HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1992-10-06• 1 ,
I MW
TOWN OF ITHACA
TOWN OF�ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
Clerk
OCTOBER 6, 1992
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on
Tuesday, October 6, 1992, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street,
Ithaca, New York, at 7:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Chairperson Carolyn Grigorov, Robert Kenerson, James Baker,
Candace Cornell, Herbert Finch, Virginia Langhans, William
Lesser, Stephen 'Smith, Dan Walker (Town Engineer), Floyd
Forman (Town Planner), Richard Eiken (Planner I), John
Barney (TownAttorney).
ALSO PRESENT: Eva Hoffmann; Morris Angell, Mickey Herzing, Gerald
Nye, David Sparrow, Bonnie VanAmburg, B.C. Anderson,
David Auble, Bernie Malloy, Judy Malloy, Peter Newell,
Attorney Shirley Egan.
Chairperson Grigorov 'declared the meeting duly opened at 7:40
p.m. and accepted forthe record the Clerk's Affidavit of Posting and
Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the
Ithaca Journal on September 28, 1992, and October it 1992,
respectively, together with the Secretary's Affidavit of Service by
Mail of said Notice upon, the various neighbors of each of the
properties under discussion, as appropriate, upon the Clerk of the
• City of Ithaca, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning,
upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Public Works, upon the
Resident Engineer of the New York State Department of Transportation,
and upon the applicants and /or agents, as appropriate, on September
30, 1992.
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.
AGENDA ITEM: PERSONS'TO BE HEARD.
Mr. Morris Angell''of 132 Westview Lane addressed the Planning
Board with respect to his sign at Judd Falls Wines and Spirits
located at East Hill Plaza.1
Virginia Langhans !',asked Mr. Angell what the problem was.
Mr. Angell statedl'that the problem was the letter from Cornell
University to the Planning Board. ' Mr. Angell stated that he
understood that the Planning Board wanted a letter from Cornell
University stating there' would never, ever, be a similar sign
erected at the Plaza., Mr. Angell stated that Cornell will never,
ever let a sign of that nature be erected unless there were some
extraordinary reason for doing so.
• Floyd Forman, Town Planner, addressed the Board stating that he
had expected a letter from Cornell Real Estate stating that Cornell
0
•
0% Planning Board -2- October 6, 1992
would not give out another 'request for a hanging sign at East Hill
Plaza. Mr. Forman' stated that two letters had been received from
Cornell Real Estate, one dated Sepember 17, 1992 and another dated
September 22, 1992, [Exhibits # 1 and # 2]. The letter of September
17, 1992 from John Majeroni did not comply with the requirements
which were set for granting a variance for the hanging sign. In the
letter of September 22, 1992, Mr. Majeroni writes, "please be assured
that except for an extraordinary need, Cornell would not support the
request of other tenants for signs of this nature ".
John Barney, Town'IAttor,ney, addressed the Board stating that if
the Board approves Ithe 'letter of September 22, 1992, there is no
reason for another Public Hearing.
Attorney Shirley Egan ',of Cornell University stated that both
letters stated, "there have been no requests from other tenants for
ii
similar signs and at this time [we] do not foresee the need for any
additional marquee orticanopy signs."
Attorney Barney stated to Attorney Egan that Cornell was backing
away a little bit from what Mr. Murray of Sibley Real Estate had made
reference to before the Board at the September 15, 1992 meeting.
Attorney Egan stated) that Mr. Murray was mistaken about what
Cornell University had agreed to. Mr. Murray had made the statement
that Cornell would never, 'ever, allow another sign of this sort to be
put up. Attorney Egan stated that this was not the case. Attorney
Egan referred to the letter of September 22, 1992 from John.Majeroni
in which Mr. Majeroni'Iwrote, "please be assured that except for an
extraordinary need..." and'stated that that is what Cornell agreed to.
Mr. Forman stated that the first letter from Cornell dated
September 17, 1992 did not 'have any reference in it to extraordinary
need, etc.
Virginia Langhans stated that she had been by Mr.
at the East Hill Plaza and noted that she was unable to
for Judd Falls Wines and Spirits due to the new facade.
Chairperson Grigorov! i stated that Mr. Angell's
extraordinary.
Angell's store
see the sign
situation is
Mr. Forman stated:lthatAttorney Egan was correct in stating that
Sibley Real Estate agreed to something at the Planning Board meeting
that they did not have the 'right to agree to. Mr. Forman stated that
the letter of September'22, 1992, would be adequate with him if the
Planning Board agreedRto it'.
There appearing to be no further discussion or comments
Board, Chairperson Grigorov asked if anyone were prepared
motion.
MOTION by James Baker, seconded by Candace Cornell:
k
from the
to make a
Planning Board -3- October 6, 1992
RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board accept and
hereby does accept the attached letter, dated September 22, 1992,
from John E. Majeroni,; Cornell University Real Estate Department, to
Floyd Forman, Town of Ithaca Planner, with respect to the hanging
sign for Judd Falls Wines and Spirits at the East Hill Plaza, as
being in substantial'compl,,iance with the Planning Board resolution of
September 15, 1992, and, therefore, is in order with said resolution
as adopted.
There being no further ';discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, L,anghans, Baker, Smith, Finch, Cornell,
Lesser.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Grigorov declared discussion of the letter of
September 22, 1992, from Cornell Real Estate concerning the sign for
Judd Falls Wines and Spirit's at East Hill Plaza duly closed.
PUBLIC HEARING. CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL
FOR THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO.
44.1 -1 -1 THROUGH 44.1 -1 -317, 23.0 +/- ACRES TOTAL, INTO 21 LOTS, 20
OF WHICH ARE-TO BE RESIDENTIAL LOTS ON THE PROPOSED R -15 PORTION OF
THE SITE (11.2 + /- ACRES),' WITH THE PROPOSED R -30 PARCEL (11.8 + /-
• ACRES) TO BE DEVELOPED FOR ''A SIX -BED HOSPICE FACILITY. PROJECT IS
LOCATED AT THE CHASE POND SITE ON EAST KING ROAD ACROSS FROM CHASE
FARM LANE, PRESENTLY ZONED'' MULTIPLE RESIDENCE DISTRICT. CITIZENS
SAVINGS BANK, OWNER;'', HOSiPICARE OF TOMPKINS COUNTY, APPLICANT; PETER
NEWELL, ARCHITECT, AGENT.
