HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1990-06-05P, � j
•
is
FILED
TOWN OF ITHACA
'1OWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARDI
JUNE 5, 1990
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on
Tuesday, June 5, 1990, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca,
New York, at 7:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Chairperson Carolyn Grigorov, Virginia Langhans, Robert
Kenerson, Robert Miller, Stephen Smith, Eva Hoffmann, James
Baker, George R. Frantz (Assistant Town Planner), Daniel
Walker (Town Engineer), John C. Barney (Town Attorney).
ALSO PRESENT: Vinay Ambegaokar, Cynthia Gruman, Dick Perry, Carl
Sgrecci, Josephine Richards, Paul S. Richards, Tom
Niederkorn, Robert O'Brien, Tom Salm, Peter Trowbridge,
Kathy Wolf,
Chairperson Grigorov 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 May 29, 1990, and May 31, 1990, 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,
as appropriate, upon both the Clerk and the Building Commissioner of
the City of Ithaca, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning,
and upon the applicants and /or agents, as appropriate, on May 30,
1990.
Chairperson Grigorov read the Fire Exit Regulations to those
assembled, as required by the New York State Department of State,
Office of Fire Prevention and Control.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE
PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF APPROXIMATELY 0.13 ACRES FROM TOWN OF ITHACA
TAX PARCEL NO. 6 -61 -1 -14.4, LOCATED AT 5 SUGARBUSH LANE, FOR
CONSOLIDATION WITH TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6 -61 -1 -14.5, LOCATED
AT 3 SUGARBUSH LANE, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R -15, VINAY AND SAGA
AMBEGAOKAR, APPLICANTS AND OWNERS OF TAX PARCEL N0, 6 -61 -1 -14.5;
GEOFFREY AND CAROLYN CHESTER, OWNERS OF TAX PARCEL N0, 6 -61 -1 -14.4.
Chairperson Grigorov declared the Public Hearing in the
above -noted matter duly opened at 7:37 p.m. and read aloud from the
Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above.
At this point, Chairperson Carolyn Grigorov, and Board Member Eva
Hoffmann, abstained from taking any part in the discussion of the
above -noted matter. Ms. Grigorov and Ms. Hoffmann are neighbors of
Mr. and Mrs. Ambegaokar and Mr. and Mrs. Chester,
Mr. Ambegaokar approached the Board and stated that he requests
approval to gain approximately 1/8 of an acre of land presently owned
t by Geoffrey and Carolyn Chester, 5 Sugarbush Lane, Mr. Ambegaokar
said that he and his wife, Saga, wish to acquire the additional land
. %
,. 4 Planning Board
-2-
June 5, 1990
for an extension they are hoping to construct on their house, adding
that with the additional land sideyard zoning requirements would not
be violated. Mr. Ambegaokar commented that a purchase offer has been
signed contingent on approval being granted by the Planning Board.
Chairperson Grigorov noted that this was a Public Hearing and
asked if anyone present wished to speak. No one spoke. Chairperson
Grigorov closed the Public Hearing at 7:45 p.m. and brought the matter
back to the Board for discussion.
There appearing to be no further discussion, Chairperson Grigorov
asked if anyone were prepared to make a motion.
MOTION by Mrs. Virginia Langhans, - seconded by Mr. James Baker:
WHEREAS:
10 This action is the Consideration of Subdivision Approval for the
proposed subdivision of approximately 0.13 acres from Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6 -61 -1 -14.4, located at 5 Sugarbush Lane,
for consolidation with Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6 -61 -1 -14.5,
located at 3 Sugarbush Lane, Residence District R -15. [Vinay and
Saga Ambegaokar, Applicants and Owners of Tax Parcel No.
6 -61 -1 -14.5, 3 Sugarbush Lane; Geoffrey and Carolyn Chester,
Owners of Tax Parcel No. 6 -61 -1 -14.4, 5 Sugarbush Lane.]
• 2. This is an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board has been legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in
environmental review.
3. The Planning Board, at Public Hearing on June 5, 1990, has
reviewed the Short Environmental Assessment Form and other
application materials.
THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED:
That the Planning Board make and hereby does make a negative
determination of environmental significance for this action as
proposed.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - Baker, Langhans, Kenerson, Miller, Smith.
Nay - None.
Abstain - Grigorov, Hoffmann.
The MOTION was declared to be carried.
MOTION by Mr. Stephen Smith, seconded by Mr. Robert Kenerson:
WHEREAS:
1. This action is the Consideration of Subdivision Approval for the
proposed subdivision of approximately 0.13 acres from Town of
Planning Board
Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6 -61
for consolidation with Town
located at 3 Sugarbush Lane
Saga Ambegaokar, Applicar
6 -61 -1 -14.5, 3 Sugarbush
Owners of Tax Parcel No. 6-
-3-
June 5, 1990
-1 -14.4, located at 5 Sugarbush Lane,
of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6 -61 -1 -14.5,
Residence District R -15. [ Vinay and
is and Owners of Tax Parcel No.
Lane; Geoffrey and Carolyn Chester,
61 -1 -14.4, 5 Sugarbush Lane.]
2. This is an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has, on
June 5, 1990, made a negative determination of environmental
significance.
3. The Planning Board, at Public Hearing on June 5, 1990, has
reviewed the Short Environmental Assessment Form and other
application materials.
THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED:
1. That the Planning Board waive and hereby does waive certain
requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval,
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.
0 2e That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Final
Subdivision Approval to the subdivision as shown on the map of
the Boynton Subdivision, prepared by Thomas G. Miller, entitled
"Final Subdivision Map ", dated 11/18/65, amended 11/1/67 and
2/15/90, upon the following conditions:
a. The lands being subdivided shall be transferred to Vinay and
Saga Ambegaokar within six months of the date of this
approval.
b. If not so conveyed, this approval shall be terminated and
void.
c. The parcel so subdivided shall be, upon such transfer,
consolidated with the Ambegaokar parcel.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - Baker, Langhans, Kenerson, Miller, Smith.
Nay - None.
Abstain - Grigorov, Hoffmann,
The MOTION was declared to be carried.
