelling .
2 . This is an Unlisted action for which the Planning Board , acting
as Lead Agency for environmental review , has , on February 7 ,
1989 , made a negative determination of environmental
• significance .
3 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on February 7 , 1989 , has
reviewed the Preliminary Plat and Preliminary Engineering Plan ,
and other application submissions .
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Preliminary
Subdivision Approval to the subdivision as proposed , with the
following conditions .
1 . Approval by the Town Board of the locations of the proposed road ,
trailway , and other public facilities , prior to consideration of
final subdivision approval .
2 . Submission of an agreement for approval by the Town Board with
respect to the development of off - site water and sewer systems
such that the developer will participate in the cost of
rehabilitation of the sewer main below Tompkins Community
Hospital in the amount of $ 300 . 00 per dwelling unit , prior to the
issuance of any building permits .
3 . Approval by the Town Attorney of any easements from adjoining
lands related to sewer extension .
• 4 . Construction of an 8 - foot trailway to the general specifications
as proposed , prior to the issuance of any certificates of
compliance for dwellings on lots 2 and 3 .
Planning Board - 9 - February 7 , 1989
• 5 . Modification of map to show transfer of trail easement area to
the Town in fee .
6 . Approval of the drainage dispersal system by the Town Engineering
Department ,
7 . Granting of a drainage easement to the Town for maintenance of
any drainage dispersal system , such easement to be shown on any
final plat .
At this point , Ms . Beeners commented , for the record , as to the
development of the trail . Ms . Beeners stated that the reason she put
it in was to permit some kind of additional coordination of trail
development in that area , and essentially to make sure that the
construction of the trail would be timely with its being usable
through on the Poyer property . Ms . Beeners recommended that , as the
time draws nearer for construction on Lots # 2 and # 3 , that there be
some consultation back with the Planning Department and Parks
Department to see whether it is timely to keep the condition in or
whether modification should be sought that might defer trail
construction until a slightly later time , but still within the
confines of completion of the entire project . Attorney Barney
remarked that that is always a possibility . Chairman May noted that
the above statement was agreed to by the developer [John Tilitz ] and
his engineer [ George Schlecht ] .
• There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Baker , Grigorov , Kenerson , Lesser .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
At this point , Chairman May announced to everyone present that
the following Public Hearings would be held as one combined Public
Hearing , but in terms of taking action , the Board would vote on each
individual Public Hearing .
PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR
A PROPOSED 12 - LOT CONVENTIONAL SUBDIVISION OF 19 ± ACRES , PROPOSED TO
BE LOCATED ON TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 24 - 1 - 32 AND ON A PORTION
OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 24 - 1 - 23 WITH ACCESS ONTO HAYTS
ROAD . CMH ASSOCIATES , OWNER ; HOLT ARCHITECTS , AGENT .
PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD
WITH RESPECT TO A REQUEST FOR THE REZONING OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX
PARCEL NO . 6 - 24 - 1 - 23 AND A PORTION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO .
6 - 24 - 1 - 32 WITH ACCESS ONTO TRUMANSBURG ROAD , 69 ± ACRES TOTAL , FROM AN
AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO A SPECIAL LAND USE DISTRICT , FOR THE PROPOSED
" INDIAN CREEK RETIREMENT COMMUNITY " , PROPOSED TO CONSIST OF A 60 - UNIT
SINGLE - OR TWO -FAMILY ATTACHED CLUSTERED SUBDIVISION , AN 80 - UNIT
• RETIREMENT CONDOMINIUM/ COOPERATIVE , AND PUBLIC OPEN SPACE , CMH
ASSOCIATES , OWNER ; HOLT ARCHITECTS , AGENT .
Planning Board - 10 - February 7 , 1989
• PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL
WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED " INDIAN CREEK RETIREMENT COMMUNITY " , FOR
THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 24 - 1 - 23
AND A PORTION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 24 - 1 - 32 WITH ACCESS
ONTO TRUMANSBURG ROAD , 69 ± ACRES TOTAL , INTO A 60 -UNIT SINGLE - OR
TWO - FAMILY ATTACHED CLUSTERED SUBDIVISION , AN 80 - UNIT RETIREMENT
CONDOMINIUM / COOPERATIVE , AND PUBLIC OPEN SPACE . CMH ASSOCIATES ,
OWNER ; HOLT ARCHITECTS , AGENT .