Chairperson Grigorov declared the Public Hearing in the
above -noted matter duly opened and read aloud from the Notice of
Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above.
Peter Newell, Architect for Hospicare, addressed the Board
stating how much he appreciated the help he had received from the
Planning Department, the progress that had been made, how quickly
everything has gone through and how smooth the process has gone to
date, the help received from the Planning Board, the Town Board, etc.
Mr. Newell stated;;that, there were two issues to be discussed.
One is minor and one is maJor.
Mr. Newell stated that he, Mr. Forman, Mr. Frantz, and Mr. Eiken
have worked out the bike path, have made some minor property line
adjustments and are basically working this all out. Mr. Newell did
not think that anyone 'willlhave a problem with it. Hospicare will
end up giving more land to the right -of -way so that the cut and fill
can be done without interrupting other people's property. Normally,
• the right -of -way is twenty feet and at some points, Hospicare is
giving up fifty feet or more.
Planning Board -4- October 6, 1992
The second issue is a little more disturbing to Hospicare. Mr.
Newell stated that he understood that there had been talk about a
road change by eliminating the cul -de -sac, and potentially bringing
the road through to tie Manos' property.
Dan Walker, Town Engineer, addressed the Board stating what he
thought had prompted those 'discussions. The process normally for a
subdivision is for 'the Planning Board to give preliminary approval
with location of the road and then that goes to the Town Board for
their acceptance for the road location. As we have had discussions
over the past couple of years, the number of cul -de -sacs in the Town
of Ithaca has become an' issue from a maintenance standpoint and
access standpoint. This particular cul -de -sac is about 750 feet.
Scott McConnell, Highway Superintendent, has concerns about
cul -de -sacs. Scott would rather not see any more cul -de -sacs because
of the maintenance (costs' and so on. There is a balance there that
the Planning Board needs to'look at from the standpoint of what is
the value from a planning standpoint and the community standpoint of
cul -de -sac versus the fees of maintenance. In this particular
situation that was looked at today with Chase Lane, that alignment is
nicely fixed now and then, east of the property line about 400 feet,
is Ridgecrest Road,', and that is in front of the Manos' property
there. From the Highway Superintendent's standpoint, he would like
to see a loop road coming down which is much easier to maintain; you
do not have turnarounds. In this particular case, unfortunately, the
sponsors of this project do not control this piece of land, so it
makes it a little difficult for the Planning Board to force them to
turn the road around and reconstruct the whole thing. From the long
term planning standpoint,, that would actually be a better
configuration for maintenance if the owner of the adjacent property
were conducive to that, and it would be a nice solution to the
problem. A dead -erid cul -de -sac is nicer for small communities, so
you have the technical aspects, the desirability of the type of
community that is going to be there and the question of whether it is
worth a little extra maintenance time to develop the type of
community. The Planning Board needs to evaluate this and make a
recommendation to the Town Board and then, if the Highway
Superintendent has a problem with it, he will discuss it with the
Town Board.
Robert Kenerson asked if Bill Manos had been contacted and what
Mr. Manos had to say. Mr. Newell stated he had a response to that.
Mr. Walker stated that on October 5, 1992, when the zoning change was
approved, Mr. Manos'' had stated that he did not like the cul -de -sac
there; it is another problem. One thought would be to reconfigure
the lots, have the', same number of lots and have a through road,
similar to what was done at the end of chase Lane between their phase
one and phase two," but there is no assurance in this case that Mr.
Manos would ever want {to continue that road.
Mr. Forman addressed the Board stating that Peter Newell would be
• speaking in a minute and he had some information from Mr. Manos, Mr.
Forman stated Scott (the Highway Superintendent) did talk to Mr.
Walker and Scott also talked to him, but it is not on the record for
Planning Board -5- October 6, 1992
the Town Board, it was' said'ito Mr. Forman as the Board meeting was
going on and as a note to Mr. Walker as well. Mr. Forman offered
that, just so the Planning Board knows that it is not on record for
the Town Board, theHighway Superintendent had not made his feelings
known at a Town Board meeting, other than to Mr. Walker and himself.
Virginia Langhans "asked if this meant no more cul -de -sacs ever.
Mr. Walker stated that there have been a number of discussions at the
Town Board level about 'cul -de -sacs, especially the long ones where
they get out 1200 feet, which are not permitted, or even a permitted
1000 feet, and they are trying to work practical designs,
interconnecting roads,', so there are no dead -end cul -de -sacs; that is
the recommendation the Highway Superintendent is making. There may
be certain situations where'',a cul -de -sac is the best solution from a
planning standpoint.
Mr. Newell addressed the Board stating that he would like to
remind everyone of the cooperative process we have gone through to
now -- the neighbors Cornell, Citizens Savings Bank, the Planning
Department, Planning Board,; Town Board, Hospicare, and the community
at large have all !been'' in favor of what Hospicare is doing. In
general, these plans have been set since prior to the first official
meeting. There have been six or so options that have been discussed
and Hospicare came with a preferred plan that the Planning Board
unanimously approved', of. Hospicare has been moving the bike path to
try to cooperate although even the boards said Hospicare did not have
to take Attorney Barney'.;,s advice. Hospicare has tried to work it
out, Hospicare moved the property lines 50 feet away so the bike path
does not have to be !a liability and Hospicare is now moving the bike
path to be the proper;', safest, etc. The plan at present with the
cul -de -sac is with evenliy spaced houses at the end, Hospicare did
have approval of over ;100 units and the density was brought down to
potentially 30 with!' the new zoning and Hospicare has been trying to
cooperate their best.;' With regard to the bike path, the solution
that had been discussed, the parameters that were given to Hospicare
originally, were to get from Chase Lane down to the top of Deer Run.