Chairperson Grigorov declared the matter of final subdivision
approval of the Ambegaokar /Chester one -lot subdivision and
• consolidation duly closed at 7:50 p.m.
Planning Board
-4-
June 5, 1990
• PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL,
STAGE 1, OF THE PROPOSED "SHALEBROOK" SUBDIVISION, PROPOSED TO CONSIST
OF 23 LOTS PLUS OPEN SPACE ON 29± ACRES, 1138 TRUMANSBURG ROAD, TOWN
OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6 -27 -1 -11.2, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R -15,
RICHARD AND JO PERRY, APPLICANTS /OWNERS; THOMAS NIEDERKORN, AGENT.
Chairperson Grigorov declared the Public Hearing in the
above -noted matter duly opened at 7:51 p.m. and read aloud from the
Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above.
Mr. Niederkorn appeared before the Board, appended maps to the
bulletin board, and proceeded to refresh the Board's memory regarding
the proposed project.
Mr. Niederkorn stated that it is proposed
Farm, Shalebrook, into residential lots and
approximately six stages, adding that the ini-
23 single family lots on approximately 29
Niederkorn said that access would be provided
Niederkorn noted that the Perrys want to
development.
Mr. Niederkorn
feet and the largest
lots would have some
. that ten of the lots
property, commenting,
to subdivide the Perry
townhouse clusters in
tial stage will involve
acres of land. Mr.
to the backlands. Mr.
create a neighborhood
offered that the smallest lot is 30,000 square
lot is 72,500 square feet, adding that all of the
natural tree growth on them. Mr. Niederkorn said
would be located in the woods to the west of the
the trees will be preserved whenever possible.
Mr. Niederkorn stated that there is one Tot Lot which is just
over one acre, and which is at a relatively flat area along Williams
Brook. Mr. Niederkorn noted that the cul de sacs planned for the
development meet the requirements.
Mr. Niederkorn offered that the water and sewer, along with the
drainage, have been reviewed by Peter Novelli, project engineer.
Chairperson Grigorov noted that this was a Public Hearing and
asked if anyone present wished to speak.
Paul Richards of 142 Bundy Road spoke from the floor and
expressed a concern about the speeding traffic on Bundy Road.
Assistant Town Planner George Frantz responded that the speeding
traffic on Bundy Road is a concern. Mr. Sgrecci wondered if the speed
limit could be reduced, with Mr. Frantz replying that that would have
to be taken up with the State. Mr. Richards stated that he has a
safety concern, especially with children.
There appearing to be no one else from the public who wished to
speak to this matter, Chairperson Grigorov closed the Public Hearing
at 8:06 p.m. and brought the matter back to the Board for discussion.
• Virginia Langhans, commenting on the Tot Lot, wondered about
children getting in the road. Mr. Niederkorn responded that a
substantial bank would be built as a barrier.
Chairperson Grigorov declared the Public Hearing in the
above -noted matter duly opened at 7:51 p.m. and read aloud from the
Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above.
Mr. Niederkorn appeared before the Board, appended maps to the
bulletin board, and proceeded to refresh the Board's memory regarding
the proposed project.
Mr. Niederkorn stated that it is proposed
Farm, Shalebrook, into residential lots and
approximately six stages, adding that the ini-
23 single family lots on approximately 29
Niederkorn said that access would be provided
Niederkorn noted that the Perrys want to
development.
Mr. Niederkorn
feet and the largest
lots would have some
. that ten of the lots
property, commenting,
to subdivide the Perry
townhouse clusters in
tial stage will involve
acres of land. Mr.
to the backlands. Mr.
create a neighborhood
offered that the smallest lot is 30,000 square
lot is 72,500 square feet, adding that all of the
natural tree growth on them. Mr. Niederkorn said
would be located in the woods to the west of the
the trees will be preserved whenever possible.
Mr. Niederkorn stated that there is one Tot Lot which is just
over one acre, and which is at a relatively flat area along Williams
Brook. Mr. Niederkorn noted that the cul de sacs planned for the
development meet the requirements.
Mr. Niederkorn offered that the water and sewer, along with the
drainage, have been reviewed by Peter Novelli, project engineer.
Chairperson Grigorov noted that this was a Public Hearing and
asked if anyone present wished to speak.
Paul Richards of 142 Bundy Road spoke from the floor and
expressed a concern about the speeding traffic on Bundy Road.
Assistant Town Planner George Frantz responded that the speeding
traffic on Bundy Road is a concern. Mr. Sgrecci wondered if the speed
limit could be reduced, with Mr. Frantz replying that that would have
to be taken up with the State. Mr. Richards stated that he has a
safety concern, especially with children.
There appearing to be no one else from the public who wished to
speak to this matter, Chairperson Grigorov closed the Public Hearing
at 8:06 p.m. and brought the matter back to the Board for discussion.
• Virginia Langhans, commenting on the Tot Lot, wondered about
children getting in the road. Mr. Niederkorn responded that a
substantial bank would be built as a barrier.
Planning Board
-5-
June 5, 1990
. Chairperson Grigorov asked about open space. Mr. Niederkorn
[indicating on map] pointed out the open space to be dedicated to the
Town.
Robert Kenerson asked about the cul de sacs. Mr. Niederkorn
responded that the cul de sacs are 1000 feet each.
Virginia Langhans asked about utilities. Mr. Niederkorn offered
that the utilities would be underground, and some trees would have to
be removed. Mr. Kenerson wondered about the water pressure. Mr.
Niederkorn responded that it was okay.
Eva Hoffmann wondered how many buildings will have secondary
apartments in them. Mr. Niederkorn responded that all of them could,
but, at this time, he did not have an answer.
There appearing to be no further discussion or comments from the
Board, Chairperson Grigorov asked if anyone were prepared to offer a
motion.
MOTION by Mr. Robert Kenerson, seconded by Mr. Stephen Smith:
WHEREAS:
1. This action is the Consideration of Preliminary Subdivision
• Approval for Stage 1 of the proposed "Shalebrook" Subdivision,
proposed to consist of 23 lots on approximately 29 acres at 1138
Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6 -27 -1 -11.2,
Residence District R -15.
2. This is a Type 1 action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency for
environmental review.