Chairman May declared the Public Hearings in the above - noted
matters duly opened at 8 : 36 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of
Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above .
Mr . Scott Lucas of CMH Associates approached the Board .
Mr . Lucas stated that all the units in the proposed subdivision
are intended to be retirement units , and it is intended that they will
be subject to an age restriction on occupancy , so that the proposed
devlopment , indeed , will be a community of people of retirement age ,
55 being the age that is being looked at as a threshold for occupancy .
Continuing , Mr . Lucas stated that the parcel in question consists
of 80 acres , adding , most everyone knows this property as the Babcock
property on Trumansburg Road . Mr . Lucas said that Indian Creek
divides the 80 acres , and that was the reason for the leftover piece
• of land that is intended just to remain as lots , and remain in an
Agricultural zone at that density . Mr . Lucas remarked that his
primary interest was to develop a retirement community , which would be
both apartment style residences and detached , commenting , as much
green space as possible has been preserved . Mr . Lucas noted that one
of his goals in doing that was to combine cluster housing and detached
housing to maximize the amount of open space available on the site .
Mr . Lucas stated that the proposed project involves housing and a
service package , noting that the service package would be provided by
the Tompkins Community Hospital , adding that the details of that
arrangement are being negotiated . Mr . Lucas said that it is expected
that the package include such things as meal service , housekeeping ,
nursing consultation , transportation service using a mini -van or
mini -bus , security services , snow and trash removal , and all the
typical condominium services one receives . Mr . Lucas stated that the
proposed community would be structured in such a way that , if people
so desire , because their health status changes , they can have two
meals a day instead of one , and if they want housekeeping more
frequently than two hours a week they can add that as an option .
Mr . Lucas noted that , from an architectural standpoint , all the
units are designed to accommodate walkers or wheelchairs . Mr . Lucas
said that the doors are proposed to be 36 " wide , and there would be no
threshold in the doorways between the rooms , there probably will be
more use of vinyl hard surfaces , and less use of carpeting . Mr . Lucas
noted that the land sits about 1000 feet back from Trumansburg Road ,
• and the proposal is for 140 units .
Planning Board - 11 - February 7 , 1989
• Pointing to the appended map , Mr . Lucas said that there would be
a few changes in the detached buildings , as the adjacent neighbor , Mr .
Ryan , is concerned about the proximity of the detached units to his
property . Mr . Lucas noted that Mr . Ryan is involved in rehabilitating
wildlife . Mr . Lucas commented that one possible change would be to
take some [ indicating on map ] of " these " buildings which , at the
present time , are intended to be about 120 feet off the property line ,
and , perhaps , move them over to " this " area . Mr . Lucas stated that
when he comes back for final approval the picture will be a little
different .
Board member Carolyn Grigorov wondered about the price range of
the units . Mr . Lucas responded that they would be in the $ 110 , 000 . 00
and above range , noting , obviously , the detached units will be more
expensive , as there is more site work involved .
At this point , Mr . Lucas turned the issue over to Mr . Joseph
Fitzgerald , Assistant Administrator at the Tompkins Community
Hospital .
Mr . Fitzgerald stated that the Hospital ' s interest in the matter ,
quite candidly , is as a health care provider . Mr . Fitzgerald
commented that the project is somewhat unique , whereby people still
have their independence , but at the same time have support services .
Mr . Fitzgerald noted that he saw this arrangement with the Hospital as
• long - term , adding that the Hospital ' s role in the project , once it
becomes operational , will be to provide the kinds of services that Mr .
Lucas talked about , e . g . , menu services , meal services , special diet
services , nutritional counseling services , nursing services , etc . In
addition , Mr . Fitzgerald stated that the Hospital would be the
manager , so to speak , of all the marketing aspects of the project .
Peter Trowbridge noted that , as a point of clarification
[ indicating on map ] regarding the plan , Hayts Road runs to the bottom
of the appended plan shown on the bulletin board , and " this " is
Trumansburg Road . Mr . Trowbridge said that the 12 lots along Hayts
Road are all within the Agricultural zone , and they are all at least
one acre or more , adding that some of them are close to two acre lots .
