HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1987-03-11 TOWN OF ITH c
Date
Clerk
• TOWN OF ITHACA
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
March 11 , 1987
A regular meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of
Appeals was held on March 11 , 1987 in the Ithaca Town Hall , 126
East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York ,
PRESENT Chairman Henry Aron , Edward Austen , Edward King ,
Joan Reuning , Jack Hewett , Building Inspector Andrew Frost , and
Town Attorney John C . Barney .
ALSO PRESENT : Patti Farrell , Tom Farrell , Craig P . Wilkins ,
Mary Bergman , , Emmett Bergman , Helen Barnett , Ruth A . Miller , Jane
E . Hardy , Tom Shea , Dale Morse , Leslie Morse , William H . Brown ,
Karen Brown , Ginger DeKay , Robert DeKay .
The public meeting opened at 7 : 00 p . m .
Chairman Aron stated that all posting and publication of the
Public hearings had been completed and that proper affidavits of
same were in order .
The first item on the agenda for consideration was as
follows :
ADJOURNED APPEAL ( from September 10 , October 15 , November
12 , and December 10 , 1986 ) of Mark Stevens , Appellant , from
the decision of the Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement
Officer ' denying a Certificate of Compliance for a single
family dwelling located at 118 Compton Road , Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No . 6 - 36 - 2 - 4 . 2 , Residence District R30 , said
dwelling having been constructed with an east side yard of
less than 40 feet . Certificate is denied under Article V ,
Section 21 , and Article XIV , Section 76 , of the Town of
Ithaca Zoning Ordinance ,
Mr . Stevens did not appear . Chairman Aron inquired of
Andrew Frost if he had any information on why Mr . Stevens did not
appear . Mr . Frost stated that Mr . Stevens was negotiating a
settlement with Mrs . Allen to obtain the required sideyar d for
his property next door to hers but as yet had nothing in writing .
Further he explained Mrs . Allen was out of town for several
months and therefore Mr . Stevens had to wait until her return to
pursue the matter further .
A motion ' was then made by Chairman Aron as follows :
This Board shall adjourn the appeal of Mark Stevens for an
I
ndefinite period of time until Mr . Stevens has time to get
his materials together at which time he will notify the
Zoning Enforcement Officer who will in turn notify the
• 2
Chairman so that this matter can again be placed on the
agenda .
The motion was seconded by Edward Austen .
The voting was as follows :
Aye - Aron , Reuning , King , Austen , Hewett
Nay - None
The motion was carried .
The second item on the agenda was as follows :
APPEAL of Dale Morse , Appellant , from the decision of the
Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer denying
permission for the refinishing and sale of antiques from an
existing barn exceeding 200 square feet in size 'Located at
157 Lower Enfield Road , also known as 231 Enfield Falls
Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 34 - 1 - 12 . 2 , Residence
District R - 30 . Permission is denied under Article V ,
Section � 19 , Paragraph 2 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning
Ordinance , whereby customary home occupations are permitted
under certain conditions .
• Chairman Aron declared the Zoning Board of Appeals the lead
agency in this matter as to the environmental assessment .
Mr . Dale Morse then addressed the Board . He stated that one
of the reasons why they had most of the neighbors at the public
hearing was that everyone was concerned about maintaining the
neighborhood in the character that it now was . He further stated
that in asking for a variance some of the neighbors were
concerned that in the future the granting of a variance would
allow other businesses to come into the neighborhood . Mr . Morse
explained that they would not seek a variance if it would mean
that it would allow other businesses to come into the area and if
the
. granting of a variance endangered the neighborhood :in any way
they would want the strictest variance possible so as not to
allow this to happen .
Mr . Morse further stated that they had spent approximately
$ 10 , 000 . 00 into renovating the barn with interior repairs . He
stated that the barn was in quite a dilapidated state before
renovations commenced .
Mrs . Leslie Morse explained that the antique business was
something she had been interested in for some time and in the
past has refinished furniture on a small scale . She went on that
she would now like to sell some of the furniture , Mrs . Morse
stated that she has one child now and plans to expand her family
in the future and would then like to work at home rather than go
3 ,
• out of the home to work .
Mr . Morse stated that this operation was a part - time
endeavor , that he was a professor at Cornell University and his
wife was a realtor .