3. The Planning Board, at Public Hearing on June 5, 1990, has
reviewed the Long Environmental Assessment Form and other
application materials.
4. The Assistant Town Planner has reviewed the proposed action for
environmental significance, and has recommended that a negative
determination of environmental significance be made.
THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED:
That the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency for environmental
review, make and hereby does make a negative determination of
environmental significance for the proposed action.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - Grigorov, Langhans, Baker, Kenerson, Miller, Smith, Hoffmann.
• Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Planning Board -6- June 5, 1990
• MOTION by Mrs. Virginia Langhans, seconded by Mr. James Baker:
WHEREAS:
1. This action is the Consideration of Preliminary Subdivision
Approval for Stage 1 of the proposed "Shalebrook" Subdivision,
proposed to consist of 23 lots on approximately 29 acres at 1138
Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca .Tax Parcel No. 6 -27 -1 -11.2,
Residence District R -15,
2. This is a Type 1 action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board, acting as Lead Agency for environmental review of the
proposal, has, on June 5, 1990, made a negative determination of
environmental significance.
3. The Planning Board, at Public Hearing on June 5, 1990, has
reviewed the Long Environmental Assessment Form and other
application materials related to the project.
THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED:
1. That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Preliminary
Subdivision Approval to Stage 1 of the "Shalebrook" Subdivision
as proposed herein, subject to the following conditions:
41 a. Approval by the Town Board, prior to consideration of final
subdivision approval, of the location of the proposed roads
and other public facilities.
b. Approval by the Town Attorney, prior to final subdivision
approval, of the final draft of proposed deed restrictions,
as revised at the Planning Board meeting this date, June 5,
1990.
c. Approval by the Town Engineer, prior to final subdivision
approval, of site drainage improvement plans.
d. Approval by the Town Planner of the proposed improvements to
the Tot Lot to assure an investment by the developer of at
least $5,000.00 in addition to the land value.
e. Any further development of adjacent land now owned by the
developer to provide for at least one acre additional park
or recreation lands beyond that normally required to make up
for the deficiency in the dedicated park lands in the Stage
1 being approved by this Resolution.
f. The Subdivision Plat be modified to provide:
i. the Town will be conveyed fee title to
the 10 -foot strip leading from Joseph
• Lot;
the
Tot
Lot
and
Place
to
the
Tot
Planning Board -7- June 5, 1990
• ii. a permanent 60- foot -wide easement be granted to the
Town of Ithaca from the terminus of Riley Drive
southerly to the southerly line of the Tot Lot (the
Creek) extended easterly;
the terminus of Riley Drive for dedication be shortened
to be a continuation of the southerly line of Joseph
Place, and
iv. the Town of Ithaca be granted a 10- foot -wide easement
for foot traffic over the strip of land between lots
number 10, 11, 15, and 16.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - Grigorov, Langhans, Baker, Kenerson, Miller, Smith, Hoffmann.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Grigorov declared the matter of the Shalebrook
Preliminary Subdivision Approval duly closed at 9:00 p.m.
SKETCH PLAN REVIEW ROAD RELOCATION PROJECT AT ITHACA COLLEGE,
PROPOSED TO CONSIST OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF APPROXIMATELY 4,000 LINEAR
• FEET OF NEW ROADWAY AND THREE PARKING LOTS TOTALING 426 SPACES, AND
PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED ON TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6 -41 -1 -30.2,
RESIDENCE DISTRICT R -15, ITHACA COLLEGE, OWNER /APPLICANT; TROWBRIDGE
ASSOCIATES, AGENT,
Chairperson Grigorov opened the discussion on the above -noted
matter at 9:01 p.m. and read aloud from the Agenda as noted above.
Mr. Trowbridge approached the Board, appended a map to the
bulletin board, and proceeded to give a quick overview of the project.
Mr. Trowbridge stated that Ithaca College is before the Board to
seek Sketch Plan Approval for the relocation of a campus loop road,
and the addition of 350 parking spaces in reconfigured existing and
new parking lots. Mr. Trowbridge stated that Ithaca College
anticipates construction of a new science building at a later date,
adding that the proposed site for the new building is the current
location of the main campus road, which necessitates the relocation of
the road before the building construction can begin.
Mr. Trowbridge noted that the relocation of the road is to the
north of Muller Chapel and the Park School of Communications. Mr.
Trowbridge offered that, in association with the relocation of the
road, additional parking facilities are proposed to replace the spaces
being lost due to the new road location and to replace the eventual
loss of parking in the NCR facility where Ithaca College is currently
• renting parking space for students and commuters. Mr. Trowbridge
commented that the net increase in parking for the project is
approximately 350 spaces.
Planning Board
-8-
June 5, 1990
• Mr. Trowbridge noted that the project area includes approximately
17 acres, adding, construction will be conducted in two phases and
start -up of the first phase of construction is scheduled for the fall
of 1990, with completion of Phase One scheduled for spring 1991,
commenting, Ithaca College anticipates Phase Two beginning in the
summer of 1991 and being completed by late fall of 1991.
Mr. Trowbridge offered that the proposed road will be relocated
to an area that is either existing lawn or asphalt parking, and
commented that one practice athletic field will be lost and another
will have to be modified in order to accommodate the road as currently
configured.
Assistant Town Planner George Frantz asked about any future plans
for dorm development. Mr. Salm responded that Ithaca College does not
anticipate any development at this time.
Mr. Frantz inquired about a Field House. Mr. Salm responded
that, basically, it is an idea, Ithaca College does need more indoor
recreational activities, adding, Ithaca College may need another
service center.
Chairperson Grigorov asked if there were any other comments.
There being none, Chairperson Grigorov declared the discussion of the
Ithaca College Road Relocation Project duly closed.
• OTHER BUSINESS:
1. Discussion of Comprehensive Plan Outline.
The Board reviewed the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan Outline,
which is attached hereto as Exhibit #1.
2. Consideration of a resolution in support of passage of H.R. 876
an d S.3701 extending Federal funding of Land and Water
Conservation Fund and Historic Preservation Fund,
The Board reviewed the attached Exhibit #2 entitled "Help
Celebrate The Outdoors By Writing To The President and Congress."
Chairperson Grigorov asked if anyone were prepared to offer a
motion.
MOTION by Mrs. Virginia Langhans, seconded by Mr. Robert
Kenerson:
RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board recommend and
hereby does recommend that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca
express its support for the American Heritage Trust Act (H.R.876 and
5.370), presently pending in the Congress of the United States, to
assure the continuation of the Land and Water Conservation Fund and
Historic Preservation Fund, and further
• RESOLVED, that said Planning Board recommend and hereby does
recommend that the Town Board communicate its support for the passage
Planning Board
-9-
June 5, 1990
of said American Heritage Trust Act to the appropriate Federal
officials.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - Grigorov, Langhans, Baker, Kenerson, Miller, Smith, Hoffmann.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
3. Department reports.
At this time, Planning Board Member Eva Hoffmann expressed an
interest in being appointed to the Town of Ithaca Conservation
Advisory Council, subject to her retirement from the Town of
Ithaca Personnel Committee.
There appearing to be no further discussion, Chairperson Grigorov
asked if anyone were prepared to make a motion.
MOTION by Mrs. Virginia Langhans, seconded by Mr. Robert
Kenerson:
WHEREAS:
• 1. The Supervisor of the Town of Ithaca has appointed Planning Board
Member James Baker to serve on the Town of Ithaca Conservation
Advisory Council, as recommended by said Planning Board, and
2. The Supervisor had requested that there be two members of the
Planning Board serving on said Conservation Advisory Council;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board recommend and hereby does
recommend to the Town Supervisor the appointment of Planning Board
Member Eva Hoffmann as its second representative to the Conservation
Advisory Council.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Baker, Langhans, Miller, Smith.
Nay - None.
Abstain - Hoffmann.
The MOTION was declared to be carried.
[Secretary's Note: Mrs. Hoffmann is presently a member of both
the Town of Ithaca Personnel Committee and the Codes and Ordinances
Committee and, as such, has requested that she be permitted to forego
service on the Personnel Committee, subject to the Town Supervisor's
• acceptance of the Planning Board's recommendation of appointment to
the Conservation Advisory Council.]
Planning Board
- Assistant Town Planner
U Comprehensive Planning Committee
Plan Outline at its meeting held
at their next meeting.
-10-
June 5, 1990
George Frantz reported that the
received copies of the Comprehensive
on May 29, 1990, and will discuss it
Mr. Frantz said that a Codes
in the process of being scheduled.
and Ordinance Committee meeting is
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - December 19, 1989
MOTION by Robert Kenerson, seconded by James Baker:
RESOLVED, that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board
Meeting of December 19, 1989, be and hereby are approved with the
following correction:
1. That, on Page 13, Sketch Plan Review for "Shalebrook"
Subdivision, Paragraph two, should read "adjourned until January
9, 1990 at 7:30 p.m."
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - Grigorov, Langhans, Baker, Kenerson, Miller.
Nay - None
Abstain - Eva Hoffmann, Stephen Smith,
The MOTION was declared to be carried.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - February 27, 1990
MOTION by Robert Kenerson, seconded by Virginia Langhans:
RESOLVED, that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board
Meeting of February 27, 1990, be and hereby are approved with the
following correction:
1. That, on Page 1, AGENDA ITEM: INTERVIEWING OF CANDIDATES FOR
PLANNING BOARD VACANCY, should read "The Board interviewed the
two candidates for the Planning Board vacancy in public and then
retired into Executive Session."
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - Grigorov, Langhans, Baker, Kenerson, Smith.
Nay - None.
Abstain - Miller, Hoffmann.
Planning Board -??- June 5 1990
ADJOURNMENT
Upon Motion, Chairperson Grigorov declared the June 5, 1990,
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.
•
•
•
Chapter
I.
II.
III.
IV.
5/29/90
Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan
Outline
Description
Introduction The Town's Comprehensive Plan and
Comprehensive Planning Program
A.
Purpose of the
Town Comprehensive Plan
of
Be
Plan Adoption
and Maintenance
r
State,
Co
Major Plan Assumptions
for the
next
twenty years
D.
Comprehensive
Plan compliance
with
the State
•
•
•
Chapter
I.
II.
III.
IV.
5/29/90
Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan
Outline
Description
Introduction The Town's Comprehensive Plan and
Comprehensive Planning Program
A.
Purpose of the
Town Comprehensive Plan
of
Be
Plan Adoption
and Maintenance
Responsibilities
State,
Co
Major Plan Assumptions
for the
next
twenty years
D.
Comprehensive
Plan compliance
with
the State
Environmental
Quality Review (SEAR)
Campus
Regulations and
Plans
Procedures
Cornell University
and Ithaca
Overview: Community Comprehensive Plans and
Planning Programs
A.
Synopsis
of
Town
Comprehensive Planning
Program
B.
State,
Region,
County,
Town, Village
and City
Comprehensive
Plans.
C.
Campus
Plans
for
Cornell University
and Ithaca
College
D.
Other
Organizations
/Institutions
Inventory of Existing Conditions and Projections of
Future Needs
A: Introduction - History of Town & Planning
Be Community Characteristics — Demographics, Housing
and Land Use -
C. Natural Resources Inventory and Analysis
D. Economic Assessment /Opportunities
E. Transportation Systems Inventory and Analysis
F. Utility Systems Inventory and Analysis
G. Park, Recreation and Open Space Inventory and
Analysis
H. City /Town Intermunicipal Relationships and Joint
Services
I. Community Facilities Inventory and Analysis
J. Town Government
K. Town /Colleges Relations
L. Tax Exempt Lands Inventory & Analysis
Trends and Analysis
A. Introduction
B. National /Regional Development
C. Town Development Trends
D. Land Use and Trend Conflicts
E. Other Trends
EXHIBIT 1
Trends
Analysis
0 v.
•
r]
L
VI.
VII.
VIII.
5/29/90
A.
B.
C.
191
2
Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
Identification of Community Issues and Opinion
Functions of Goals and Policies Statements
Comprehensive Plan Concepts
1.
Land Use
2.
Economic
3.
Social
4.