Mr . Trowbridge , pointing to map , indicated that between " this " small
subdivision and the major project is a six acre natural area , which
would be dedicated to the Town , and commented thatit runs along
Indian Creek , noting that it separates the subdivision from the
detached units of the retirement community condominiums . Mr .
Trowbridge stated that , coming in off Trumansburg Road there would be
a public road that would allow both for utility easement extension and
road extension into a second large parcel , which has somewhat limited
access . Mr . Trowbridge noted that , coming in off the road there is a
four acre Town park reservation , adding , the six acre natural area and
the four acre Town park would be connected by a 20 - foot wide
right - of -way and Town trail . Mr . Trowbridge stated that the entire
larger parcel has a 30 - foot buffer that surrounds it , commenting that ,
• wherever there is native vegetation , anything 3 " caliper or larger
would be preserved . Mr . Trowbridge stated that there is particular
sensitivity concerning the west and northern buffers , noting , nothing
Planning Board - 12 - February 7 , 1989
• has been proposed closer than 120 feet . Mr . Trowbridge said that
there is also a two acre pond which , on the one hand is an amenity ,
but also serves as a detention area for all the roadways , hard
surfaces , and roof areas , adding , with discharge into Indian Creek .
Mr . Trowbridge offered that it is also detention for a large portion
of the subdivision off Hayts Road . Mr . Trowbridge noted that utility
connections , in terms of water , are up to Trumansburg Road ,
commenting , sewer is a connection in association with the Tilitz
project , which is a proposed subdivision located at 1445 Trumansburg
Road .
Chairman May noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if
there were anyone from the public who had any comments or questions .
Jim Ainslie of 245 Hayts Road spoke from the floor and expressed
a concern with the density of the houses on the Hayts Road property .
Mr . Ainslie stated that he sold the property to Mr . Babcock 20 years
ago . Mr . Ainslie offered that the property , as shown on the map ,
looks like a flat piece of property , but it is very irregular , adding
that the west end of the property just beyond the [ pointing to map ]
circle is a sinkhole . Mr . Ainslie said that there is no sewer or
water available up Hayts Road ,
Mr . Lucas of CMH spoke from the floor and stated that he had met
with several of the neighbors today [ 2 / 7 / 89 ] and noted that questions
were raised concerning the watertable . Mr . Lucas said that the 12
lots would not be improved until the Health Department has looked at
them . Mr . Ainslie offered that there are only 13 usable acres on the
land .
Peter Trowbridge noted that he agreed that the soil density is
such that the Health Department would have to be consulted in
determining what exactly is needed in terms of septic and water . Mr .
Trowbridge said that the parcels in , question range from close to an
acre up to two acres .
Chairman May , directing his comment to Mr . Lucas , wondered if it
would be appropriate , at this point , to withdraw the 12 - lot
subdivision consideration tonight , as it sounded like there is still a
great deal of information that is required . Ms . Beeners stated that
John Andersson , of the Tompkins County Health Department , has been
notified , and has received a copy of the plans and application for the
subdivision , noting that he would have to approve any water and sewer
private systems , prior to any final sign - off on the final plat .
Peter Trowbridge noted one clarification on the slope issue
the slope issue has been looked at , and it has also been discussed
with Mr . Andersson of the Health Department , Mr . Trowbridge stated
that there are many places in the County , under the County
jurisdiction , where developments of this density where these slope and
soil conditions , probably lesser soil conditions , are occurring .
Chairman May responded that there is no question there are a lot of
one acre lots with wells and septic . Chairman May noted that , at this ,
time , it sounds like there might be a question about what the soil
Planning Board - 13 - February 7 , 1989
conditions are . Ms . Beeners noted that Mr . Lucas ' point was that it
is his desire to have at least some idea of what the configuration of
the subdivision would be in order to properly figure out where to dig
the test holes , and the design of the septic systems and wells .
Chairman May said that he felt the issue was much too loose for
the Board to grant Preliminary Approval . Chairman May noted that it
was his recommendation that the request for Preliminary Approval on
the 19 acres be withdrawn , obviously with no bias to any decision on
it at all , until further study of the issue .
Mr . Lucas stated that he would withdraw the request for further
study .
Douglas Pokorney of Hayts Road spoke from the floor and expressed
a concern about getting 12 lots out of that piece of property .