Chairman Aron inquired whether this part - time operation
could eventually turn into a full - time business .
Mrs . Morse responded that that might happen in the future
but she would be happy to have the strictest restrictions on any
variance granted to insure that the operation would not get too
large .
Chairman Aron then opened the public hearing .
Tom Farrell of 151 Enfield Falls Road who lives next door to
Mr . and Mrs , Morse addressed the Board . He explained that the
two houses are very close and in fact they share a driveway . He
stated that he fully supported the appeal of Mr . and Mrs . Morse ,
Mr . Farrell continued that over the past years the Mouses have
made numerous improvements to the house and barn which have
historical value in the neighborhood . Mr . Farrell stated that
Mr . and Mrs . Morse had assured the neighbors of what their plans
• are as to the amount of business to be conducted and also the
parking concern . Mr . Farrell said he believed them as they both
have their own full - time careers and travel extensively and also
because over the years they have always been agreeable to
problems of upkeep of the property . He continued that the
traffic would be nowhere near as great as what Treman State Park
brings in during summertime along their road and that the park
would have another entrance in the future so that will eliminate
much traffic on that road . He concluded by giving his
wholehearted approval of the project contemplated by Mr . and Mrs .
Morse ,
Mr . Emmett Bergman of 212 Enfield Falls Road was opposed to
the variance . He referred to a petition signed by 1. 9 of the
neighbors in opposition .
Chairman Aron then read said petition , a copy of which is
attached hereto as Exhibit 1 .
Chairman Aron pointed out that even though there were 19
signatures on the petition several of the signatures were from
the same household thereby reducing the amount of homeowners in
the area in opposition to the project to half that amount .
William Brown , park manager of Robert Treman State Park
• spoke next. He explained that the Morse residence is inside the
park entrance and as with the Farrell residence their driveway
comes out to the park road which is maintained by the park . He
. 4
stated that Mr . Andrew Mazzella , Regional Director of the State
Parks Commission had directed him to represent Robert Treman
State Park in saying that the park had no opposition and in fact
supported the appeal of Mr . and Mrs . Morse .
Craig Wilkins of 234 Enfield Falls Road asked why the
petitioners were against the endeavors of Mr . and Mrs . Morse ,
Mr . Bergman replied that they felt it would change the
nature of the neighborhood and they would like to keep businesses
out of the area .
Robert DeKay of 130 Enfield Falls Road stated that adjacent
to his land was a vacant lot of six or seven acres and his
concern was 'that perhaps some other business such as a gas
station would ' go in that vacant lot . He continued that if they
could be assured that this would not happen they would riot object
to the Morses having an antique shop on their premises .
Chairman Aron explained that as to gas stations or
convenient marts or the like , such an operation could riot be put
into an R30 at anytime without rezoning of the area and this
would not happen .
• Jane Hardy of 215 Enfield Falls Road said that she has lived
in the neighborhood since 1956 and worried that if a variance was
granted it would set a precedent in the future for :come other
kind of commercial venture to go in the area .
Chairman Aron at this point interjected that the matter at
hand was the subject of a home occupation and since it is not in
the home itself that is why Mr . and Mrs . Morse were before the
Board . He continued that if it was for a commercial occupation
it would have been absolutely denied .
Ruth Miller of 216 Enfield Falls Road stated that the
neighborhood now was beautiful being next to the park and she
would like to: see it continue in the character that it now was
and worried about something like an automobile car lot being
placed somewhere in the neighborhood .
Mr . Tom Shea of 210 Enfield Falls Road had no opposition to
this appeal .
The public hearing was then closed .
Chairman Aron then read from the recommendation as to
environmental assessment of the Town Planner : " Lead Agency : Town
of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals , Reviewer : Susan C . Beeners ,
• Town Planner , Review Date : March 3 , 1987 . Said document is
attached hereto as Exhibit 2 , being Parts II and III of said
recommendation .
4 ,
• 5
Chairman Aron then inquired of Mrs . Morse whether she was in
the antique business because she needed the income or because
this was a hobby and Mrs . Morse responded that it was a hobby .
Chairman . Aron asked if the hobby would bring in at some time
some extra revenue even though it was not needed and Mrs . Morse
responded that it would .