The most sensible and economic solution, and preferred by Mr.
Newell's clients, would be to bring it down and have the cut and fill
and dedicate some land, and it would be approximately a 400 -foot bike
path, yet it had been pressed upon Mr. Newell that it would be
advantageous for the community at large, to have the bike path cut
through the property thus being close to over 3,000 feet of bike
path. Mr. Newell stated that this would actually infringe on the
privacy of the lots. ';Mr. Newell stated Hospicare has been sincere in
trying to make everyone happy.
Mr. Newell stated that in regard to Bill Manos, they talked for
about 45 minutes. There are three options that Mr. Manos is looking
at. One was to sell it; ,two would be to develop 12 to 20 units; and
third would be to develop his own private house on it. Mr. Manos had
no idea that his property may be rezoned. Mr. Manos thinks he can
get 12 to 24 condominiums on his lots and that he plans to build some
10 to 20 years down 'the road. Mr. Newell stated that Mr. Manos does
not want the road. Mr. Newell described to Mr. Manos what was going
• Planning Board
-6-
October 6, 1992
to go on because Mr. Newell could not show him the map without
letting Mr. Manos knowithatffour of Mr. Manos' lots are on it without
him knowing that rez,bning; was being planned. Mr. Newell stated that
this was presented to him that this is an R -15 and they could get
four lots with some 2170 feet of road, approximately 50 to 60 thousand
dollars worth of road.!' Mr. Manos does not want a road to cut across
his property. Mr. Ma °nos refused an offer from Mr. Newell of probably
double the market va'!lue of the property if he would sell the
,property; Mr. Manos stated he wanted to hold on to the property. Mr.
Manos was totally against a town road going through his property.
Either way, he plans to develop it whether it be multiple residence,
condominiums. Then Mr;. Manos talked about scheduling. minimum was
five years or more, then moved to ten to 20 years or more. Mr. Manos
stated he did not seellany foreseeable changes in
With either one of his plans, this leaves
temporary road which ''is much more difficult t
temporary T at the?! e
which may likely never b
the Fire Department is
be hard for a fire truck
nd waiting for Mr. Manos t
e developed. It would be
concerned because with no
to turn around.
the near
us with a
o maintain
o build his
unsafe as
cul -de -sac,
future.
dead -end
with a
property
far as
it would
Mr. Newell then spoke about the economics of the road. Right now
there is a generous calling for an 800 -foot road to cover the extra
pavement which is in the cul -de -sac or about $8,000 per unit. If
Hospicare is forced to put in the extra 165 feet of road, it will
cost Hospicare somewhere between $30,000 to $40,000 extra, which puts
• a burden on the entire Hospicare development. This is considered an
undue hardship. Basically, as to the safety of the road, for
children playing, it,jwill be very safe. Even at an R -15, Hospicare is
giving up 4 or 5 lots' to create a sense of peace and serenity.
Privacy is the big issue here.
Judy Malloy, President of Hospicare, addressed the Board stating
that this has been a cooperative group effort from the beginning.
Hospicare has gone ithrough a lot of different designs, different
ideas, to bring the project to where it is now. Ms. Malloy stated
that she thought Hospicare had come to a -point now where this project
needs to move forward.; Hospicare has always wanted this to be a
project that was developed by the community. Hospicare thought the
bike path was a terrific idea; it brought the public to Hospicare's
doorstep in a very pleasant way. Hospicare would like this
development to express a quality of life. The cul -de -sac arrangement
seems to enhance that quality of life; it produces a very calm, quiet
neighborhood; children can ,ride their bikes along the street as well
as the bike paths behind their own yards; Hospicare's feeling is that
unless there is a clear reason to halt or delay the process at this
point to extend this road, Hospicare urges the Planning Board to
continue with Hospicare's original path and move this project ahead
and get this building �ibuilti.
Mr. Forman addressed! the Board stating that the cul -de -sac is a
• unique situation and in the future, the Superintendent of Highways
should be consulted';' earlier in the process and get his input. Mr.
Manos' property was used as an illustration to show how a road could
• Planning Board -7- October 6, 1992
• line up
Because
Planning
Planning
with Ridgecrest Road, and it does not line up all that well.
of the unique circumstances in Hospicare's case, at least the
Department I supports the cul -de -sac and hopefully the
Board will do that.
Eva Hoffmann of Sugar Bush Lane addressed the Board stating she
is very much in favor of the Hospicare plan and would like to see it
move ahead, but as a member of the Environmental Review Committee,
she felt the Environmental Review Committee should comment on this,
but unfortunately, she did not receive any papers on this until
October 5, 19929 There has not been any time for the Environmental
Review Committee to meet, so Ms. Hoffmann suggested that the
Environmental Review„ Committee should have a chance to make comments
at another meeting on `this. Ms. Hoffmann stated that she did not
foresee any problems, but there may be comments from the
Environmental Review Committee.
Chairperson Grigorov asked if anyone from the public would like
to speak on the Hospicare issue.
David Auble addressed the Board stating that he thought there was
a one -unit stipulation put on the Manos property in the Town
Resolution of Approval. Mr. Auble stated that if someone looked into
the files, they would probably find this stipulation .
Chairperson Grigorov asked if anyone else wanted to speak.
• Mr. Newell addressed the Board stating that a zoning change had
been approved by the Town Board on October 5, 1992 and essentially
devalued the property quite a bit, and if you analyze it from a real
estate development point of view, and if now Hospicare has to
reconsider the costs involved and the effect on the neighborhood and
marketability of the neighborhood, etc., it really is something to
think about.
Mr. Walker, Town Engineer, stated that the Town Highway
Department would have additional road work. Mr. Walker stated he did
not see any problem with the cul -de -sac nor with the Highway
Superintendent. Mr. Walker felt that it was important that
evaluations have been"madeland addressed and when the Town Board is
asked to approve this road location, and the Town Board asks why
another cul -de -sac was added, it can be explained that the Manos
property creates a problem "with the intersection.