Environmental
Program Goals and Policies
16
Residential Land Use
2.
Conservation and Open
39
Economic Development
4.
Agricultural Land Use
50
Commercial Land Use
6.
Industrial Land Use
7.
Transportation
80
Public Utilities
99
Parks and Recreation
106
Community Facilities
11.
Education
12.
Administration, Town
Community
Delivery
and Housing Development
Space
Government and Service
Planning Constraints and Opportunities
A. Overview
Be Constraints - Natural and Man -Made
C. Opportunities - Natural and Man -Made
D. Intermunicipal on Constraints and Opportunities
Comprehensive Plan Synthesis
A.
Process
Be
Plan Elements
Co
Land Use Plan
D.
Transportation
Plan
E.
Conservation
and Open Space Plan
F.
Parks and
Recreation
Plan
G.
Comprehensive
Plan Fiscal Impacts
H.
Comprehensive
Plan Environmental
I.
Community
Facility
Plan
Comprehensive.Plan Implementation
Impacts
A. Introduction
B. Regulatory Implementation Measures
Co Zoning Regulations
EXHIBIT 1
•
•
5/29/90
3
D. Subdivision Regulations
E. Other Land Use Regulations
F. Other Regulations - Signs /Parking
G. Non - Regulatory Implementation Measures
H. Town Policies /Management /Government
10 Board and Committee Policies
2. Capital Improvement Program
3. Personnel
49 Organization
5. Municipal Information System
EXHIBIT 1
•
•
•
F
1
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN APPENDICES
Appendix A 1990 Town Residents Survey and Analysis
Appendix B Comprehensive Plan Committee Message and Roles
Appendix C Comprehensive Plan-Committee Public Information Record
Appendix D Planning Department Message and Comments -
Appendix E Environmental
Record
and
Determination of Environmental
Significance
by
Planning
Board
Appendix F Planning Board Public Hearing Record
Appendix G Planning
Board
Resolution.of
Adoption and Maintenance of
Town
of
Ithaca
Comprehensive
Plan
Appendix H Comprehensive Plan Maintenance Records
Appendix I Town Board Resolution of-Acknowledgement and Commitment
to Implementation Measures--
Appendix J Detailed /Supporting Data and Information
Appendix K
5/29/90
Bibliography
EXHIBIT 1
11
•
List of Maps
1
2
ki
9
5
r
7
5
TOWN OF ITHACA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
MAPS OUTLINE
Description
Regional Location Map
Municipal Boundaries Map
Town Map
Town Land Use Map 1968
Town Land Use Map 1990
Residential Densities
Cornell University /Ithaca College Lands and 1990
Campus Land Use Maps
8 Conservation Areas and Committed Open Space Map
(bedrock, steep slopes; wetlands, floodplains,
scenic vistas sites, aquifer, etc.)
9 Existing Public Utilities Map
10 Inter - municipal Service Districts
it State Agricultural Districts /Active Farmlands Map
12 NYSDEC Identified Hazardous Waste Sites /Former
Landfill Sites
13 Soil Limitations Map, Urban Use
14 Soil Limitations Map,,-Rural Use
15 Topography Map
16 Watershed Map
17 Road Jurisdiction Map
18 Traffic Volume and Capacity Map
19 Route 96 Transportation Corridor Plan Map
20 Other State / County /City /Cornell*Transportation
Maps /Plans
5/29/90
EXHIBIT 1
6
• 21 Existing Public Transit Service Map.
22 Existing Parklands and Recreational Areas Map
23 Existing Community Facilities Map
24 Fire Protection and Classifications Rating Map
25 Existing Zoning Map
26 Development Constraints Map
27 Development Opportunities Map
28 Land Use Plan Maps
(Conservation /Open Space Plan Map)
29 Transportation Plan Map
30 Parks and Recreation Plan.Map
31 Public Utilities Plan Map
32 Other Plan Graphics
• _ Photographs (aerial, other)
Charts (Town govt. /Adman. (existing /proposed)
Capital Improvement Program Process
Soil & Water Conservation Dist.- Drainage
Improvement Maps
5/29/90
EXHIBIT 1
•
•
•
r
6
TOWN OF ITHACA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
TABLES OUTLINE
Descriution
Land Use 1968 -1990
Building Permit Data 1970 -1990
Population Trends 1900 -1990
Population Characteristics Data
Profiles and Population Projections.1980 -2010
(City /Town /County)
Town Taxes /Budget
Parks and Recreational Facilities (existing)
Parks and Recreational Standards -and Criteria
Highway Jurisdiction Tables
Trends in Emergency Medical Services
Trends in Fire Protection Services
Trends in Law Enforcement Services /Crime
Public School Facilities, Enrollments and Projections
College and University Facilities, Enrollment, Employment and
Projections
Tompkins Community Hospital Facilities and Projections
Central New York Regional Health Systems Agency Projections
Employment by Industrial Groups and Classifications
5/29/90
EXHIBIT 1
•
Q�GPEPTION -Af
¢ ro
LL
O D
LL
O NEW YORK STATE
HELP CELEBRATE THE OUTDOORS
BY WI
THE PRESIDED
J T
DNGRESS
1965 . 1990
As American citizens, we stand to lose a very important::rogram unless we take some immediate
steps to continue it. The Land and Water Conservation'., :und for 25 years has acted as a leading
federal program used to financially assist federal land acquisition and matching grants for state - and local governments. This fund is used in purchasing ;land for open space protection and
recreational use...The.federal portion of the LWCF has remained in tact. However, the state and
local side of this'program is in great danger because .the President has recommended zero funding
for the state /localside'.in his 1991 budget proposal.
LWCF — WHAT IS. IT?: WHAT ABOUT THE FUTURE?
The Land and Water Conservation Fund has been LWCF funded projects are supposed to be pro -
America's leading federal program to protect and tested forever by law. As -good stewards, Americans
provide land and water resources for recreation for must be vigilant in the use and protection of these
the past 25 years. projects and their funding source, the Land and
Water Conservation Fund.
*.,.The President's fiscal 1991 budget request to
Cngress recommends $0 in funding for the state
and local side of the LWCF.
WHOSE PROGRAM IS IT?