Chairman Aron then stated that it appeared at the present
time that if Mrs . Morse was not granted the variance she would
not suffer a hardship since they were both employed , Mr . Morse as
a professor and Mrs . Morse as a realtor . Mr . Morse interjected
that the hardship would come from the fact that they had invested
some $ 10 , 000 . 00 in renovations to the barn and Mr . Aron inquired
as to whether they would have done that anyway since the barn was
in a dilapidated condition and Mr . Morse responded that probably
they would have although not on the scale that they had done .
Chairman Aron then asked if they had put in renovations costing
$ 10 , 000 . 00 not knowing what they were going to use the barn for .
Mr . Morse responded that in the first phases of their endeavors ,
they had tentative approval from some of the neighbors as to
their antique business so therefore had proceeded on this basis .
Edward Austen asked how many pieces of furniture Mrs . Morse
had in the barn and she responded that there were about fifteen
Pieces at the present time . Mr . Austen asked if she planned on
expanding this business to any huge proportions and Mrs . Morse
responded that she did not and repeated that if a variance were
granted they would want restrictions placed on it to make sure
this did not happen .
Mr . Austen asked what hours Mrs . Morse planned on operating
the business and Mr . Morse responded that they had no special
hours , that it would be more like people dropping in if they saw
the sign that Mrs . Morse planned on putting up if she was home at
the time .
Attorney , Barney inquired what kind of a sign they planned on
putting up and Mr . Morse said that at this point they had no
plans for any particular kind of sign but knew that when they
were at that "stage they would have to come back before the Board
to obtain approval .
Joan Reuning mentioned that Mrs . Morse ' s application had
stated something about by appointment only and Mrs . Morse
responded that it would probably be on that basis and that she
might advertise in the paper for a specific piece she was
selling .
Chairman Aron then inquired as to how Mr , and Mrs . Morse
came upon their antiques and Mrs . Morse responded that it was
through auctions and garage sales . Chairman Aron asked if Mrs .
• 6
Morse was qualified to appraise antiques and Mrs . Morse responded
that she was not but she and her husband read a lot about the
matter . She further stated that they picked up the pieces at
sales and then stripped them , refurbished them and then sold
them .
Chairman Aron asked if when Mrs . Morse stripped the
furniture did she use some chemicals which were highly
inflammable . Mrs . Morse responded that she used zip strip and
when she used same there had to be some ventilation . chairman
Aron stated that zip strip was highly inflammable . Chairman Aron
asked what else Mrs . Morse used and she replied that she used
turpentine and hand sanding . Chairman Aron asked if she used
acetone and she replied that she did not .
Edward Austen asked how much space in the barn would be
used . Mrs . Morse responded that they would probably use half of
the barn .
Mr . King inquired if it was a two - story barn and Mr . Morse
responded that it was but that even though there was a loft they
did not think they would be using any part of the loft for sales
but that maybe it would just be a workshop .
• Mr . King said that part of the problem was that home
occupations were usually restricted to 200 feet and that any
space used for display and sales should be restricted to the 200
feet according to the ordinance unless the Board felt that
additional space in the barn could be used .
Mr . King then inquired what the $ 10 , 000 . 00 had been spent on
and Mr . Morse responded that they had installed lighting on both
floors and in fact rewired the whole barn , filled in cracks , put
in new windows , fixed the loft which was collapsing , and put
stairs up to the loft . He added that the roof needed to be
repaired also . Mr . King asked if then one could say that half of
the repairs were structural repairs and Mr . Morse responded that
was correct .
Mr . King then asked how much space they were contemplating
using for display and showroom space and Mr . Morse responded they
would need more than 200 square feet , perhaps more like 800
square feet because once you have four or five dressers in the
area that would pretty much fill up the space . Mrs . Morse stated
that it would be awkward to limit it to 200 square feet as you
would have to put a line down the middle so as not to use the
rest of the space .
Attorney Barney inquired if they were planning on having any
• outdoor display and Mrs . Morse responded they were not , only a
sign .
Chairman Aron inquired if they were contemplating an open
house and Mr . Morse responded they were not , that what they
wanted to avoid was having a lot of people there at one time ,
that it would be on a drop - in basis and not specific times that
would attract many people altogether . Mrs . Morse stated that
they would prefer to do it this way rather than as a garage sale
because she felt this would be much more disturbing to the
neighborhood . Chairman Aron responded that a garage sale was a
one - time thing where the business they contemplated was more or
less a semi - permanent business .