Virginia Langhans asked Mr. Walker if the Highway Superintendent
has always looked at all of the roads. Mr. Walker stated no, because
the Highway Superintendent is given those roads to take care of, but
yet he has not always "had the opportunity to say how they are to be
configured.
Attorney Barney asked Mr. Newell about some of the cost
information concerning the road and the cost of units. Attorney
• . Barney noted that Mr. Newell had indicated that it was $8,000 per
unit for the road costs. Mr. Newell stated, give or take, it is
Planning Board -8- October 6, 1992
• $160,000 at 800 feet and that includes the ball of the cul -de -sac.
Attorney Barney noted that to do the extra, Mr. Newell had stated
that at 165 feet at the same unit cost it would be $35,000. Attorney
Barney asked Mr. Newell if 25 - 30 feet were taken off the two lots
would that affect the side where there would be a strip for a road,
adding, does this require reconfiguring all the other lots? Mr.
Newell stated it would require shrinking all the other lots.
Attorney Barney asked why would it require lowering all of the other
lots. Mr. Newell stated that Hospicare needs a 60 foot right -of -way.
Mr. Walker, Town Engineer, stated that he thinks everything is a
fine idea. There area couple of things on a technical basis that
need to be addressed so that they can be incorporated. One of them
has to do with easements. The pond has been designed as a stormwater
management system and in checking the topographical information and
comparing it against the original plans, the elevation is supposed to
be up to 1280, but there still needs to be some maintenance and the
Hospicare people if they own the property would be doing that
anyhow. The major impact of that is the drainage. The drainage
comes into the pond, and the water would cut through the dyke,
bringing the water into the pond. Also, because the pond is designed
at a maximum water surface elevation of 1279 -1280, there should be
consideration here that none of the properties here are below 1280 so
that we do not flood it. The pond is 45 -50 feet away from the
property line now for Hospicare.
• Mr. Walker further stated that there is not apiece of that dyke
that had not been disturbed several times. The bedrock looked like
it was averaging 12 to 18 inches. Where the trail is there is more
fill where there is more dyke. Down at the bottom of the dyke there
is at least 2 to 3 feet in there and farther toward the top of the
dyke, there is 6 to 8 feet of fill.
Richard Eiken, Planner I, stated that under SEQR there will be
another site plan review for the Hospicare project which is more
likely to have more impacts on the South Hill Swamp so there will be
more opportunity to review that.
Mr. Forman
stated that the County
took a look at
the South Hill
Swamp. Some of
the comments the County had
was to build
a fence at
the edge to
keep small children and
pets out of the
swamp because
there are some
endangered species, use of
pesticides on
the property,
etc. These
are some of the conditions
that will be listed
for site
plan approval.
Mr. Walker stated that the South Hill Swamp land is all owned by
Cornell University. The drainage from this pond drains down and
makes a sharp right at the boundary of the Cornell property, follows
that property line and then goes to the Deer Run Subdivision. There
is no direct runoff from this site except for the far western portion
of the Hospicare site and will then drain toward the swamp. [Please
• refer to attached letters dated September 28, 1992, marked as
Exhibits #3 and #4, from James W. Hanson, Jr., Tompkins County
Planning Commissioner, to Richard Eiken, Planner I.]
C,
I
•
Planning Board
-9-
October 6, 1992
Chairperson Grigorov asked if anyone were prepared to offer a
motion.
MOTION by William Lesser, seconded by Robert Kenerson:
WHEREAS.
1. This action
is
the Consideration
of Preliminary
Subdivision
Approval
for
the
proposed subdivision
of Town of
Ithaca Tax
Parcels
No.
44.1
-i -1 through 44.1 -1 -37,
23.0 + /- acres
total, into
21 lots,
20
of which are to be residential
lots on
the R -15
portion
of
the
site (11.2 + /- acres),
with the R
-30 parcel
(11.8 + /-
acres)
to be developed for a
six -bed hospice
facility,
located
at
the
former Chase Pond site
on the north side
of East
King Road
across
from Chase Farm Lane,
and
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, and
39 The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on October 6, 1992,
has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Long Environmental
Assessment Form Part I prepared by the applicant, Part II and
recommendation prepared by the Town planning staff, a letter from
the Tompkins County Department of Planning dated September 28,
1992, and a preliminary subdivision plat entitled "Subdivision of
Chase Pond ", dated September 25, 1992, revised September 30, 1992
prepared by George, Schlecht, P.E., L.S., and
4. The Tompkins County Department of Planning has reviewed the
project, pursuant to Sections 239 1 and m of General Municipal
Law, and has indicated in a letter dated September 28, 1992 that
the proposed action will not result in any deleterious impacts
upon County, State, or intermunicipal facilities, and
5. The Town planning staff has recommended a Negative Determination
of Environmental Significance for the proposed subdivision, as
proposed;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca
Determination of Environmental
New York State Environmental
as proposed and, therefore, an
not be required.
Planning Board hereby makes a Negative
Significance in accordance with the
Quality Review Act for the subdivision
Environmental Impact Statement will
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Langhans, Baker, Smith, Finch, Cornell,
Lesser.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Planning Board -10- October 6, 1992
• MOTION by VirginiaLanghans, seconded by Candace Cornell:
WHEREAS.
1. This action
is
the Consideration
of
Preliminary
Subdivision
Approval
for
the
proposed subdivision
located on the western
of Town of
Ithaca Tax
Parcels
No.
