Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1981-09-15 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 15 , 1981 • The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday , September 15 , 1981 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , N . Y . , at 7 : 30 p . m . PRESENT : Chairman Montgomery May , Barbara Schultz , Edward Mazza , Liese Bronfenbrenner , Carolyn Grigorov , David Klein , Lawrence Fabbroni ( Town Engineer ) , Lewis Cartee ( Town Building Inspector ) , Nancy Fuller ( Secretary ) . ALSO PRESENT : Town Councilwoman Shirley Raffensperger , Richard Rostowski , Phil -Lip Freedman , Thomas LiVigne , Dr . Roger Perry , Evelyn Eddy ( Ithaca Journal ) . Chairman May declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 35 p . m . PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR " COURTSIDE RACQUETBALL AND FITNESS CLUB " TO BE LOCATED IN THE FORMER IDE ' S ROLLER RINK , CORNER JUDD FALLS ROAD AND MITCHELL STREET , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 , 6 - 62 - 1 - 5 . SUCH CONSIDERATION TO INCLUDE CLUB CONCEPT AND PROPOSED 3 , 000 + SQ . FT . ADDITION TO EXISTING BUILDING . TOM LIVIGNE ET AL . Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 7 : 35 p . m . and accepted for the record the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearing in Town Hall and • the Ithaca Journal on September 8 , 1981 , and September 10 , 1981 , respective - ly . Messrs . Rostowski , Freedman , and LiVigne appeared before the Board and distributed up - dated versions of the floor plans (. lower level , upper level ) as had been drawn upon the site plan which had been mailed to each Board member with his / her agenda . The letter which had accompanied such site plan was referred to , it reading as follows : " September 4 , 1981 . . . After many delays and set backs , Courtside Racquetball and Fitness Club is anticipating an opening date sometime this winter in the old Ides Roller Rink . Our architect , Vic Bagnardi , has at this point given his approval of the building and we feel it will make an excellent site for our project . We feel that we can only improve the site with a new facade and interior modifications . However , to meet our needs for space , we will need to expand the existing building by approximately 3000 square feet . This addition will be situated off the west end of the building ( please refer to diagram ) . Our concept is the same as we explained to the Planning Board in a meeting earlier and we believe there should be no problems with our new site . We are looking forward to discussing it with you on September 15 . Please feel free to contact us if you require further information . • ( sgd . ) Thomas P . :LiVigne " Mr . Rostowski stated that there had been some problems arise in re the development of the previously approved location for the racquetball complex at the East Hill Plaza and so they have changed their site location to this building , the old P & C where Ide ' s Roller Rink was . He briefly kPlanning Board - 2 - September 15 , 1981 described the proposed racquetball club as it had been described to the Board and approved on June 2 , 1981 , except in a different location . He • stated that internal renovations would take place but that the club would be exactly the :game as previously described ; the concept is the same ; the club atmosphere is the same . Mr . Tom LiVigne displayed the first floor plan and noted that it is the same as previously proposed except for courts # 3 and #4 which run in a different direction , that being basically the only change from the other plan . He noted that the proposed addition will be the equipment area . and will be approximately 23 ' in height . Mr . May inquired if the addition would involve a change in the roof height and if the existing building would require any change in height . Mr . LiVigne stated that the height of the building now existing would remain the same . Mr . LiVigne stated that the parcel would be landscaped , the building would be painted , and the property improved quite a bit . He noted again that the concept is the same as previously submitted , the amenities the same , the number of courts the same . - - just a different building which is much better for them and in a better location . He stated that there will be two floors inside as there was in the other proposed building . He noted that this will take place within the existing building . He pointed out that the roof on the addition will be flat . He stated that the courts are 20 ' high and encompass both floors . Chairman May asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak to this matter . Mrs . Shirley Raffensperger , 139 Pine Tree Road , asked what the total square footage of this club will be , to which Mr . LiVigne replied , 14 , 928 sq , ft . Mrs . Raffensperger asked what number of members is proposed , to which Mr . LiVigne replied that they are looking for 1 , 000 members . Mrs . Raffensperger spoke to the question of this proposal being a " Type 1 " action under SEQR and , as such , involving the presentation of a Draft EIS ( Environmental Impact Statement ) . She noted that Section IV , Paragraph 3 , sub - paragraph " c " , of Town of Ithaca Local # 3 - 1980 ( SEQR ) sets forth that facilities with parking for 100 vehicles are designated as Type 1 actions . Mrs . Raffensperger pointed out that the previous approval required revisions in the parking patterns from what was originally proposed and in that same vein pointed out the traffic problems inherent in the entire intersection , Mrs . Raffensperger stated that with 1 , 000 members contemplated , there would appear to be a clear requirement for a draft EIS as a Type l . action . Mr . Rostowski stated that he did not see that kind of increase in traffic , and noted that the building is already there . Mr . LiVigne stated that the site plan indicates 100 parking spaces but he did not see the possibility of more than 40 cars , _ tops , at one time , with perhaps the exception of tournaments . He noted that it is a member - ship club and open all day . • Mrs . Raffensperger pointed out that during the time of the approval for Ide ' s there were substantial concerns and questions about parking . Mr . LiVigne pointed out that prior to this proposal , the building was a roller skating rink , and also , you can only put four people on a court at one time , there being eight courts . ' Planning Board - 3 - September 15 , 1981 Mr . RostowSki described another facility where there is a pool and 12 racquetball courts , exercise equipment , dance , etc . , and the intensity • of its use . Mrs . Grigorov inquired if the applicants were still going to cooperate with "Nautilus " in the East Hill Plaza , Mr . LiVigne stated that they were no longer planning any liaison with Nautilus ; they were planning on having their own exercise equipment . Mr . Klein inquired about the " lounge " to which Mr . LiVigne stated that it will be . exactly as described previously . Mr . Mazza asked that the concept of the club be described again . Mr . Rostowski described the concept as it had been presented to the Board in June , noting theft the focus of their club is not the bar - lounge area , it being just somewhere to relax after a brisk game of racquetball and catering to the members . Mr . Mazza asked if there were to be an open bar , to which Mr . Rostowski replied , no , there were to be three or four tables from which one could view a. game in process . Mr . May , speaking to Mr . Fabbroni , stated that , in re the question of an EIS , the Board had received his review of the Environmental Assessment Form ( Short Form ) , as presented by the applicant , together with his recommendation of a " negative declaration " . Mr . May commented that it would appear that utilization of the number of parking spaces indicated would be abnormal . Mr . Fabbron. i noted that the applicants have indicated 100 spaces for parking as being. available . He stated that the problem he has is a determination , or estimate , of just what the capacity range might be at the peak load time . Mr . LiVigne , referring only to the lounge utilization , stated that if there were , say , four or five table with four chairs , he would estimate 30 persons , maximum . Mr . Rostowski agreed and noted that the lounge is not just a liquor bar . Mr . Fabbroni inquired if , in terms of providing minimum parking , were the applicants talking of 100 people at the most . Mr . Rostowski thought that sounded reasonable . Mr . Fabbroni stated that , if they think this is true , if one were to consider the lounge as a restaurant , which requires one parking space per five seats , and one applies that number , you arrive at 20 spaces to which one could add four people on every court equalling 32 spaces , and then double that same 32 for various events , he would say that with 84 slots one would have more than would probably ever be used . Mr . Fabbroni commented that it would seem like an awfully big penalty when 99 spaces could be depicted . He added that there really is no clear criteria on this kind of use , . citing the example of the skating rink for which the Town ordinance requires parking spaces equal in number to 20% of the capacity in persons . He related that to a rink having 500 people in it thus requiring 100 spaces for parking . Mr . Fabbroni stated thathe issuggesting by this scenario that the indicating of 100 spaces might be misleading in that around 84 is probably what is needed . He repeated that a full environmental impact statement seems like an awful lot considering the actual use of the building . Mr . May stated that it would seem reasonable that what the applicant has done is just taken the space that is available and indicated parking area . Mrs . Raffensperger stated that she would still question a facility that will only, at any time , or at maximum , service 1 / 10 of its members . Planning Board - 4 - September 15 , 1981 Mrs . Raffensperger commented that there would appear to be a discrepancy in numbers . Mrs: . Raffensperger pointed out the past difficulties when the • rink went in , noting the very inadequate parking arrangements . She stated that it has been a problem in the past and that there is , additionally , a safety problem when people choose to park across the road and then run across the road to the building . Mr . Rostowski stated that the club would be open 18 to 19 hours a day , from 5 : 00ish a . m . to around midnight - some people want to play racquetball at 5 : 30 in the morning before work . He stated that it is quite different in a roller rink where there is concentrated usage , unlike their club . Mrs . Raffensperger stated that if the Board should decide that 84 parking spaces is enough , then the proposal is obviously not a Type 1 action . Mr . Mazza inquired as to how the exercise equipment would be regulated . Mr . Rostowski - stated that Mr . LiVigne , a Trainer in the Athletic Department at Cornell University , with a Master ' s Degree in Sports Medecine , will be in charge of the exercise program . Mr . Mazza inquired about the number of persons who might be involved in the aerobic dance class and was informed that there would be 15 people per class . Mr . Mazza asked if the applicants own the property in question and was informed that they have purchased it from Mr . Ideman . Mr . Mazza asked what the applicants planned in the area indicated on the site plan as " area for expansion " . Mr . LiVigne stated that nothing was planned at this point . Mr . Klein inquired as to the condition of the existing parking area now . Mr . Rostowski replied . that it is fairly good but that some areas need to be addrE! ssed . He noted that the parking space lines are not in place and added that some of the parking area will be torn up for plumbing installation and redone . Mr . LiVignE� stated that they will be taking out some blacktopping and installing landscaping . Mr . May pointed out that the site plan shows one entrance only and wondered if there were no exits . Mr . LiVigne stated that they will have whatever is required , that being in the hands of the architect . Mr . Mazza inquired about outside lighting . Mr . Rostowski stated that there is already lighting there , but that if more is needed the architect will add it to the plans . Mr . FabbrorLi commented that he seems to be saying this again , but he notes the USE! of the templates for trees on the site plan which do not mean much to him . He asked if this plan accurately reflects the number of trees to be planted . Mr . LiVigne stated that it did not . Mr . LiVigne stated that they really want to make the facility and premises look nice and added that there may be shrubs as well as trees . Mr . Fabbroni asked if the applicants could be pinned down to some minimum amount of landsca- ping . Mr . Rostowski stated that the landscaping would be commenced but completed in the spring . • Mrs . Schultz asked when the applicants were planning to open , to which Mr . Rostowski replied that they have to go through the bid process , but . he hoped April or May of 1982 . Mr . May stated that the Board has before it the EAF with Mr . Fabbroni ' s recommendation of a negative declaration and all gjke�.stions answered no . Planning Board - 5 - September 15 , 1981 MOTION by Mr . Edward Mazza , seconded by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov : • RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , acting as lead agency in the review of the .proposed Courtside Racquetball and Fitness Club to be located in the former Ide ' s Roller Rink , approve and hereby does approve the Environmental Assessment Form as completed ; and FURTHER RESOLVED , that pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act , Part. 617 , this action is classified as Unlisted ; and FURTHER RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , has determined from the Environmental Assessment Form and all pertinent information that the above -mentioned action will not significantly impact the environment and , therefore , will not require further environmental review . There being; no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Schultz , Mazza , Bronfenbrenner , Grigorov , Klein . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman May stated that now the Board will turn to the building itself and asked. Mr . Fabbroni if it might be his opinion that it would be appropriate fdr , the Board to consider giving only a preliminary approval at this point . Mr . Fabbron. i stated that he thought that would be the best solution for everybody , if that would enable the architect to move ahead with plans . Mr . Rostowski stated that it costs quite a bit of money for architect ' s services and , purely from a business standpoint , he would hate to expend that amount of money and be denied . Mr . May stated that the Board certainly appreciated that and pointed out that such preliminary approval would mean approval of a concept . He stated that the applicant might have to change a door or two , but the Board needs to review plans for lighting and landscaping , for example . Mr . Klein commented that the Board is looking at a sketch really with the possibility of shrinking of parking area , trees going in , etc . MOTION by Mars . Barbara Schultz , seconded by Mrs . Liese Bronfenbrenner : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval for " Courtside Racquetball and Fitness Club " to be located in the former Ide ' s Roller Rink , corner Judd Falls Road and Mitchell Street , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 62 - 1 - 5 , including Club concept and proposed addition to said existing building , such prelimi - nary approval being basically approval for a building as shown on Site Plan dated August 31 , 1981 , entitled '' Courtside " , presented by Thomas P . LiVigne et al , and being a building of approximately 15 , 000 sq . ft . and such that is this Planning Board would accept after receipt of further design plans to show that the building meets the New York State Building Construction Code , and that final site plan review will be more specifically concerned with the exact makeup of the landscaping , walkways , exterior lighting , and actual facade of the addition . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Planning Board - 6 - September 15 , 1981 Aye - May , Schultz , Mazza , Bronfenbrenner , Grigorov , Klein . Nay - None . • The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . By way of clarification , Mrs . Raffensperger asked the Chair what the maximum capacit ; of the building might be . Mr . May stated that under normal circumstances , the capacity may be assumed to be 100 , however , at the time of .tournament play there may be another number which cannot be determined . The Chair declared the matter of the Public Hearing in re the Courtside site plan approval duly closed at 8 : 17 p . m . SIGN REVIEW BOARD 1 . Consideration of Sign for Drs . Perry and Speno at 112 West Buttermilk Falls Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 31 - 2 - 9 . It was noted that the Planning Board members had received , with their Agenda , a copy of the application for sign permit submitted by Drs . Perry and Speno , dated August 17 , 1981 , such proposed sign containing 12 sq . ft . and such application containing both a photograph of such sign and a graphic illustration of its height and size . Dr . Roger Perry appeared before the Board and apologized for the sign being too big . Dr . Perry stated that the sign is proposed to be located • 30 ' back from the road with another 36 + feet from the sign to the porch of the Doctors ' office . Mr . May stated that Section 4 . 01 - 1 of the Town Sign Law permits , on issuance of a permit , a ' fr. eestanding sign not exceeding 4 square feet . Mr . May also pointed out that , acting as the Sign Review Board , Section 9 . 03 - 2 permits the Planning Board , in its discretion , to vary any maximum numerical limitation by 25 % , i . e . , 4 of 4 sq . ft . in this case , however , the sign proposed is 12 sq . ft . , and , therefore , beyond the powers of this Board to act upon . Mr . May noted that the Sign Law permits the applicant to Appeal a decision of either the Sign Review Board or the Building Inspector to the Zoning Board of Appeals ( Section 10 . 03 - 2 ) with a recommendation from the Sign Review Board ( Planning Board ) - - Section 10 . 03 - 3 . MOTION by Mr . Edward Mazza , seconded by Mrs . Liese Bronfenbrenner : RESOLVED , that the Sign Review Board ( Planning Board ) , having found that the sign proposed by Drs . Perry and Speno for their Medical Offices located at 112 West Buttermilk Falls Road , Town of Ithaca , is : the a . Compatible with / surroundings and appropriate to the architectural character of the building at which it is placed ; b . Appropriate to the type of activity to which it pertains ; • c . Legible in the circumstances under which it is seen ; d . Expressive of the identity of the individual enterprise but not out of character with the community , recommend and hereby does recommend to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals that a variance be granted by said Zoning Board of Appeals for a sign of 12 sq . ft . , as proposed by said Drs . Perry and Speno . Planning Board - 7 - September 15 , 1981 There bein ;7 no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . • Aye - May , Schultz , Mazza , Bronfenbrenner , Grigorov , Klein . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . 2 . Consideration of signage for Bell ' s Convenience Food , 614 Elmira Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 33 - 3 - 2 . 4 . It was noted that the Planning Board members had received , with their Agenda , a copy of the application for signage permit submitted by Thomas A . Bell , dated September 3 , 1981 , such proposed signage comprising approxi - mately 29 sq . ft . , and such application being accompanied by two photographs of such signage , the individual measurements of each sign involved in the 29 sq . ft . , and a letter reading as follows : " September 3 , 1981 . . . Dear Mr . Car -tee : We are enclosing; a Sign Application and Permit , a check to cover the application fee , as well as two photographs , in reference to our request to obtain permission to keep the following signs in the front windows of our business establishment : ( 1 ) illuminated , neon , hanging window signs • ( 2 ) metal " ice " sign leaning against window ( 3 ) Deli Subs sign We have had them for seven years . We feel they are attractive as well as serve useful purposes : When lit during store operation hours , customers can easily tell the store is open . During daylight hours , it is hard to see that the inside lights are on , as there is so much reflection off the glass . The signs are also eye - catching as people drive by . Not everyone sees the