Chairman Aron inquired if they picked up the furniture
themselves or had it shipped in and Mr . Morse replied that they
picked it up themselves .
Chairman Aron inquired as to how many square feet Mr . and
Mrs . Morse felt they would need and Mr . Morse responded that the
area was a big open space and they had about 800 square feet
available . Chairman Aron said that the more space available to
them , the more pieces they would have to sell , and the more
people it would attract . Mrs . Morse said that with her working
and with having a small child she did not think she would
accumulate that much furniture to sell .
• Mr . Frost stated at this point that in terms of visiting the
property and establishing whether Mr . and Mrs . Morse needed a
building permit it was his estimation that as long as there was
no structural change in the barn and as long as any electrical
work was done through a reputable agency and as long as the total
cost of any renovations was under $ 10 , 000 . and as long as the
basic safety issues were not changed , a building permit was not
required , so whatever additional work needed to be done the Board
should be looking at a building permit being required .
Chairman Aron then brought up the question of public
liability and Mrs . Morse responded that they would take care of
it depending on the outcome of the appeal .
Mr . Frost then expressed some concerns . He felt that if Mr .
and Mrs . Morse decided to finish antiques and have occasional
garage sales , he did not think that would be in violation of the
ordinance . He also was concerned with the 200 square foot useage
requirement because if someone were to have storage in a barn he
would have difficulty in determining whether this should be part
of the 200 foot area . Mr . Frost continued that if the Board did
not grant a variance and then in the future he were to get a call
that Mr . and Mrs . Morse were having a garage sale , and then a
month later he were to get another call about another garage
sale , he might not see that as a violation of the ordinance . Mr .
• Frost explained he wanted to bring this matter up now to see how
the Board would feel about it . He summed up that it was his own
opinion that as to the 200 square feet useage it was his opinion
that 200 feet could be used as storage and then additional
footage could be used for display and sales and he would view
this as being in line with the ordinance .
Chairman Aron said that he did not wish to argue with the
Zoning Enforcement Officer but the area in question was all open
space and if the space were separated by a partition it would be
a different situation . Chairman Aron asked if Attorney Barney
concurred and Attorney Barney responded that he did .
Mr . Frost said that in reading Section 19 , Article 2 of the
ordinance customary home occupations would be allowed in R30
districts provided that among other things that there are no
goods or products publicly displayed .
Chairman Aron stated that there was no mention of antique
shops . He further stated that he would have difficulty granting
a variance since that variance would stay with the property and
when the property was sold it would be sold with the variance
attached . Mrs . Morse asked if could be terminated with the sale
and Chairman Aron responded it could not . Mrs . Morse inquired
whether it could be granted specifically for an antique shop .
Chairman Aron then stated that personally he was very hard -
pressed to grant a variance at all since there was no hardship
whatsoever proven since both Mr . and Mrs . Morse were both
employed and not needful of extra income and this was only a
hobby on the part of Mrs . Morse ,
Attorney Barney asked about the zip stripping and whether it
created an odor . Mrs . Morse responded that window s should be
opened for safety to the person using it but that it would not be
injurious to others in the area and the odor would not carry very
far . Chairman Aron interjected that there was a warning on the
cans and although it did not give the ingredients there were
chemicals in the compound and if used in a closed room it can be
hazardous to your health . Attorney Barney asked if it was a
situation where the neighbors should be concerned about the odor
and Mrs . Morse responded that it was not a problem .
Mrs . Morse addressed the matter of this being a hobby with
her and stated that although it was a hobby at this time in the
future she wished to have additional family and then she would
like to be at home with them and then it would not be a hobby .
Mr . King said that in the past the Board occasionally had
found a way to avoid granting a variance which would change the
character of the property and that in the case of a, customary
home occupation they might grant a permit as long as the
• occupation was a low - key one but in the event it strayed from
this and there were too many people coming in and too much
traffic then it could be rescinded . Mr . King felt this kind of
• 9
decision would do justice to everyone concerned .
Attorney Barney stated that under Section 77 , paragraph 8 ,
the Board may impose upon the applicant such reasonable
conditions so as to protect the general welfare of the community .