44.1 -i
-1 through 44.1 -1 -37,
23.0 + /- acres
total, into
21 lots,
20
of which
are to be residential
lots on
the R -15
portion
of
the
site (Parcel "B",
11.2
+ /- acres), with
the R -30
parcel (Parcel
"A ",
11.8 + /- acres) to
be
developed for
a six -bed
hospice
facility,
located at the
former
Chase Pond
site on the
north side of East King Road across from Chase Farm Lane,
Residence Districts R -15 and R -30, and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has, on
October 6, 19 1,92, made a Negative Determination of Environmental
Significance, and
3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on October 6, 1992,
has reviewed and acceptd as adequate the Long Environmental
Assessment Form Part I prepared by the applicant, Part II and
recommendation prepared by the Town planning staff, a letter from
the Tompkins County Department of Planning dated September 28,
1992, and a preliminary subdivision plat entitled "Subdivision of
Chase Pond ", dated September 25, 1992, revised September 30,
• 1992, prepared by 'George Schlecht, P.E., L.S., and
4. The Town of Ithaca Town Board, at a Public Hearing on October 5,
1992, approved the proposal to rezone the 23.0 + /- acre parcel
from Multiple Residence District to Residence District R -30
(Parcel "A ", 11.8 + /- acres) and Residence District R -15 (Parcel
"B ", 11.2 + /- acres), and
59 The Planning Board, as authorized by Town Law Section
that the site is suitable for a cluster -type subdivision,
20 residential lots (which do not meet all lot
281, finds
whereby
dimension
requirements)
will be clustered
on the
eastern half of
the site
on Parcel "B ",
of the site on
with the hospice
Parcel "A ", and
to be
located on the western
half
6. The subdivision includes a proposal
"A" to be left permanent open
easement located along the northern
for a large
space, and
boundary of
portion of Parcel
a twenty- foot -wide
Parcel "B" and
extending south
between Parcel "A"
and "B" to
King Road
for use
as a recreational
to be dedicated in
path, said portion
perpetuity to the
of Parcel
Town of Ithaca,
"A" and
and
easement
79 The Tompkins County Department of Planning has reviewed the
project, pursuant to Sections 239 1 and m of General Municipal
Law, and has indicated in a letter dated September 28, 1992 that
• the proposed action will not result in any deleterious impacts
upon County, State, or intermunicipal facilities, and
•
•
n
U
Planning Board
-11-
October 6, 1992
8. The Tompkins
County
Department
of Planning has submitted an
additional set
of
comments
in a letter
dated September 28, 1992,
with respect
to
the
pedestrian
easement, South Hill Swamp,
potential use
of
pesticides,
and a
mistake with regard to the
soil type listed
in the
applicant's
EAF Part I;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain
requirements for Preliminary Subdivision Approval, as shown on
the Preliminary Subdivision Checklist, 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 enuncdiated or implied by the Town Board, and
2. That the Planning 'Board hereby grants Preliminary Subdivision
Approval for the proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcels No. 44.1 -1° -1 through 44.1 -1 -37, 23.0 + /- acres total, into
twenty -one lots, as shown on a preliminary subdivision plat
entitled "Subdivision of Chase Pond ", dated September 25, 1992,
revised September 30, 1992, prepared by George Schlecht, P.E.,
L.S., subject to the following conditions.
a. submission of a final plat showing the proposed area to be
left as open' space, and items noted as being required on the
Final subdivision Checklist.
b. Submission of,
a deed for the
portion of Parcel
"A" to remain
as open space
in perpetuity,
in a form to be
approved by the
Town Attorney.
c. Submission of
a deed for the
proposed trail easement
to be
dedicated to
the Town of Ithaca, in a form to
be approved by
the Town Attorney.
d. Submission of a legal description of the subdivision,
including areas in acres or square feet, to be approved by
the Town Attorney.
e. Submission of a tax and assessment certificate from the
Tompkins County Division of Budget and Finance, or other
department as may be appropriate, indicating that there are
no outstanding taxes or special assessments due on the
property to be subdivided.
f. Submission to and approval by the Town Engineer of a
sedimentation and erosion control plan for Parcel "B" of the
subdivision prior to issuance of a building permit for any
of the proposed residences.
g. Approval
Board,
of p the
proposed location of the roads by the Town
Planning Board -12- October 6, 1992
• he Provision of a letter or other document satisfactory to the
Town Attorney evidencing that the owner (Citizens Savings
Bank) joins in the application for subdivision approval.
i. Relocation of the drainage easement on the final plan to
more closely' follow the contour of the land, to be in a
location approved by the Town Engineer.
j. Receipt of a report from, and, if deemed appropriate by this
Board, modification of the plans as may be recommended by
the Environmental Review Committee of the Conservation
Advisory Council.
k. Submission of;;a maintenance plan for the pond structure.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Langhans, Baker, Smith, Finch, Cornell,
Lesser.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Grigorov declared the matter of the Chase Pond
(Hospicare) Preliminary Subdivision Approval duly closed.
• PUBLIC HEARING. CONSIDERATION OF SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE
PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF 5,200 + /- SQUARE FEET FROM TOWN OF ITHACA TAX
PARCEL NO. 43 -2 -21 1.4 +/- ACRES TOTAL, LOCATED AT 105 EAST KING
ROAD, BUSINESS DISTRICT "C ", TO BE CONSOLIDATED WITH TOWN OF ITHACA
TAX PARCEL NO. 43 -2 -14, 1.17 + /- ACRES TOTAL, LOCATED AT 1111 DANBY
ROAD (N.Y.S. RTE. 96B), RESIDENCE DISTRICT R -15. SAMUEL PETER,
OWNER /APPLICANT.
Chairperson Grigorov declared the Public Hearing in the
above -noted matter duly opened and read aloud from the Notice of
Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above.
Mr. Richard Eiken, Planner I, addressed the Board stating that
Mr. Peter wanted to add on to his house parcel, Tax Parcel 43 -2 -14,
and he only had 5 feet on the side, so he came in for an additional
25 feet; he wants to subdivide 25 feet from the adjacent parcel which
is also owned by Mr. Peter, so he gets the requisite 30 feet for the
side yard. No new lots are being created and no new development.
[See map attached hereto as Exhibit # 5.]
Chairperson Grigorov asked Mr. Eiken if there is any problem with
the side yard on the lot Mr. Peter is taking land from.