The LWCF is a partnership between the U.S. Con -
grm,.Department of the Interior, the National Park
Service, and state and local governments.
HOW BIG A PROGRAM IS IT?
49. * Since its conception the LWCF has directed more
than $7.3 Billion (derived from oil and gas explora-
tion and development on the Outer Continental
Shelf) into making America's great outdoors ever
greater.
• The money that is made available for state and
'local projects has to be matched dollar for dollar
with local money. Since 1965, over $3 Billion of
LWCF funds were matched by another $3 Billion
from state and local governments for a combined
obligation increase of $6.1 Billion for state and local
projects.
• Over $4 Billion has gone for the protection of our
federal resources.
• Nationally, LWCF has funded over 36,000 federal,
state and local projects since 1965. It has protected
more than 5.5 million acres of recreation and park
lands including seashores, lakeshores, critical
habitats, wild and scenic rivers and trails.
• LWCF grants have developed over 23,000 state
and local park sites to meet close -to -home recreation
needs.
• The "federal side" of the LWCF financed expan-
sion of the national parks from an almost exclu-
*ively western domain to a truly national system. It
,has helped many national forests to become usable
recreation areas and has acquired critical wildlife
and endangered species habitat that might other-
wise have been lost forever.
EXHIBIT 2
,We cannot let a successful partnership die because
competition for.federal dollars has increased.
WHAT CAN WE DO?
•. Write President Bush and your representatives in
Congress. Remind them of the successes and com-
mitments of the LWCF in New York State and that
we have come too far to turn back now.
• Recommend a $200 million State /Local Allocation
to the 25 year successful state /local LWCF partner -
ship,which enhances the quality of life, our recrea-
tion resources, and the beauty of every community in
America. Write today. so your children and your
children's children will continue to have special
places to play and recreate and an opportunity to
enjoy the out of doors like we have had.
*.::Work with and encourage your family, friends,
state and local officials, community and recreation
groups, i.e. scout troops, little league, outdoor clubs
to.write4in support of the continuation of the LWCF.
Contact your state and local governments or your
park and recreation department to provide you with
additional information concerning the LWCF in their
respective areas.
Th is. information is provided as a public service by the
New York State Office of Parks,
Recreation and Historic Preservation.
�
f
•
Q�GPEPTION -Af
¢ ro
LL
O D
LL
O NEW YORK STATE
HELP CELEBRATE THE OUTDOORS
BY WI
THE PRESIDED
J T
DNGRESS
1965 . 1990
As American citizens, we stand to lose a very important::rogram unless we take some immediate
steps to continue it. The Land and Water Conservation'., :und for 25 years has acted as a leading
federal program used to financially assist federal land acquisition and matching grants for state - and local governments. This fund is used in purchasing ;land for open space protection and
recreational use...The.federal portion of the LWCF has remained in tact. However, the state and
local side of this'program is in great danger because .the President has recommended zero funding
for the state /localside'.in his 1991 budget proposal.
LWCF — WHAT IS. IT?: WHAT ABOUT THE FUTURE?
The Land and Water Conservation Fund has been LWCF funded projects are supposed to be pro -
America's leading federal program to protect and tested forever by law. As -good stewards, Americans
provide land and water resources for recreation for must be vigilant in the use and protection of these
the past 25 years. projects and their funding source, the Land and
Water Conservation Fund.
*.,.The President's fiscal 1991 budget request to
Cngress recommends $0 in funding for the state
and local side of the LWCF.
WHOSE PROGRAM IS IT?
The LWCF is a partnership between the U.S. Con -
grm,.Department of the Interior, the National Park
Service, and state and local governments.
HOW BIG A PROGRAM IS IT?
49. * Since its conception the LWCF has directed more
than $7.3 Billion (derived from oil and gas explora-
tion and development on the Outer Continental
Shelf) into making America's great outdoors ever
greater.
• The money that is made available for state and
'local projects has to be matched dollar for dollar
with local money. Since 1965, over $3 Billion of
LWCF funds were matched by another $3 Billion
from state and local governments for a combined
obligation increase of $6.1 Billion for state and local
projects.
• Over $4 Billion has gone for the protection of our
federal resources.
• Nationally, LWCF has funded over 36,000 federal,
state and local projects since 1965. It has protected
more than 5.5 million acres of recreation and park
lands including seashores, lakeshores, critical
habitats, wild and scenic rivers and trails.
• LWCF grants have developed over 23,000 state
and local park sites to meet close -to -home recreation
needs.
• The "federal side" of the LWCF financed expan-
sion of the national parks from an almost exclu-
*ively western domain to a truly national system. It
,has helped many national forests to become usable
recreation areas and has acquired critical wildlife
and endangered species habitat that might other-
wise have been lost forever.
EXHIBIT 2
,We cannot let a successful partnership die because
competition for.federal dollars has increased.
WHAT CAN WE DO?
•. Write President Bush and your representatives in
Congress. Remind them of the successes and com-
mitments of the LWCF in New York State and that
we have come too far to turn back now.
• Recommend a $200 million State /Local Allocation
to the 25 year successful state /local LWCF partner -
ship,which enhances the quality of life, our recrea-
tion resources, and the beauty of every community in
America. Write today. so your children and your
children's children will continue to have special
places to play and recreate and an opportunity to
enjoy the out of doors like we have had.
*.::Work with and encourage your family, friends,
state and local officials, community and recreation
groups, i.e. scout troops, little league, outdoor clubs
to.write4in support of the continuation of the LWCF.
Contact your state and local governments or your
park and recreation department to provide you with
additional information concerning the LWCF in their
respective areas.
Th is. information is provided as a public service by the
New York State Office of Parks,
Recreation and Historic Preservation.
•
•
0
NKPA - 2/2/90
WE HOLD AMERICA's HERITAGE IN TRUST
Passage of H.R. 876 & S. 370, The American Heritage Trust Act, is a 1990 imperative
to protect the nation's recreation, park, historic and wildlife legacies.
Twenty -five years ago, concerns about the rapid loss of
America's natural and historic heritage, increasing recrea-
tion demand, population growth, and burgeoning urban de-
velopment led Congress to enact two of the nation's most
far - sighted conservation programs.