Chairman May responded that , as of now , that proposal has been
withdrawn . Mr . Pokorney said that his concern was environmental .
Lanny Joyce of 1416 Trumansburg Road spoke from the floor and
stated that he is the most direct neighbor to the project , and it
would have been nice if he had been talked to . Mr . Joyce offered
that , generally , he likes what he sees , adding , the only thing that
concerns him is the entrance road being right next to his property .
Chairman May replied that there is a 30 - foot buffer .
• Jack Ryan of 260 Hayts Road approached the Board and stated his
objection to the project . Mr . Ryan is concerned about the habitat for
his wildlife .
Fred Schramm of 651 Sheffield Road appeared before the Board and
wondered how many people were expected for the retirement community ,
with Mr . Lucas answering , about 200 - 250 people . Mr . Schramm wondered
about providing garages . Mr . Lucas replied that the detached units
would have single car garages , and the apartment style units would
have some kind of covered parking arrangement .
There appearing to be no one else from the public who wished to
speak to this matter , Chairman May closed the Public Hearing at 9 : 30
p . m . and brought the matter back to the Board for discussion .
Robert Kenerson asked Mr . Lucas to refresh his memory as to the
ownership and what he was going to do to provide the services of the
association . Mr . Lucas responded that , in terms of the ownership , it
is intended to have all the units be condominium units , the reason for
that being - a number of projects aimed at providing housing and
services for people of this age have gotten into trouble because those
sponsors have not done their homework or have made managerial mistakes
in becoming solvent . Mr . Lucas stated that he felt ownership was
attractive to people for a number of reasons - - first of all , it
preserves their equity . Mr . Lucas noted that he wanted to have the
is
age restriction handled within the constraints of the by - laws of the
association , rather than the actual deeds themselves , adding , if the
age restriction is on the ownership , rather than occupancy , it creates
Planning Board - 14 - February 7 , 1989
a lot of problems for an adult child who may want to purchase a unit
• for his parents . Attorney Barney asked Mr . Lucas if he had looked at
the New York Civil Rights provision against age restriction , with Mr .
Lucas answering , no , not at this point , but it would be done .
William Lesser wondered about the community by - laws . Mr . Lucas
answered that they would be pretty stock condominium association
by - laws . Mr . Lucas offered that , as a matter of personal style , he
has very little interest in trying to regulate other persons ' lives .
Chairman May noted that this is land owned in common so it would have
to come back to the Town Board , with Attorney Barney responding , the
whole thing does as this is a rezoning for Special Land Use District .
William Lesser said that when the 91 lots were plotted it was not
taken into consideration what is being occupied by the flood control
pond . Mr . Lesser noted that the 42 = foot height of the connected
buildings was quite a bit in excess of what is presently allowed in
the Town . Mr . Lucas noted that a substantial part of that would be
underground .
Susan Beeners noted that a provision should be made for parking
of residents and guests within the project . Mr . Trowbridge stated
that there are 100 spaces associated with those clustered units , and
34 spaces for visitors and staff . Ms . Beeners asked about the duplex
units to the west . Mr . Trowbridge replied that all -the duplex units
would have a garage and off - street parking .
• Ms . Beeners wondered if the size of the mains on the property
would be sized so they would be the right size if there were a future
Town water service . Mr . Trowbridge answered , yes . Ms . Beeners
mentioned the connection fee aspect as far as the sewer is concerned ,
which would be $ 300 . 00 per unit .
Robert Kenerson mentioned the six acre creek area and its
connections , if it is going to be Town land , adding , there is a
20 - foot right - of -way , and a case could be made that it is almost
blocked . Ms . Beeners noted that it appeared it might be worthwhile to
have the six acres , as well as the four acre park site , be dedicated
to the Town , accepted by the Town , and have some kind of a nature
trail route right in [ pointing to map ] " this " area . Ms . Beeners said
that there are at least 150 acres of wetland and forestland to the
west , which are going to be , essentially , undevelopable , commenting
that other measures in conservation would have to be taken . Chairman
May mentioned emergency vehicle access . Mr . Lucas stated that , rather
than deed the property to the Town , a conservation easement would be
deeded to the Town conservation commission , which would accomplish the
same purpose . Chairman May noted that in this particular instance he
would see maintenance requirements being miniminal , but the thing one
has to always think about is getting an emergency vehicle in and out .