Attorney Barney felt that if the Board chose to grant the
variance it could be structured with the strictest limitations
imposed upon it adopting the language relating to home
occupations such as , square footage limitations , no employees , no
odors , no outdoor displays , a sign of very limited size , etc .
Attorney Barney further added that this would go with the
property and if someone else bought the property they would be
under the same strict limitations .
Mr . King stated that he felt that this was a barn of some
extensive square footage that if allowed to become an eyesore
would be detrimental to the neighborhood . He went on to say that
only allowing 200 square feet of this barn to be used as a home
occupation was silly . Mr . King felt that he would like to see
the barn used as a home occupation under strict limitations and
if they were not met then the Morses would have to cease and
desist from continuing the operation .
• Mr . Morse agreed with this saying that if the neighbors felt
at any time that the business was getting out of hand they would
want them to speak out .
The public hearing was then again opened .
Ginger DeKay of 130 Enfield Falls Road questioned the
parking problem . She stated that if they had more than four
people there at one time it appeared that they would have to park
on the street . Chairman Aron stated that on - street parking was
illegal and they could not do that anyway . Mrs . DeKay inquired
where the people would park if there were more than four people
at one time .
Mr . Morse said they planned on paving the driveway and they
could fit up to six cars in the driveway and that sometimes she
and Mr . Morse parked in front of the barn which would make for
more room for other cars so they did not see this as a problem .
Mr . Bergman stated that the barn is in fact now being used
as there are horses in the barn on the lower floor . He stated
that last year there were eleven or so horses in the barn .
Chairman Aron inquired how many horses were being harbored in the
barn now and Mrs . Morse responded that there were eight , some of
which were theirs and some of which belonged to other people .
• Chairman Aron asked if they received remuneration for this and
Mrs . Morse responded they did receive minor remuneration .
Ruth Miller 216 Enfield Falls Road was concerned about the
• 10
fire danger because on the same level of the anticipated shop
there has always been storage of hay for whatever animals were on
the lower level . Mrs . Miller said that she was worried about the
inflammable materials used in the antique shop business being so
close to the hay which could cause a flash fire .
Mr . Thomas Farrell of 151 Enfield Falls Road stated that the
work that Mr . , and Mrs . Morse had done on the barn had prevented
it from caving in which would have caused an eyesore in the
neighborhood . He went on to say that as far as the horses were
concerned he lived right next door to the Morses so therefore had
90 % of the flies caused by the horses , and also was affected more
by the smell . He continued that the number of horses had gone
down and Mr . and Mrs . Morse plan to allow only a certain 1 or 2
neighbors to board horses there and the number would go down
further if the antique shop were allowed to exist .
Mr . Frost at this time stated that to get back to the
question of dangerous materials , he felt that a couple of cans of
zip strip would not be that hazardous .
As to the environmental assessment Edward King made a motion
as follows .
• This Board moves that based upon the findings and
recommendations of the environmental reviewer , Susan
Beeners , we find a negative determination of environmental
significance provided that any use of this nature is
controlled and limited as has been recommended .
Edward Austen seconded the motion .
The voting was as follows :
Aye - Aron , Reuning , Austen , Hewett , King
Nay - None
The motion was carried .
As to the matter of the variance Joan Reuning said that she
would like to see the variance terminate with the ownership of
the property and wondered if this was possible .
Attorney Barney stated that a stipulation could be put in
that the variance ends with the transfer of the property .
As to the variance , a motion was made by Edward King as
follows :
• RESOLVED , that this Board grant a variance to Mr . and Mrs .
Morse to permit the limited preparation of antiques as has
been presented upon the understanding that it will be
• 11
conducted with adherence to the usual home occupation rules
outlined in Section 19 , Subdivision 2 of the ordinance ,
except as to the square footage requirement ; and it is
further
RESOLVED , that there will be no outside display or storage
of materials ; and it is further
RESOLVED , that the operation can be conducted within a 500
square foot area of the barn ; and it is further
RESOLVED , any sign used shall be a simple one in compliance
with the ordinance ; and it is further
RESOLVED , that if the Zoning Enforcement Officer should find
that this operation has extended beyond that of occasional
sales and a non - factory occupation , then the matter be
reviewed by this Board with the understanding that the
conditional variance could be modified or revoked ; and it is
further
RESOLVED , that because of the findings by this Board that
the hardship in this case is personal to Mr . and Mrs . Morse
• and not to the property , this variance will term10
inate upon
the sale of the property by Mr . and Mrs . Morse ,
Edward Austen seconded the motion .