Mr. Eiken stated that there is no problem, Mr. Peter is taking
the land from Tax Parcel 43 -2 -2 and adding it to Tax Parcel 43 -2 -14.
• Mr. Peter had added on to his home and was in violation of the zoning
ordinance, therefore, it was necessary for him to transfer some of
the land from one lot to the other.
Planning Board -13- October 6, 1992
• There appearing to be no further discussion, Chairperson Grigorov
asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion.
MOTION by Robert Kenerson, seconded by William Lesser.
WHEREAS.
1. This action is the Consideration of Subdivision Approval for the
proposed subdivision of 5,200 + /- square feet from Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No. 43 -2 -2, 1.4 +/- acres total, located at 105 East
King Road, Business District "C ", for consolidation with Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43 -2 -14, 1.17 + /- acres, located at 1111
Danby Road (NYS Route 96B), Residence District R -15, and
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, and
3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on October 6, 1992,
has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Short Environmental
Assessment Form Part I prepared by the applicant, Parts II and
III prepared by the Town planning staff, a plat entitled "Map of
Proposed Subdivision of Lands of Samuel and Ruth E. Peter ", dated
August 10, 1992, revised September 9, 1992, prepared by Howard
Schlieder, P.E., L.S., and
• 4. The Town planning staff has recommended a Negative Determination
of Environmental Significance for the proposed subdivision and
consolidation, as proposed;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a Negative
Determination of Environmental Significance in accordance with the
New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the
above - described action and, therefore, an Environmental Impact
Statement will not be,required.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Langhans, Baker, Smith, Finch, Cornell,
Lesser.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
MOTION by William Lesser, seconded by Robert Kenerson:
WHEREAS.
1. This action is the Consideration of Subdivision Approval for the
• proposed subdivision of 5,200 + /- square feet from Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No. 43 -2 -2, 1.4 +/- acres, located at 105 East King
Road, Business District "C ", for consolidation with Town of
Planning Board
-14-
October 6, 1992
• Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43 -2 -14, 1.17 + /- acres, located at 1111
Danby Road (NYS Route 96B), Residence District R -15, and
•
•
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has, on
October 6, 1992, made a Negative Determination of Environmental
Significance, and
39 The
Planning Board,
at a Public Hearing held on
October 6,
1992,
has reviewed
the Short
Environmental
Assessment Form
prepared
by
the
applicant, Parts
II and III
prepared by
the Town planning
presented that
staff,
a sketch plan entitled
"Map
of Proposed
Subdivision
of
Lands
of Samuel "and
Ruth E. Peter
", dated
August 10,
1992,
revised
September 9, 1992,
prepared
by Howard
Schlieder,
P.E.,
L.S.
and other application
materials;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED.
1. That the
Town of
Ithaca Planning
Board hereby waives certain
requirements
for Preliminary
and Final Subdivision
Approval, as
shown on
the Preliminary
and
Final Subdivision
Checklist, 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.
2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final
Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of 5,200+/ -
square feet from, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43 -2 -2 and
consolidation of said tract with Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.
43 -2 -14 as proposed and as shown on a sketch plan entitled "Map
of Proposed Subdivision of Lands of Samuel and Ruth E. Peter ",
dated August 10,1 1992, revised September 9, 1992, prepared by
Howard Schlieder, P.E., L.S., conditioned upon the following:
a. Submission of an original and four (4) full -size prints of
the final survey map showing the items noted as being
required on the Preliminary and Final Subdivision Checklist,
and approval of said survey map by the Town Engineer prior
to signing of the plat by the Planning Board Chairperson.
b. That the
Town of
separate
to be
parcel so subdivided shall
Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43 -2
from Tax Parcel No. 43 -2 -14,
accomplished by recording
be consolidated with
-14 and shall not be sold
and such consolidation
of an appropriate deed
describing
the newly
created and consolidated
lots.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Langhans, Baker, Smith, Finch, Cornell,
Lesser.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
•
•
Planning Board
-15-
Chairperson Grigorov declared the matter of the
consolidation of lands of Samuel Peter duly closed.
AGENDA ITEM: REPORT OF THE TOWN PLANNER.
October 6, 1992
subdivision and
Town Planner Floyd Forman
addressed the
Board reminding
them
that
the Planning Conference is in
Niagara Falls,
New York this
year,
and
approval was given by the
Town Board on
October 5, 1992,
for
two
members of the Planning Board
to attend. Mr.
Forman had
spoken
to
Candace Cornell and Herbert
Finch about
attending the
Planning
held.
Conference and both
agreed to
attend.
At the next Planning Board meeting, October 20, 1992, there will
be a public information meeting on the rehabilitation of the
existing incinerator and a new smokestack at the Vet College. The
smokestack is to be up to 200 feet high. The State Construction
Authority will be coming to Ithaca to make a public presentation at
that meeting, and hopefully, there will be some technical experts
from Cornell on meteorology who will offer their thoughts as well
about what effect, if any, that stack and incinerator will have, and
also the staff is doing some work at visibility. That site is a
rather high site in terms of location. The height of the stack is
smaller than the boiler stacks at the heating plant, but because
these boiler stacks are in a valley the view is minimized, whereas
this stack at the VetiCollege is much more visible due to the fact
that it is more out in the open.
The stack is metal and the facility will be used for
diseased animals, which at the present time, some animals
transported out, but with this incinerator and stack,
will be able to be disposed of without having some being
out*
disposing of
have to be
the animals
transported
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - I June 2, 1992
MOTION by Herbert Finch, seconded by William Lesser:
RESOLVED,
Mr. Forman further stated that should
this particular issue
look
like
a lot of people; are going to turn
out, there may be
the
possibility
that the next Planning Board
meeting might have
to be
held
at a building that will hold a larger capacity
of people than
at
the
Town Hall building. If this should be
the case, the notice
will
give
the name of the building where the next
Board meeting will
be
held.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - I June 2, 1992
MOTION by Herbert Finch, seconded by William Lesser:
RESOLVED,
that
the
Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board
Meeting of June
2, 1992,
be and
hereby are approved as written.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye -
• Nay -
Grigorov.