At this point , Chairman May stated that the Town Board was the
• Lead Agency as far as the rezoning was concerned .
Planning Board - 15 - February 7 , 1989
• Attorney .Barney mentioned the fact that he understood there was a
fairly substantial revision to the site plan seeking a Special Land
Use District , and making a recommendation to the Town Board based upon
a general site plan , but wondered what the general site plan was going
to look like . Attorney Barney wondered if it was appropriate to make
a recommendation on a plan that may not be the plan that is going to
be the basis . Mr . Lucas said that the goal was to increase the buffer
for Mr . Ryan , the number of units would not be changed nor the number
of spaces . Mr . Lucas noted that the basic configuration is the open
space in front , the clustered buildings in the center , and the
detached units , commenting , the only potential change is the location
of some individual units . Attorney Barney commented , the Town Zoning
Ordinance states that a Special Land Use District is presented in a
general plan form , but then it is approved by the Town Board based
upon that general plan , and comes back to the Planning Board when more
specifics are noted as to a defined plan , adding , if the general plan
is modified in. terms of moving a lot of buildings around , then the
general plan has been deviated from that which was the underpinning
for the Special Land Use District in the first place . Attorney Barney
commented that he was concerned with the fact that , if three , four , or
five buildings were going to be moved from what is presently shown on
the plans , then that is the start of moving away from the general plan
that the Town Board would be receiving .
Susan Beeners wondered if the Planning Board could approve the
plan with certain modifications . Mr . Lucas said that the possible
• modifications would probably be five or six of the buildings in " this "
[ indicating on map ] corner coming to the other side of the road .
Carolyn Grigorov asked about the community open space , with Mr . Lucas
stating that it would create additional buffer space . Attorney
Barney , directing his question to Mr . Lucas , wondered when the
determination would be made as to the buildings ' location change . Mr .
Lucas answered , fairly soon , he had spoken with Peter Trowbridge as to
how the units might look , if they were moved . Attorney Barney
commented that the developer was asking the Planning Board to approve
a plan , but was not sure the developer knew exactly what the plan was
that he wanted approved , noting , he was troubled with doing this in
the abstract , as he thought both the Planning Board and the Town Board
need something fairly specific , and fairly definite , to make a
determination . Chairman May wondered what the effect would be if the
delay was , basically , about a month . Mr . Lucas responded that he was
not sure , he was trying to do this to accommodate Mr . Ryan , Mr . Lucas
stated that the plan brought before the Board would be to move those
four buildings .
At this point , Attorney Barney asked the developer to indicate on
the drawing the changes to be made , so that plan could be recited , as
the plan that the Planning Board is reviewing and making
recommendation upon and that the modifications are moved to that
point , commenting , then supply the Planning Board with a drawing that
can be taken to the Town Board . Mr . Lucas offered that he would not
• be building anything for probably 15 months . Chairman May mentioned
the fact that there probably would be phasing . Attorney Barney asked
if the roadway in would be a private roadway or a deeded public road ,
Planning Board - 16 - February 7 , 1989
• with Mr . Trowbridge answering , a deeded public road with a road
reservation at the end of it . Attorney Barney wondered what the
distance of the road was from Trumansburg Road to the end of the
deeded portion . Mr . Trowbridge responded that it was approximately
1200 feet , and there is another 700 feet around the interior loop .
William Lesser commented that the deeded portion was the divided road .
Chairman May commented that it was recommended that the Planning
Board make a recommendation to the Town Board with modifications only ,
because this is not a true subdivision map , and secondly , the Town
Board has not agreed to rezone , and it was presumptuous to grant
subdivision approval .
There appearing to be no further discussion or comments from the
Board , Chairman May asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion as
to the recommendation to the Town Board .
MOTION by Mr . Robert Kenerson , seconded by Dr . William Lesser :
WHEREAS :
1 . This action is the Consideration of a Recommendation to the Town
Board with respect to a Request for the Rezoning of Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 24 - 1 - 23 and a portion of Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No . 6 - 24 - 1 - 32 with access onto Trumansburg Road , 66 . 7 ±
• acres total , from an Agricultural District to a Special Land Use
District , for the proposed " Indian Creek Retirement Community " ,
proposed to consist of a 60 unit single or two family attached
clustered subdivision , an 80 - unit retirement condominium /
cooperative , and public open space .