1) The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) was
intended toprovide a predictable and steady source of mo-
nies for critical acquisitions in national parks, forests, rec-
reation and wildlife areas, and matching grants to states
and localities for recreation plannin , acquisition of open
space and recreation land and development of recreation
facilities.
2) The Historic Preservation Fund (HPF), created on the
LWCF model, was to help states and communities identify,
plan for, protect and restore unique historic resources.
Reinvesting Natural Resource Capital
The idea of reinvesting some of the returns from use of
America's natural resources into long -term recreation and
historic assets is one of the Funds' best stewardship inno-
vations. The laws provide that most appropriations
should come from receipts from Outer Continental Shelf oil
and gas leasing and royalties and from sales of surplus fed-
eral real estate. This process blends the best features of
fiscal and natural resource stewardship, joining the invest-
ment principle of "never consuming capital" with the con-
servation ethic of returning to the land something of what
we remove. The Land and Water Conservation Fund now
automatically receives $900 million a year of U.S. Treasu-
ry credit in such income; the Historic Preservation Fund re-
ceives a $150 million a year credit. Under current law,
however, these commitments are more a promise to present
and future generations than a working reality.
Through the 1970s, there was firm, bipartisan support for
that promise; appropriations varied from year to year, but
the long -term comrrutment to appropriations near the au-
thorized levels continued. In the 1980s, LWCF funding
.0
400
a
300
Rul
D]
TOTAL LWCF
APPROPRIATIONS
1965 -1989
Annual Appropriations
is Inflation - Adjusted Dollan
(1%5 ■
100 96)
65 66 67 68 69 70 7172 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88.89
Fiscal Yeats
declined from $805 million to an average of $230 million a
year or less, despite inflation of almost 70 percent. The
fiscal 1990 level of $232 million was, in real dollars, less
than half the amount of the 1966 appropriation.
EXHIBIT 2
Since 1983, HPF grant apppropriations have averaged
under $30 million a year (FY 1990 -$32.7 million) sub-
stantial funding for physical restoration of historic sites
has been available only once in a decade. As a result, au-
thorized but unappropriated "credits" to LWCF and HPF
have increased almost thirty -fold, from $300 million in
1979 to nearly $9 billion, and federal, state and local
a encies that once planned to invest near authorized lev-
es now doubt that the promises will ever be fulfilled.
What H.R. 876 and S. 370 Will Do
In 1989, Rep. Morris Udall and Sen. John Chafee rein-
troduced American Heritage Trust (AHT) bills first con-
sidered in 1988. These bills (H.R. 876 in the House and
S. 370 in the Senate) would combine existing LWCF and
HPF programs with a new funding mechanism. They
would not establish new program or authorize new fund-
ing. They would establish a self - perpetuating Trust to
ensure a return to the principle of natural resource rein-
vestment originally promised. H.R. 876 has 220 cospon-
sors, and has been reported favorably to the whole
House. At the end of 1989, S. 370 had 40 cosponsors, and
Senate hearings are expected soon. The AHT Act will:
• Create permanent Trust accounts for LWCF and HPF.
• Require the Secretary of the Treasury to invest all
authorized but unappropriated balances to date for the
LWCF and HPF into Interest- paying public securities.
• Require appropriation of all interest accrued on in-
vested principal in the subsequent fiscal year, subject to
Congressional oversight and obligation limits, along
with an additional portions of annual income deposits
deem edyappropriate. Any income not appropriated
within a year would become a permanent part of the
Trust.
• Allocate annual appropriations according to the fol-
lowing formula: 30 % for state /local grants; 30 % for
Federal land acquisitions; 10 % for matching principal
deposits of states that establish parallel heritage trusts
10 % for Urban Park and Recreation Recovery grants;
the remaining 20 % at Congress' discretion for any of
these four purposes. Ten % of HPF monies would also be
used to help create state historic trusts.
• To encourage volunteer contributions, five percent of
each state's LWCF grants would have to be partially
matched by private or non - profit donations.
• A 75 % match would be available from LWCF for
state or local land acquisitions involving nationally des
ignated wild and scenic rivers, trails or landmarks.
• LWCF matching grants would be available for thre
years to help localities prepare land conservation and
recreation plans. High priority land acquisitions iden-
tified in plans could receive a 60 % match for seven year
• Federal land agencies would have to submit lists of
priority lands for. LWCF acquisition each year. States
would submit yearly lists of candidate grant projects
based on current state and local action lists.
• The growth of the Funds would be capped at 3.5 time
(for LWCF) and 5 times (for HPF) the balances existing
on the date of enactment of the Trust. After that, the
Funds would be self- sustaining. Appro nations would b%
from interest only, and princippal woulYnever be appro•
priated. Interest would also be sufficient to cover In-
creases in Trust principal to offset the effects of inflatioi
f •
Why is AHT so Critically Needed?
Both Fund programs have been enormously successful:
• LWCF has funded over 36,000 federal, state and local
projects since 1965. It has protected 5.5. million acres of
recreation and park lands including seashores, lakeshores,
critical habitats, wild and scenic rivers and trails.
• HPF grants have helped protect historic and archeo-
logical resources and restored over 6AW historic sites.
• Fund grant programs have helped all states to estab-
lish their own historic preservation and recreation plans,
to identify and protect key natural, historic and archeoe
logical resources, and to expand state park, forest, wild-
life refuge, river and trail systems.
• LWCF grants have developed over 23,000 state and
local park sites to meet close -to -home recreation needs.
• The "federal side "of the LWCF financed expansion of
the national parks from an almost exclusively western do"
main to a truly national system. It has helped many na-
tional forests to become usable recreation areas and ac"
quired critical wildlife and endangered species habitat.
• LWCF and HPF matching grants of 50 percent prompt-
ed states and localities to double the federal investment
to a total of $7 billion.
• Beyond these matching amounts, the example of fed-
eral commitments encouraged the 50 states and thousands
of communities to increase their own budget priorities for
natural and historic resource conservation and recreation.
Despite the substantial accomplishments of the Funds,
•needs for capital investment in recreation, conservation
and historic preservation are greater than ever. The
problems that originally prompted the establishment of
LWCF and HPF are still with us.