free standing sign . So they also serve the purpose of advertise - ment . We also feel that it is a well known and accepted practice that grocery stores have advertisements in their windows and we feel that we are very conservative in our display of window signs . We chose to use these permanent - type :signs rather than plaster the windows with large , weekly sale type advertisements , which we understand are acceptable as long as they are temporary . We feel that our signs are much neater appearing than the weekly signs would be . The front window area consists of six 6 foot x 6 . foot window sections . The area of the signs in question is approximately 29 square feet . See attached sheet for sign measurements . ( sgd . ) Thomas A . Bell Martha Bell " • Mr . Cartee stated that he denied the permit under Sections 5 . 05 - 3 and 5 . 05 - 5 of the Sign Law , and thus it is before the Planning Board in its capacity as the Sign Review Board , Mr . Cartee stated that Pair . and Mrs . Bell were notified of this meeting and they . informed him that they were sorry but they would be out of town . Mr . Cartee stated that he had been trying for weeks; to obtain the application for sign permit to bring before the Board , but it has been rather difficult . Planning Board - 8 - September 15 , 1981 Mr . May asked if the Board members were familiar with this property . Each Board member present indicated that they were . Mr . May cited Sections ® 5 . 05 - 2 , 5 . 05 - 3 , and 5 . 05 - 5 , of the Sign Law , as follows : 5 . 05 - 2 - - There shall be no more than 1 permanent window sign per window and a maximum of 2 per enterprise . 5 . 05 - 3 - - The area of permanent window signs shall not exceed 25 per cent of the area of the window or windows through which they are visible , nor in any case exceed 4 square feet . 5 . 05 - 5 - - Exposed liminous tubing . or ._ similar window signs shall consist of one row only , the lettering not to exceed 6 inches in height and three - quarters the window width . After reviewing closely the pictures submitted , Mrs . Schultz stated she would like to go and look at the premises again . Other members agreed that they would like to do the same . MOTION by Mr . Edward Mazza , seconded by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov : RESOLVED , that the matter of Sign Review in re signage at Bell ' s Convenience Foods be and hereby is postponed until the next regular meeting of the Board . During discussion , Mr . Fabbroni stated that he would make the comment that the comment had been made to him that , as one looks at the store , it is very difficult to know if the store is open in the daytime and that these neon signs lit up in the windows give some sign of life inside . ® Mr . May said that he thought the Board members should look at it . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Schultz , Mazza , Bronfenbrenner , Grigorov , Klein . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . REPORT OF THE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD CHAIRPERSON , TOWN COUNCILWOMAN SHIRLEY RAFFENSPERGER , Mrs . Raffensperger reported that the County Planning Board met last Wednesday , September 9th , and received a report from Becky Bilderback of Better Housing for Tompkins County Inc . in re rural rehabilitation - - not suburban rehab . She stated that Ms . Bilderback spoke of grants for planning money only , the program thus not being comparable to the City of Ithaca rehabilition program . Mrs . Raffensperger suggested that this Board might possibly wish to contact that organization , Ms . Bilderback being at the E . O . C . office , to see what parts of the Town are available for planning assistance and :rehabilitation . Mrs . Raffensperger commented that the Town does have areas where some re - hab might be used , and added that very few people know of -this program . The Chair directed the Secretary to contact Ms . Bilderback for information on this program , such as , criteria , type of • assistance that is being provided . Mrs . Raffensperger reported that a report was received on the Warren Road Improvement which was described as substantially completed . Mrs . Raffensperger reported that the Town Board had authorized four persons attending the New York Planning Federation 43rd Annual Planning and Zoning Institute , October 25 - 27 / 81 , at The Nevele in Ellenville , N . Y . Planning Board - 9 - September 15 , 1981 She stated that this is an excellent institute and expressed her hope that members of the Planning Board , and Zoning Board , attend . • Mrs . RaffE:Dnsperger spoke of the Summer 1981 copy of The Ways and Means Report as published by the New York State Assembly Ways and Means Committee , in which is contained an article written by Jesse Burkhead and Guthrie S . Birkhead , of the Maxwell School , Syracuse University . She described the article as dealing with the matter of block grants and reduc - tion in general Revenue Sharing . Mrs . Raffensperger commented that if we want some level of State assistance , we will probably have to apply for these block grants . She noted that the article presents a question of whether the State of New York is ready to deal with these block grants , adding that it