2 . This is a Type I action for which the Town Board is legislatively
determined to act as Lead Agency in the environmental review of
the proposed rezoning . The Planning Board is legislatively
determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review of the
proposed subdivision .
3 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on February 7 , 1989 , has
reviewed the environmental assessment form , preliminary site
plans , and other application submissions , and has heard the
recommendation of the Town Planner that a negative determination
of environmental significance be made for the proposed rezoning
and subdivisions .
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
That the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to
the Town Board that a negative determination of environmental
significance be made for the proposed rezoning , and
FURTHER , IT IS RESOLVED :
1 . That the Planning Board determine and hereby does determine the
following :
Planning Board - 17 - February 7 , 1989
• a . there is a need for the proposed use in the proposed
location ,
be the existing and probable future character of the
neighborhood in which the use is to be located will not be
adversely affected , and
ce the proposed change is in accordance with a comprehensive
plan of development of the Town .
2 . That the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to
the Town Board the approval of the general site plan and the
rezoning , as proposed , with a modification to relocate four
buildings as shown on the Schematic Site Plan redated February 7 ,
1989 .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Baker , Grigorov , Kenerson , Lesser .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman May declared the Consideration of a Recommendation to
the Town Board with respect to a Request for Rezoning with respect to
• the proposed " Indian Creek Retirement Community " duly closed at 10 : 00
p . m .
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - October 4 , 1988
MOTION by William Lesser , seconded by Robert Kenerson :
RESOLVED , that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board
Meeting of October 4 , 1988 , be and hereby are approved as written .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Baker , Grigorov , Kenerson , Lesser .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - January 3 , 1989
MOTION by William Lesser , seconded by James Baker :
RESOLVED , that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board
Meeting of January 3 , 1989 , be and hereby are approved as written .
. There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
• Aye - May , Baker , Grigorov , Kenerson , Lesser .
Nay - None .
LV Planning Board - 18 - February 7 , 1989
v
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
DISCUSSION
Chairman May suggested that a sub - committee be formed to draw up
a Code of Ethics for the Planning Board . Chairman May also suggested
that he not be on the committee , however , he would be more than happy
to be available and offer some comments on a number of things .
Chairman May , directing his comment to Attorney Barney , wondered
if Attorney Barney should be a member of the committee originally , or
whether it should be drawn up , and then he enter as a member .
Attorney Barney responded that he would rather not be a member of the
committee , but he would be more than happy to meet with the committee
in an advisory role . Attorney Barney noted that there are some State
laws on ethics , and also , the Town has its own statement of ethics .
Chairman May noted that he thought three people on the committee would
be sufficient . William Lesser commented that he felt it was a good
idea . Chairman May indicated that the committee selection could be on
the Planning Board agenda soon .
ADJOURNMENT
Upon Motion , Chairman May declared the February 7 , 1989 , meeting
of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 10 : 30 p . m .
• Respectfully submitted ,
Mary Bryant , Recording Secretary ,
Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary ,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board .
IW
APFIDA % PlT Or ?VALKATION
WTHE ITHA (al _`Z� - JOURNAL
�~•�' 's � l-'TSS r`T'= 0 11111a - TOWN OF ITHACA be located on Town 9f Ithaca
PLANNING BOARD Tax Parcel No. 6-24- 1 -32 and :
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS on a portion of Town of Ithaca
,ate },• u �� } I1�F bCL^. e C� ',:i � rA_0rM, drposeS TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1989 Tax Parcel No. 6-24-1 -23 with
- I B direction of the Chairman access onto Hayts Road. W
CMH
of the Planning Board, NOTICE Associates, Owner; HOLT Ar- ,
&& Nose �.>:� bt iLitw L^ IthAc:L, I; unto' an F= te i.� = 'Mr.1 rsL3 IS HEREBY GIVEN, that Public chitects, Agent.