•
Loss of key natural and historic resources continues at an
alarming pace. After some slowdowns in the early 1980s,
urban and rural development are now consuming almost
500,000 acres of wetlands yearly, along with 750,000 acres
of farm and forest.
The Surgeon General calls for development of more pub-
lic recreation facilities to promote fitness activities that
can help reduce health costs now totalling over $600 bil-
lion per year. Lists of lost historic and archeological re-
sources grow longer each year. States and communities
have thousands of older parks and historic buildings that
need major renovations.
Lack of money is the major obstacle to .doing what we
know should be done. We know what opportunities are
lacking and what resources need protection. But the prices
of land, facility development and restoration continue to
rise. Estimates of the current backlog of authorized land
purchases within national park boundaries are close to $2
billion. Substantial, but unquantified, backlogs exist for
other authorized conservation and recreation areas.
" We Recommend: .... The Land and Water Conservation Fund
be succeeded by a dedicated trust -- providing a minimum of $1
billion a year - -to help pay for federal, state, and local land acqui-
sition, and state and local facility development and rehabilitation.
Congress should consider creating an endowed trust which, over
time, would be self- sustaining.'
President's Commission on Americans Outdoors
A recent survey projected state and local needs for park
acquisition and development at $1.8 billion over three
years. Ignoring these needs will not make them go away.
The Fund programs are not glamorous, but they are effec-
tive. The only thing wrong with them is that they are
woefully underfunded. With adequate and stable fund-
ing, they can accomplish some of America's most urgent
conservation goals. Keeping them on a starvation diet
will lead to the permanent loss of irreplaceable resources
and increased costs in the future.
These Organizations Support Creation
of the American Heritage Trust -
AMERICAN FISHERIES SOCIETY
AMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST
AMERICAN HIKING SOCIETY
AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION
AMERICAN RIVERS
AMERICAN SOCIETY OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
AMERICAN TRAILS
APPALACHIAN MOUNTAIN CLUB
APPALACHIAN TRAIL CONFERENCE
BICYCLE FEDERATION OF AMERICA
COALITION FOR SCENIC BEAUTY
COALITION FOR URBAN PARKS & RECREATION
THE CONSERVATION FOUNDATION
DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY INSTITUTE
FRIENDS OF THE EARTH
THE GARDEN CLUB OF AMERICA
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT CENTER
HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES
THE IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA, INC.
LAND CONSERVATION FUND OF AMERICA
LANDTRUST EXCHANGE
LEAGUE OF AMERICAN WHEEL MEN
LIGHTHOUSE PRESERVATION SOCIETY
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES
NATIONAL ASSOC, OF SERVICE & CONSERVATION CORPS
NATIONAL ASSOC. OF STATE FORESTERS
NAT. ASSOC. OF STATE OUTDOOR REC. LLAISON OFFICERS
NATIONAL ASSOC. OF STATE PARK DIRECTORS
NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY -- -
NATIONAL CONE. OF STATE HISTORIC PRES. OFFICERS
NATIONAL PARKS & CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION
NATIONAL RECREATION & PARK ASSOCIATION
NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION
NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL
THE NATURE CONSERVANCY
PRESERVATION ACTION
RAILS TO -TRAI S CONSERVANCY
SIERRA CLUB
SOCIETY FOR AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY
SPORT FISHING INSTIT UM
TROUT UNLIMITED
TRUST FOR THE FUTURE
TRUST FOR PUBLIC LANDS
UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF MAYORS
VIRGINIA TRAILS ASSOCIATION
THE WALKWAYS CENTER
THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY
THE WILDLIFE SOCIETY
WORLD WILDLIFE FUND
EXHIBIT 2
A1FFIDA VIT OF PUBLICATION
State of New Fork, Tompkins County , ss.:
Gail Sullins
being duly sworn, deposes and
says, that she/he resides in Ithaca, county and state aforesaid and that
she /he is Clerk
of The Ithaca Journal a public newspaper printed and published in
Ithaca aforesaid, and that a notice, of which, the annexed is a true
copy, was published in said paper
6
a
and that the first publication of said notice was on the :3)
day of 19 �—
Subscribed and sworn to before me, his (3% day
of 19
Notary Public.
JEAN FORD
Notary Public, State of New Yort
No. 465410
Qualified in Tomp<ins County
Commission expires May 31,14.1
•
i
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNINGI
BOARD, NOTICE OF PUBLIC.,!
HEARINGS, TUES., JUNE 51
1990
By direction of the Chairman i
of the Planning Board, NOTICE .1
IS HEREBY GIVEN, that Public
Hearings will be held bytthe
Planning Board of the Town of
Ithaca 5n Tuesday June 5,
1990, in Town Hall, 126 East .
Seneca Street, Ithaca, N:Y., at
the following times and on the
following matters:
7:30 P.M. Consideration of
Subdivision Approval for the i
proposed subdivision
proximately 0.13 acres from
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. ;
6 -61 -1 -14.4, located at 5 Sug- i
arbush Lane, for consolidation
with Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
No. 6 -61 -1 -14.5, located at 3 j
Sugarbush Lane, Residence
District'R -15. Vinay and Saga 'I
Ambegookar, Applicants and
Owners of Tax Parcel No. .6
61 -1 -14.5; Geoffrey and Caro -_
lyn Chester, Owners of Tax
Parcel No. 6 -61 -1 -14.4.
7:45 P.M. Consideration of i
Preliminary Subdivision Ap- i
proval, Stage 1, of the pro - i
posed "Shalebiook" subdivi- I
sion, proposed to consist of 23
lots plus open space on 29
plus /minus acres, 1138 Tru-
monsburg Road, Town of Itha-
ca Tax Parcel No. 6 -27 -1 -11.2, !I
Residence District R -15. Rich-
ard and Jo Perry, Applicant-
s /Owners; Thomas Nieder-
korn, Agent.
Said' Planning Board will at
said times and said place hear
all persons in support of such i
matters or objections thereto..]
Persons may appear by agent
or in person.
Jean H. Swartwood
Town Clerk
273 -1721
May 31
1990