Smith.
None.
Kenerson, Baker, Cornell, Finch, Langhans, Lesser,
•
•
^�.V ~nn.ing Board -16- October 6, 1992
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - August 18, 1992
MOTION by Virginia` Langhans, seconded by Candace Cornell.
RESOLVED, that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board
Meeting of August 18, 1992, be and hereby are approved with the
following corrections.
1. That, on Page 1, second paragraph, line four, the name
Mr. Larsen should be changed to Mr. Gordon (of Larsen
Engineers). There was no Mr. Larsen present at this Board
meeting. Mr. Larsen was a typographical error. In addition, Mr.
Gordon's name is to be added to the list of persons also present.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Baker, Cornell, Finch, Langhans, Lesser,
Smith.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - September 1, 1992
MOTION by William (Lesser, seconded by Robert Kenerson:
RESOLVED, that
the
Minutes
of
the Town of
Ithaca
Planning Board
Meeting of September
11, 1992,
be
and
hereby are
approved
as written.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Baker, Cornell, Finch, Langhans, Lesser,
Smith.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES — September 15, 1992
MOTION by Robert Kenerson, seconded by James Baker:
RESOLVED, that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board
Meeting of September 1115, 1992, be and hereby are approved as written.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Baker, Cornell, Finch, Langhans, Lesser,
Smith.
Nay - None.
• The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
•
•
Planning Board -17- October 6, 1992
OTHER BUSINESS
Candace Cornell addressed the Board stating that on October 19th,
the Town Board and the Conservation Advisory Council are presenting
the Open Space Report at 7:30 at the Women's Community Building.
This is a public information meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
Upon Motion, Chairperson Grigorov declared the October 6, 1992,
meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 9:10
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Wilma J. Hornback, Recording Secretary,
Nancy M. Fuller, Secretary,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board.
•
•
CORNELL
U N I V E R S I T .Y
Finance Division
September 17, 1992
Floyd Foreman
Town of Ithaca
126 E. Seneca Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
Dear Floyd:
Real Estate Department
Cornell Business & Technology Park
20 Thornwood Drive, Suite 103
Ithaca, New York 14850
Mail: Box DH - Real Estate
Ithaca, NY 14853 -2801
Telephone: 607 2544660
Facsimile: 607255-9010
SEP 2 1 X92
Per your request of September 15, 1992, this letter is to indicate Cornell University's approval of the
sign for which Judd Falls Wines & Spirits is seeking a variance. Please be assured that this is not a
trend. There have been no requests from other tenants for similar signs and at this time do not
foresee the need for any additional marquee or canopy signs. We do understand Mr. Angell's need
and support his efforts.
We appreciate very much the cooperative attitude and fair consideration that you have given to all
of our projects at the Plaza. They will make a difference and make shopping more convenient for
the all of the residents of the'Town. I am especially grateful for your personal support.
,VerPruly yours,
Jofn Fy. Majeroni
cc: J. Murray, Sibley Real Estate
M. Angell,* Judd Falls Wines & Spirits
EXHIBIT # 1
fQ
CORNELL
U N I V E R S I T Y
•
Finance Division
September 22, 1992
Floyd Foreman
Town of Ithaca
126 E. Seneca Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
Dear Floyd:
Real Estate Department ".Mail: Box DH - Real Estate
Cornell Business & Technology Park Ithaca, NY 14853 -2801
20 Thornwood Drive, Suite 103 Telephone: 6072544660
Ithaca, New York 14850 Facsimile: 607 255-9010
I[�r
`CEIVED
[ #A
As a condition of Planning Board!; approval, this letter is to indicate Cornell University's approval of
the sign for which Judd Falls Wines & Spirits is seeking a variance. We also wish to state that this
request is not a trend. There have been no requests from other tenants for similar signs and at this
time do not foresee the need for any additional marquee or canopy signs. We understand that the
Planning Board was very concerned about additional signs of this type. Please be assured that except
for an extraordinary need, Cornell would not support the request of other tenants for signs of this
nature. We do understand Mr. Angell's need and support his efforts.
We appreciate very much the cooperative attitude and fair consideration that you have given to all
• of our projects at the Plaza. They will make a difference and make shopping more convenient for
the all of the residents of the Town. I am especially grateful for your personal support.
•
rti
Very truly yours,
John E. Majeroni
JEM /ss
cc: J. Murray, Sibley Real Estate
M. Angell, Judd Falls Wines & Spirits
EXHIBIT # 2
0
DEPAR*TM
Biggs Buifdi
James W. Hanson, Jr.
Commissioner of Planning
�s
Drive
G
TOWN OF
PLANNING, ZONIN
TO: Richard Eiken, Planner I
Town of Ithaca
FROM: James W. Hanson,'Jr., Commissioner W
DATE: September 28, 1992
RE: Zoning Review Pursuant to §239 -1 and -m of the New York State General
Municipal Law
Telephone
(607) 274 -5360
Action: HospicareiiSubdivision and Zone Change Request. Tax Parcel 6- 44.1 -1 -1
through 37.
• This memorandum acknowledges your referral of the proposal identified above for review and
comment by the Tompkins County Planning Department pursuant to §239 -1 and -m of the New
York State General Municipal Law.
The proposal, as submitted, will have no significant deleterious impact on intercommunity,
County, or State interests. Therefore, no recommendation is indicated by the Tompkins County
Planning Department, and you are free to act without prejudice.
Please inform us of your decision so that we can make it a part of the record.
EXHIBIT # 3
A
ZaRecycled paper
0
•
4
% .1 %y
DEPARTMENT'4F PL,
Biggs Da,
IEh ac5;-New- -York 14850%1
James W. Hanson, Jr.
Commissioner of Planning
TO: Richard Eiken, Planner I
Town of Ithaca I �'
FROM: James W. Hanson, Jr., Commissioner
DATE: September 28, 1992
Drive
G
SEP 3 012 U �
iG'W1GF
INN. ZnINN.,
RE: Hospicare Subdivision and Zone Change. Tax Parcel 6- 44.1 -1 -1 through 37.