The voting was as follows :
Aye - King , Reuning , Austen , Hewett ,
Nay - Aron
The motion was carried .
There being no further business to come before the Board ,
the meeting was adjourned at 8 : 30 p . m .
Respectfully submitted ,
Beatrice Lincoln
Recording Secretary
Appro d •
• Henry ,Aron , Chairman
Exhibits 1 and 2 attached
We the residents of lower Enfield Falls Rood are opposed to the
establishment of a retail or wholesale business such as selling antiques ,
handicrafts or refinishing furniture at 157 Enfield Falls Road , Ithaca , N . Y .
NAME ADDRESS DATE
OF
Y
_ :e7 t. /�] r......
OA ,
)- 4C /L
>1 C� � ,,. . .�..- . ;ilk'/o. �' ^ ; 'c�'�-•, ,�'.C'` ,
�^ V ��. � � _�!l l i�G
674
/
• JQ M/
• PART II - Environmental . Assessment - Morse Appeal
A . Action is Unlisted .
B . Action will receive coordinated review ( Tompkins County . .
Planning Dept . )
C . Could action result in any adverse effects on , to or arising
from the following :
C1 . Existing air quality , surface or. ` groundwater quality or
quantity , noise levels , existing traffic patterns , solid waste
producti.on . or' disposal , potential for erosion ,. drainage or
flooding problems ?
No significant impact is expected to these factors . No
major exterior alterations are proposed . Access to the site is
via a one -way roadway pair at the lower entrance to Robert Treman.
State Park from Enfield Falls Road Parking is adequate for the
proposed use . Applicant proposes to limit the use of products
which would cause a hazard or nuisance in.... the area .
C2 . Aesthetic , agricultural , archeological , historic , or
other natural or cultural resources , or community or neighborhood
character ?
The proposed use would have no significant impact . on these
factors . The adaptive reuse proposed for the barn would allow
limited public access to a historically significant property .
• Per the materials submitted by the applicant , the Finger
Lakes State Parks Commission has been informed of this proposal
and has no objection to the proposed use . It is recommended that
any potential future exterior alterations or improvements , such
as signage , be designed to be compatible with the signage and
landscaping of the park .
C3 . Vegetation or fauna , movement of fish or wildlife
species , significant habitats , or threatened or endangered
species ?
No significant impact is expected . No site alterations are
ffect existing mature vegetation on
planned that would adversely a
the property . There are no significant natural habitat' s on the
site .
C4 . A community ' s existing plans or goals as officially
adopted , or a change in . use or intensity of -use of land or other
natural resources ?
The proposed use is essentially a home occupation , aside
from the amount of building space involved , and is a feasible use
for a barn which once saw more intensive use as part of an active
farm , and which now has limited possibilities for reuse . The
refurbishing and sale of antiques as proposed , with limited
hours , is desirable at the entrance to a State park .
C5 . Growth ; subsequent development , or related activities
likely to be induced by the proposed action ?
No significant growth or subsequent development ic, proposed
at this time , and any potential future development would be
isubject to further review . The State Parks Commission , as an
abutting landowner , would be apprised of any subsequent
development proposals .
C6 . Secondary , cumulative , or other . effects not identified ,
in Cl -C6 ?
Not . expec, ted . Any potential future development along
Enfield Falls Road should be evaluated carefully for its
compatibility with the historic and scenic character of the area .
C7 . A change in use of either quantity or type of energy ?
Not expected .
PART III
A negative determination of environmental significance is
recommended . The proposal essentially conforms to the intent of
the Zoning Ordinance , and represents the feasible reuse of an
important barn . No exterior alterations are currently proposed .
The hours of operation and public access are proposed to be
limited to low thresholds of activity . Applicant has obtained
approvals from adjoining property owners .
Lead Agency : Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals
• Reviewer : Susan Co Beeners , Town Planner
Review Date : March 3 , 1987
•