Hearings will be held by the 8:25 P. M. Consideration of a
Planning Board of the Town of Recommendation to the Town
� i Ithaca on Tuesday, February Board with respect to a Re-
tlSit bE if _. S.ke C�_ .- �_^-. •- --.- •---•------- - - - — " " 7, 1989, in Town Hall , 1.26 East quest - for the Rezoning of
Seneca Street, Ithaca, NY, at Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.
the following times and on the 6-24- 1 -23 and aP ortion of
pt_ Tmz Irs.+u 1017T.ti a p1b1i nt�►r� apes p:•snted- &nd. FrA4 bed__. following matters: Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.
- . - - - 7 : 30 P. M. Consideration of Fi- 6. 24- 1-32 with access onto Tru-
nol Subdivision Approval for monsburg Road, 69 plus/mi-
_ . _ -• 1Lf2rMg; t,.h2t € DQtite;- of wa 1^.h the artnezed is ! true' . the proposed subdivision of a nus acres total , from on Agri-
15,714 sq. ft. lot from Town of cultural District to a Special
1 8 Land Use District for the pro
_. . � t Parcel No 6 58
- - '-- - .._-_ ,--. _-- -, -_- - - _ - . Ithaca Tax Pa r
located at 1345 Slaterville posed "Indian Creek Retire- ,
szs102 ��!G' ----•--- - ""••• "" Road and containing an exist- ment Community", proposed
ing dwelling, and further, to consist of a 60-unit single-or
e ham , a r. Consideration of Final Subdi- two-family attached clustered
_ •- _ • • , - _,_-__� . _. . _- - • .--. . -• • -�.._ .. - •---• vision Approval for the pro- subdivision, an 80-unit retire-
posed clustered subdivision of ment condominium/coopera-
a portion of Town of Ithaca tive, and public open space.
- - _ _ - - - - _ . . ... ... .. . . . . ____. _ ._ ._. _ _• _ _ __,_ ,_- __ __ Tax Parcel No. 6-58- 1 -8 and of CMH Associates, Owner; HOLT
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. Architects, Agent.
6-58- 1 -7, - 10. 2, and - 11 into 8:40 P. M. Consideration of
t , , ,,� �. � C ✓ �t, e six lots of 22,013 sq. ft. to 87, - Prelminary Subdivision Appro-
val tytt ! t: ,y f ' SZ t^ '- - ; _ c' ^ : O. Sc: _ D . _ � , • • - 400 sq. ft. Francis J. Paolange- with respect to the pro-
�� lie Owner/Applicant. posed "Indian Creek Retire-
- ~� Q 7:50 P. M. Consideration of ment Community'% for the
U3ZT O� , _ - • • C • _ • U _ _• __ __ _ ___ _ _• • • __ - - . .._. . .. . .. i9 _ 1-. . Preliminary Subdivision App- proposed subdivision of Town
proval for the proposed subdi- ' of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6 24
vision of Town of Ithaca Tax 1 -23 and a portion of Town of
Parcel No. 6-23- 1 -29, 9 acres Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-24-1 -
total , located at 1445 Tru- 32 with access onto Trumas-
mansburg Road, into ten lots, burg Road, 69 plus/minus
♦iy, c with one proposed lot con- acres total, into a 60-unit sin-
1;. p
____ .. .. _ . . toining an existing dwelling. gle- or two-family attached
Guy Burrell and Helen E. No- clustered subdivision, an 80-
C/✓� than, Owners; John Tilitz, Ap- unit retirement . condominum-
__ _ .
.__ . _ _ . . . Consideration of open s plicant. /cooperative, and public
8: 10 P. M. ace. CMH Associates,
Preliminary Subdivision Ap- Owner ; HOLT Architects:
/ �j �! _ i p proval for a proposed 12-lot Agent.
... - - . ... - ' � . . _ _`LI - --• •• •• - • ------• • conventipnal subdivison of 19 Said Planningg Board will at
jL- croxmv Fubl. . plus/minus acres, proposed to -said times nnd_enidnlnrP.henr .
all persons in support of such
JEAN FORD matters or objections thereto.
V Persons may appear by agent
Notary Public, Sta ' ofj flew Y01A or in person .
Jean H: Swartwood
t Town Clerk
No. 46 .; 4410 , 273-1721
I '
_ Qll alified in Tc �,i . :< : rs County February 2, 1989
Commission. expires May 31,- 19 . .9
r