Telephone
(607) 274 -5360
Aside from the §239 review of the Hospicare subdivision, the Planning Department would like to
offer the following comments.
The pedestrian easement runs along the back of the subdivision. Can it be accessed by more than
just the lots adjoining the easement, e.g. Deer Run Subdivision? Also, would it be possible to
extend this to the street?
A Unique Natural Area, South Hill Swamp, is located immediately west of the Hospicare
Subdivision. According to the Unique Natural Area study, one bird specie and fifteen plant
species classified as rare or scarce are located in the South Hill Swamp. The description of the area
notes that trampling in the area could destroy small plant species and that neighborhood pets could
pose a threat to the prarie warbler. Given these concerns it is suggested that pedestrians and pets
be discouraged from entering the site.
Due to the drainage pattern and proximity of parcels one through five as well as the location of
Hospicare relative to the pond, ,it is suggested that pesticide use be restricted for this area. This
could be done through the deed restrictions, for example.
Finally, we suggest one correction to the Environmental Assessment Form. Soil type TeA is listed
as being well- drained. According to the Tompkins County Soil Survey, the Tuller series soils are
characterized as poorly- drained to somewhat poorly- drained. The soil survey notes that wetness
and shallowness of soil type TeA are limitations for most non - agricultural uses (depth to bedrock is
listed as eighteen to twenty-four inches),
EXHIBIT # 4
�� Recycled paper
•
0
.r4
R•
r r
dN ,
la2'N �
y t ,jai,
�F
1
r
ui �`I{
C t i °j [. !.b �'.l t , \rJa.l: f }(� I a , i, �wr +�^y., !!' .tF g.,{y+ �m 'J"x y {✓<�C7 '?7r +jp'R�• ^- ',f+%4 •Ll * "j."C''h' Flr l'•" ('1y''�''Y! T — f•'...n1tS` e'.�.' - •Y.p r �.. -. _ h. �. ..
�T . {ty ,. +� ii �� ) '�'• ! 0.'•�„'t?.A:4: •�,
Ale. - ly" rr ir"ft f
5 "S SFl H H `in ik +^6'+ s • �I K
't - ,:.'ol Rt tr.� t 2 •'R.•j�e ^ ry Vt'"' *.P ^ * x 'js"^i lLri'Te �yi 1 • ..l�,r.4.1 M /t 'a In1 py ..ii L
J t 1 f d i \jy 7 4 I$Se 11 t a
F.'�..r, /5y-'✓+['• f• "'Mryh v.i'?,4 *L�r �J.c "r ti.J'. ::{ v %ta Ec .... *:1;. . 1 t.�rr 1.
\ 1 ' 5♦� ,
✓,S v. '.< r r, i / nY a/1 ' nIfY c: °rkY X�r lrf l �' oF,�f � wo
,' I : ,, \ Y� �• 4S7J `Yln Yflr'\ /, i.. { •.t
' t :'' . t S le ? i 1 rr�y `, wY. '*lr k �\ i f + r
It
>•' :.t ''i I..a Fµ'gjr. .+ rVF {'" 5 iiily�ir'01' .e, lad
LI
I ti rt' J /4 1\ V Z I•
ml� It
I It
it IP
k1A1 I-
IN
z C, 4 a f /DUsC ROA
Ur J mkh
Lsroe "Q i�SrY
Faame y;;',; i•
Dwei . 1 Q� 1
3 C\ pZ p %�
N
i /V /FSAM&%?UTN ,'� �1
kkk
CoXYTArN3 /.:jJ ACRFS 0 Q M a
3t
m Etl
?' OPORJSEO 1 /ELF V'y l ip tiQ(5
I.
I prom
b N1S6 °/8 =30 <-- 20� 3l0 nor CC P
�:(
(clyi- 49/) conrZNS
T 8 J n vT
W N O BE COniNS}NED w}rN
4z.1 1
R et vj -s Fy. �(
9 �
0 1Srraey� °- y3L /6"OF
�l 1�► -�WEU/NG
\ ' oAN.er ,Qp co��TarNS ('y8o -sy) 'w
Oleo
(� I. OR}vE
N
WAr W o
/r 3A� 8 RUTiy �i nl ti'
rod e Z ETFl� Nc-ofic
JC7F irE- � M
uncut '�—• c ,
E /VAS= u6 '
/ll5 . DANBY /�pF N/F J9m�s I M n
t� G JiP•dSR.$ PyTp /ciA J, t3BNNf77-
Z -13 Z.
RAF �FA�t /IGS 9ND P/smA ICES TROM I?INP
8Y 6FOe6e C• SCNrECNT, AF, Je!r S• xr 49 ?.', ?. .
H9 190, DATED AUGZ, /9b�
MY4P 70 Sw)v MoPo5ED 5ugpiV 15/aN &)A)W
0 MAP Of PPOP0546) SUED /VISION
O D
�.•`� �OF N = OF •SANDS DF
OCT : I` 1992: ° , s ' SAMUEL 8 PUTH E. / Ec 45P
I 96Bj
d c • .: T 70 ' 7D1VN Oi YT HAcA, 7bMPK1NS co.
TOWN OF ITHACA - n TS _
o
PLANNING ZONING F.NGINEERINQ : '"�, '�rW. �i - ' • •'. , ' New yop)<f
^ ' � ! I t - � vl . +. •��j R�4a'T'° 043��4 �V. �.�; - �; ..• ..
AG +/� /9/'SOr }
,� .'; J r•nnu►. , Or 92 Pi�EH9.PtD tsY
;QiNFNOFO 3EgT 9 '/992 HvWAkO kr SCN3FAF�
i xil'. �. 1_! r r.. �.• ^,
1
.4 r.. " "'XS. /•[.ry /.
EXHIBIRT , #' 5 ,
Z 4: 4�[ '',�1: _.�_.,ZT'.L \u.�•
Pol