would appear that we must deal with a different kind of assistance . Mrs . Raffensperger asked that a copy of this article be distributed to the Planning Board members . Mrs . RaffElnsperger reported that the County Planning Board received a report from Mr . William Wendt , Director of Transportation , Cornell University , on the East Ithaca Circulation Study . She noted that it certainly involves the Town of Ithaca . Mr . Fabbroni noted that the last meeting of this; Board was July 21st and the Study was presented to the Town Board on July 27th . Mrs . Raffensperger commented that there seem to be some changes , for example , the Hanshaw Road end now connects to Route 13 . She also noted that Mr . Wendt had spoken of the accident incidence at Route 366 and Judd Falls Road . Mr . Fabbroni asked that the Secretary send a copy of the Executive Summary to the Planning Board members prior to their next meeting . . Mrs . Raffensperger reported on the TOMTRAN Program ( Revised Program and Budget ) as prepared by Frank Liguori . She asked that the Secretary send a copy of Mr . Liguori ' s letter and the TOMTRAN Working Paper No . 5 , Project and Budget Modifications for ARC Funding Request , to each Planning Board member . She commented that the Budget assumes that $ 280 , 000 in ARC funding will be received . She noted that $ 500 , 000 was asked for . She stated that the local share is to be $ 54 , 000 , but that she did not know what the Town share is to be . Mr . Fabbroni described the local shares , noting that Northeast Transit , East Ithaca Transit and equipment are included in " local share " . He commented that the Town share could be as little as nothing in addition , or , additional for local share of equipment . He thought that the number could be pretty small , but if the County says that the local municipality should pay , then the number would be more . He commented that there is much rumbling about the County share . Mr . May inquired about the County Housing Study . Mrs . Raffensperger commented that the problem is capital ; interest rates . She discussed with the Board certain provisions before the Legislature to encourage new housing , e . g . , better incentives for young persons to save money for a down payment on a home . Chairman May thanked Mrs . Raffensperger for her report and the docu - ments she brought for the Board members . APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JUNE 21 1981 . MOTION by Air . Montgomery May , seconded by Mrs . Barbara Schultz . RESOLVED , that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting of June 2 , 1981 , be and hereby are approved as written . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Planning Board - 10 - September 15 , 1981 r Aye - May , Schultz , Mazza , Grigorov , Klein . • Nay - None . Abstain - Bronfenbrenner . The MOTION was declared to be carried . DISCUSSION OF :PLANNING BOARD GOALS AND OBJECTIVES It was the= consensus of the Planning Board members that a review of the Town Subdivision Regulations was in order , the same having been in effect since March of 1956 . The Board agreed that certainly the Regulations have stood up very well for those 25 years . Mr . Fabbroni informed the members that right now Mr . Peter Lovi , a Cornell University graduate with a Master ' s Degree in City and Regional Planning , who was approved by the Town Board for 12 weeks of planning assistance to him , is researching that very topic . Mr . Fabbroni stated that Mr . Lovi is putting together what we have now , the various recommenda- tions suggested over the last ten years , then a review of comparable regulations in the area , and at that time draft a document for review by a committee of the Planning Board - - or , on the other hand , work with a committee of the Board now for their input . Mr . May suggested that it might be wise to establish the Committee at this point that would work with him through this project . He stated that he wished to make it clear that the Board is well aware that Mr . Lovi has good :staff support and that he ( May ) was essentially asking about • the committee as a question . Mr . Fabbroni stated that he thought that from certain standpoints , such as matters of policy , or innovative ideas , Mr . Lovi ' s working with the committee from the onset would be desirable . After discussion , a Planning Board Committee on Subdivision Regulations comprised of Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov , Mr . David Klein , and Mrs . Barbara Schultz , was established by the Chair . Mrs . Schultz suggested that an objective of the Planning Board might be the creation. of a printed version of the Sign Law . She suggested that it be in the form of printed pages with three holes , contained in a binder , for ease in removing portions that were amended and the amendment inserted . The Planning Board members concurred . MOTION by Mrs . Barbara Schultz , seconded by Mr . David Klein : RESOLVED , that the Town Engineer see to the creation of a mock - up of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law in a form suitable for printing of said Sign Law , such printing costs being taken from Planning Board funds . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Schultz , Mazza , Bronfenbrenner , Grigorov , Klein . Nay - None . . The . . MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .. Continuing its discussion of goals and objectives , the Board agreed that one such goal should be the approval of the Planning Board By - Laws as they were adopted by the Planning Board on July 22 , 1980 , and presently before the Town Board . In very general terms , the members of the Board together with Mr . Planning Board - 11 - September 15 , 1981 Fabbroni discussed the " times " in which we all live - - touching upon the economic problems , the high interest rates on borrowing funds , the • nationwide downswing in construction of single family homes , and so on . It was the Board ' s view that it should continue to strive for responsible action , as it has in the past , in order to meet the needs and desires of those who reside in the Town of Ithaca , those who propose development within the Tovin , . and those who , in the future , may wish to reside in the Town or develop within the Town , or both . It was Mr . Fabbroni ' s feeling that the best way to look to achieving such goals is via the Comprehensive Plan . He confessed that he did not know what the Board , or he , can do about the money situation in particular . The Board allowed as how he had a lot of company right now with regard to " what to do about the money situation " . Mr . Fabbroni pointed out that the Town of Ithaca. Planning Board processes whereby development occurs are generally very streamlined and compare very favorably with many other municipalities where the approval process is terribly complicated and expensive in terms of both time and money . The Board spoke of uses for older housing , large homes where retired persons wish to remain , energy costs , cluster housing , utilities , etc . Mr . Fabbroni pointed out that land use planning is a serious policy - making matter . He suggested that County Planning could provide probably the best input in re young families ' needs , the needs of the poor and the elderly . Mr . Fabbroni spoke of the County Planning Board ' s study of the need for multiple housing in Tompkins County . • Chairman May stated that the Board will have more discussions on its goals and objectives . CORRESPONDENCE - SUBDIVISION ON SHEFFIELD ROAD , JOHN D . MACLEAN ( 294 HAYTS ROAD .) Mr . Fabbroni reported to the Board that he had responded to Attorney William Tucker Dean ' s letter to the Board under date of September 4 , 1981 . Judge Dean ' s letter and Mr . Fabbroni ' s response are as follows : " Sept . 4 , 1981 Planning Board . . . Thank you for rending me the copy of the subdivision map of lands of John D . MacLean , dated June 11 , 1981 . My client , Mrs . Auni Ramakka , lives in the house on the lot shown on the subdivision map as Tax Map No . 24 - 1 - 41 . 7 , and she informs me that one - half of the 50 - foot strip shown on the subdivision. map as the access strip forming part of Mr . MacLean ' s " Lot " was originally conveyed to her and to her husband by deed from Mr . MacLean , and she alternatively claims that 25 - foot strip by right of adverse possession . She has used the strip as her driveway continuously for over ten years . Under the circumstances it would appear that the approval of " Lot 2 " as . including a 50 - foot right - of - way should be reviewed . (. sgd . ) William Tucker Dean " " September 9 , 1981 William Tucker :Dean , Esq . Planning Board - 12 - September 15 , 1981 I am in receipt of your letter • of September 4 , 1981 , on the above matter and offer the following observations and points of clarification for your consideration . Lot 2 requires a 50 - foot access strip to Sheffield Road under Town . Law if not served by a Town Highway either properly constructed and conveyed to the Town or adequate security posted to guarantee same . At the time Mr . 1V1acLean requested subdivision approval , the Town of Ithaca requested that the 50 - foot right of way south of parcel 24 - 1 - 41 . 7 be reserved for a. future Town Highway to be properly dedicated or secured at the time a property in addition to Lot 2 is transferred requiring access to Sheffield Road , The Town was aware of some title question on the 50 - foot right of way addressed in your letter . We have no interest in your private action with Mr . MacLean beyond some 50 - foot access to Lot 2 , the proper information on any map filed with the Tompkins County Clerk , and notifica- tion through revised map filed with the Town . Approval of Lot 2 having two potential accesses would not be invalidated by loss of the 50 - foot access north of parcel 24 - 1 - 41 . 7 . Only loss of the 50 - foot access south of parcel 24 - 1 - 41 . 6 would require review by the . : Town . Thank you for your information on this matter and I remain available for any further information you may require . ( sgd . ) Lawrence P . Fabbroni , P . E . " Chairman May thanked Mr . Fabbroni for his efforts in this matter . ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion , the Chair declared the September 15 , 1981 , meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 9 : 35 p . m . Respectfully submitted , Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary .