Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1985-02-05 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD FEBRUARY 5 , 1985 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday , February 5 , 1985 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York , at 7 : 00 p . m . PRESENT : Chairman Montgomery May , Barbara Schultz , Carolyn Grigorov , Edward Mazza , Virginia Langhans , David Klein , Bernard Stanton , Lawrence P . Fabbroni ( Town Engineer ) , Peter M . Lovi ( Town Planner ) , Nancy M . Fuller ( Secretary ) . ALSO PRESENT : Town Councilwoman Gloria Howell , Eleanor Sturgeon , Ralph R . Varn , Richard C . Varn , Richard J . Correnti , Mark Van Summern , Robert S . Wordell , Mario Giannella , Larry Rosenberg , Betsy Crane , Carolyn Peterson , Jerold Weisburd , Claudia Weisburd , Arnold Albrecht , Robert R . Flumerfelt , William P . Grover , Dell L . Grover , James Iacovelli , Roger M . Battistella , Raymond Delli -Carpini , Jim McKinley , William C . Reed , James Forman ( WHCU News ) , Darryl Geddes ( WTKO News ) , Deborah Gesensway ( Ithaca Journal ) . EXECUTIVE SESSION • Chairman May declared an executive session of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly opened at 7 : 00 p . m . A personnel matter was entirely discussed and no action of any kind was taken by the Planning Board . Chairman May declared the executive session duly closed at 7 : 29 p . m . Mr . Stanton was not present for the Executive Session , COMMENCEMENT OF REGULAR MEETING SCHEDULE At 7 : 30 p . m . , Chairman May declared the February 5 , 1985 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly opened and accepted for the record the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings ( 3 ) , in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on January 28 , 1985 and January 31 , 1985 , respectively . Mr . Stanton arrived . PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONAL ENGINEERING DETAILS FOR THE FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAN APPROVED JANUARY 15 , 1985 FOR A 22 - LOT SUBDIVISION IN THE VICINITY OF DOVE DRIVE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 61 - 1 - 8 . 12 , RALPH VARN , DEVELOPER . Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 7 : 30 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . The Board members had before them all relevant drawings and documentation with respect to the Hungerford Heights Final Subdivision Jiq Planning Board 2 February 5 , 1985 Plat Plan , Water , Sewer , and Highway Plan and Profiles ; Engineering • Details - - all showing revision date of January 26 , 1985 , together with a letter from Ralph R . Varn , dated January 31 , 1985 to Robert R . Flumerfelt , P . E . , Assistant Town Engineer responding to Mr . Flumerfelt ' s review comments dated January 25 , 1985 . Chairman May noted that there was no change in the Subdivision Plan , no change in the layout , however , there were some minor additional engineering details and the Engineer of Record was changed . Chairman May noted the final revision date of January 26 , 1985 . Mr . Fabbroni stated that he would like to declare , for the record , his conflict of interest . Chairman May asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak to the matter of the Varn Subdivision . No one spoke . Chairman May closed the Public Hearing at 7 : 33 p . m . Chairman May asked if there were any comments from the Board members . There were none . MOTION by Mr . Montgomery May , seconded by Mr . Edward Mazza : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board accept and hereby does accept the three new drawings with respect to the Hungerford Heights Subdivision with revision date of January 26 , 1985 , to wit : Hungerford Heights - Final Subdivision Plat ; Hungerford Heights Water , Sewer , & Highway Plan and Profiles ; Hungerford Heights Engineering Details . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Schultz , Grigorov , Mazza , Langhans , Klein , Stanton . Nay - None , The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Mr . Larry Rosenberg , 38 Dove Drive , and Mr . Mario Giannella , 6 Dove Drive , spoke from the floor and asked what had been changed with respect to the Varn Subdivision , Chairman May explained that there were no changes in the subdivision plans ; there were no changes in the lots ; there were some additional manholes described on the engineering details . Chairman May stated that this approval just makes the record complete . Chairman May declared the matter of the Varn Subdivision , Hungerford Heights , duly closed . APPROVAL OF MINUTES - January 15 , 1985 Postponed until the next regular meeting [March 5 , 1985 ] . STAFF REPORT - Peter M . Lovi Planning Board 3 February 5 , 1985 • Mr . Lovi stated that the question he has for the Board is that most of what he has to report on he has decided to bring before the Board in informal discussions , either now or later - - ( 1 ) Robert Drake , with a minor subdivision of some lands off Woodgate Lane , is planning to come before the Board at its next meeting , and he would like to schedule a public hearing for him to do that . Mr . Lovi stated that he had suggested a single map and he would bring it before the Board and , if that were okay , he would schedule the hearing . Mr . Lovi asked , if it was not okay and the Board wanted additional information , that the Board , please , tell him . Mr . Lovi proceeded to show the Board the map which , he noted , was made up of two surveys dated January 25 , 1985 , entitled " Part of Lands of Robert Drake - Off Woodgate Lane " , prepared by K . A . Baker L . S . Mr . Lovi indicated two stubs of proposed roads , one of which extended Woodgate Lane , Mr . Lovi explained which parcel Mr . Drake wished to subdivide from which parcel and , indicating on the survey , pointed out which piece was attached to the neighboring property and the piece that was going to be given to Mr . Drake ' s brother as a gift , Mrs . Langhans wondered what was in the middle of all this land . Mr . Lovi responded , nothing , adding that it may be further subdivided way in the future . Chairman May asked if there were any structures on the property , to which Mr . Lovi responded , no , adding that it is just a minor subdivision of land which Mr . Drake was going to give to his brother . Mr . Mazza wondered if Mr . Drake were actually going to extend the road , with Mr . Lovi responding , yes , and indicating on the survey • the two points from which the road was to be extended . Chairman May wondered if the roads would be dedicated to the Town eventually . Mr . Lovi responded , eventually , adding that when he spoke to Mr . Drake he understood that the road would be built to Town specifications , however , he would make it a point to confirm that again . Mrs . Schultz wondered how big the parcels would end up being . Mr . Lovi stated that the one parcel would have 170 feet of frontage and extend back to a point ; the other parcel which is going to his brother is two acres . Mr . Lovi stated that this land is probably zoned Agricultural . Mr . Fabbroni stated that it was and proceeded to describe the background of the area . Mr . Klein asked if the lot with the 170 ' frontage complied with Health Department standards . Mr . Lovi pointed out that the lot with the 170 - foot frontage would be attached to another lot . Mr . Lovi noted that the Subdivision Regulations are quite precise in what is required , however , the Planning Board can waive some of them . Mr . Lovi stated that , if it is the Board ' s pleasure , he could say to Mr . Drake , here are the Town Subdivision Regulations , give us all of this , however , he was not sure this was appropriate in this case . Mrs . Grigorov wondered how many units were being considered . Mr . Lovi explained that Mr . Drake is not building anything ; he is giving a two - acre piece of land to his brother . Chairman May he that Mr . Lovi and the Board might want to take a look up there . Mr . Lovi stated that Mr . Drake has completed a Short EAF which he will review prior to the February 19th meeting . • BUILDING INSPECTOR ' S REPORT - Lewis D . Cartee The Secretary distributed Mr . Cartee ' s Report of Building Permits Issued for the month of January 1985 which showed that 5 permits were Planning Board 4 February 5 , 1985 • issued for $ 323 , 823 . 67 in improvements , as compared with January of 1984 when 4 permits were issued for $ 9 , 400 . 00 in improvements . PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR AN EXTENSION TO THE ITHACA COLLEGE EGBERT UNION . DOUGLAS HOFFMANN , ARCHITECT . Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 8 : 00 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Mr . Richard J . Correnti of Ithaca College , Mr . Mark Van Summern , Architect , and Mr . Robert S . Wordell , Site Planning Engineer , were present . Mr . Van Summern stated that he was with the firm of Van Summern and Weigold , Architects & Planners , and noted that Mr . Hoffmann , Architect , of Chandler Cudlipp Associates Inc . , was unable to attend , so he would be speaking to that aspect of the project . [ The record contains a seven sheet set of drawings , all entitled , " Additions & Renovations to Egbert Union , Ithaca College , Ithaca , New York " , and including - - Campus Master Plan , L - 1 ; Layout Plan , L - 2 ; Grading and Drainage , L - 3 ; Planting Plan , L - 4 ; North Elevations ; East and West Elevations ; South Elevation ; all undated . ] Mr . Van Summern appended a very large colored drawing entitled " Site Plan " [ Egbert Union ] to the bulletin board and oriented the Board to the project under discussion . Mr . Van Summern pointed out that the addition to Egbert Union is on the north side of the existing Union , • both adjacent to it and connected to it . Utilizing the very large colored drawing , Mr . Van Summern pointed out the connecting link via , what he termed , an arcade , to the Muller Faculty Center which connects beneath grade to the new bookstore facility . Mr . Van Summern described , in addition , some renovations to the existing parking area , new landscaping , and also a three -bay loading dock for trucks and service vehicles , noting that they now have two bays . Mr . Van Summern pointed out that the new addition itself provides a new entrance way at grade to the building and directly to student functions . Mr . Van Summern described the multi -purpose aspects of the new Egbert Union , pointing out student activities areas which also could be used by outside groups , and noting the area which doubles as classroom space which , he commented , they are sorely in need of . Mr . Van Summern described how the architects have linked both the existing Union with the " new " Union and with the existing Campus , and showed the present linkage and the completing of the whole arcade . Mr . Van Summern described certain renovations in some detail , noting in particular the new central entry which , he described , as being a little more handsome than at present . Mr . Van Summern described the interior access into the arcade and some of the materials being used . Mr . Van Summern stated that the addition is two and one - half stories and pointed out that that height is just about the height of the underneath side of the existing Union . Mr . Van Summern described how the expansion is in keeping with the concepts and materials around the Ithaca College Campus , and commented on how the Muller Faculty Center idea is carried • through , noting the use of the aggregate wall panel system . Mr . Van Summern spoke of the beautiful view toward Cayuga Lake , to the north , and pointed out the viewing area . Mr . Van Summern noted the way in Planning Board 5 February 5 , 1985 • which this section of the Campus Quad is completed through this design . Mr . Van Summern stated that , at this point , Mr . Robert Wordell of Albertson Sharp Ewing Inc . , Landscape Architects and Engineers , would like to speak about materials and plantings . Mr . Wordell stated that one of the important things they had to think about was that they were trying to put a facility into an already developed part of the Ithaca College Campus , thus , they had to integrate with what was there . In this connection , and also utilizing the large drawing on the bulletin board , Mr . Wordell pointed out the existing parking lot , noting that it was being reduced by about 12 parking spaces . Mr . Wordell described how they were trying to define a specific parking area , and noted that it is quite busy and is presently accommodating two - bays requiring truck stacking . Mr . Wordell described improvements in the loading dock area . Mr . Wordell indicated several places where access is to be provided for handicapped persons . Mr . Wordell pointed out a multi - purpose exterior meeting area and commented on the southwest exposure . Mr . Wordell pointed out how the design showed off the new coffee house and pub and described the new outside terrace . Mr . Wordell stated that they tried to preserve as many plantings as possible in order to support the strengths of the present landscaping and pointed out , particularly , that certain evergreens will be maintained . Mr . Wordell stated that existing landscaping will be reinforced with other evergreens and flowering shrubs and trees , indicating where , on the " mall " , there will be an additional layer of trees . With respect to lighting , Mr . Wordell stated that , overall , they have tried to light the new development the same as the rest of the Campus and described the proposed light poles about 12 ' high , pointing out that there would be some increased lighting where there is increased activity . Mr . Wordell described bollard lights about 4 ' high in the " drop - off " area for the busses . Mr . Wordell commented that the parking area could be used in the off - school times for special functions . Chairman May thanked the gentlemen for an excellent presentation and asked if there were any questions from the public about the Ithaca College plans for the expansion of the Egbert Union . No one spoke . Chairman May closed the Public Hearing at 8 : 15 p . m . , and asked for comments from the Planning Board members . Mr . Mazza wondered what the arcade was going to be made out of . Mr . Van Summern pointed out on a large elevation drawing where the arcade was located and , noting a difference in grade height of about 12 ' or so , described how they had taken advantage of a natural bank . Mr . Van Summern described the brick side wall , a sloped metal roof with a glass facade on it , and showed how the added metal roof areas would carry through the ideas of the existing building into the new building . Mr . Van Summern indicated and described a 10 - foot corridor of space with a glass curtain wall made of 1 " insulated solar bronze glass and described , also , the view into a lower courtyard below . • Mr . Stanton wondered if there were direct access to the bookstore . Mr . Van Summern stated that there was and proceeded to indicate access in two places . Councilwoman Howell commented that it will not be Planning Board 6 February 5 , 1985 noticeable from the ground . Mr . Van Summern responded , no , not from above , but from below it will look like a one - story building . Chairman May asked where the Town staff stood at this point . Mr . Lovi stated that both Mr . Flumerfelt and he have gone over the plans and found them complete and have no questions . Mr . Lovi pointed out that the Environmental Review has been done by the Dormitory Authority , Mr . Lovi stated that he had no questions . Mr . Mazza asked about access for fire trucks , emergency vehicles , etc . Both Mr . Van Summern and Mr . Wordell described three accesses for emergency vehicles and noted that they have been passed by Code . Mr . Fabbroni , commenting that he was just curious , asked if there was any way to camouflage the loading dock . Mr . Wordell commented that the College was asking the same question and explained the circumstances which led to what he termed the compromise shown on the plans because buildings and grounds wanted a straight run and the administrators wanted it hidden . The Board members indicated that they felt very comfortable with the proposed plans for the expansion of the Ithaca College Egbert Union and could not foresee a need for any further information . MOTION by Mr . Bernard Stanton , seconded by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the proposed additions and renovations to Egbert Union , located upon the Campus of Ithaca College , as shown on plans and detail drawings presented by the Architects , Chandler Cudlipp Associates Inc . and Van Summern and Weigold , and the Landscape Architects / Engineers , Albertson Sharp Ewing Inc . , at Public Hearing , this date , February 5 , 1985 , and FURTHER RESOLVED , that said Planning Board waive and hereby does waive Final Site Plan Approval . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Schultz , Grigorov , Mazza , Langhans , Klein , Stanton . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman May declared the matter of Site Plan Approval for the additions and renovations to Egbert Union on the Ithaca College Campus duly closed . Messrs . Correnti , Van Summern , and Wordell thanked the Board members for their time and consideration . The Planning Board congratulated the College for a job well done and wished everyone good luck . INFORMATIONAL DISCUSSION IN RE FOREST HOME DRIVE Mr . Stanton suggested , since the Agenda was running a little early , that it might be useful , since a member of the Town Board was present , for the Planning Board to know the position of the Town at Planning Board 7 February 5 , 1985 • this point with respect to the matter of the opening , or the closing , of Forest Home Drive . Speaking to Mr . Fabbroni about the meeting which he had read about in the Ithaca Journal , Mr . Stanton asked if he were correct in thinking that there will be another meeting in the near future . Mr . Fabbroni responded , yes , February 14th , and added that Frank Liguori , Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning , is pretty much the spokesman for what went on . Mr . Fabbroni commented that an attempt is being made to resolve what is wrong with the road and to delineate options to keeping it in service - - if there are any options . Mr . Fabbroni commented further , that what Mr . Stanton saw in the paper was what came of a Town Board meeting where they resolved to pursue keeping the road open on behalf of the townspeople . Mr . Fabbroni stated that he reported to the Town Board , through the use of the Town video equipment , on a walking tour of the area . Chairman May noted that the Planning Board has not commented , and , asking that he be corrected if he were wrong , offered that the Planning Board feels it in the best interest of the Town to keep it open . No one corrected Chairman May . Mrs . Langhans stated that Supervisor Desch was on the radio and said that it was to Cornell ' s benefit to have it open because of undeveloped land in the area . Mr . Klein added that Supervisor Desch had also stated that he understood why the City does not want to pay for it . Mr . Fabbroni spoke of about 1 , 000 feet of road , commenting that it was not surveyed , and briefly described the part totally closed and the one -way part . SIX MILE CREEK OVERSEER COMMITTEE - Peter M . Lovi Mr . Lovi stated that he would like to speak briefly on the most recent , yesterday evening , meeting of the Six Mile Creek Overseer Committee to which he is the Town ' s liaison . Mr . Lovi stated that the Committee is developing a master map for the Six Mile Creek Watershed area which will show existing cultural features including trails , " new " trails in the near - term , and trails to be eventually constructed , as well as engineering features - - water mains , lines , valves , etc . Mr . Lovi stated that this map will also show adjacent properties owned by the City and , maybe , plans to acquire adjacent lands . Mr . Lovi stated that there was more discussion of some other things which have been discussed for some time , such as conservation easements as being a possibility short of full acquisition . Mr . Lovi stated that he would keep the Planning Board and the Town Board fully apprised . PRESENTATION TO TOWN OF ITHACA OF SUSAN C . BEENERS ' MASTER OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE THESIS , TO BE FILED IN THE TOWN PLANNING DEPARTMENT LIBRARY . The Secretary introduced Ms . Beeners who graciously dedicated a bound copy of her Master ' s Thesis entitled , " Utica Valley Urban Cultural Park " to the Town of Ithaca . Ms . Beeners thanked her colleagues connected with the Town of Ithaca for their support and encouragement while she was writing her Thesis . Ms . Beeners briefly described the contents of her thesis , noting that it presented a . comprehensive land use plan for Utica Valley , the five hundred acre Mohawk River flood plain within the City of Utica , and a site development plan for the ninety acres within the Valley which surround Utica Harbor east of the Mohawk River and Planning Board 8 February 5 , 1985 • west of North Genesee Street , Ms . Beeners noted that she chose Utica Valley for the study because its diversity of site circulation offered an opportunity to apply the concept of movement systems at different scales of urban design , from land use planning for the entire Valley , to design of urban cultural interpretive areas around Utica Harbor . Chairman May and the members of the Board congratulated Ms . Beeners on her achievement and expressed their appreciation for her presenting a copy of her Thesis to the Town , stating that it would be a very fine addition to the Town Planning Library . PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAN FOR A 124 - UNIT CLUSTERED SUBDIVISION AT 1459 SLATERVILLE ROAD . TAX MAP NUMBER 58 . 1 , JEROLD WEISBURD , ARCHITECT / DEVELOPER . Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 8 : 30 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Mr . Weisburd was present . Mr . Weisburd appended a large copy of the " original " final subdivision plan as approved and stated that he would use that map to key the Board in from that point . Mr . Weisburd stated that what they are suggesting is that three units from " Round Rock " [ indicating ] would be " moved " to " The Meadows " [ indicating ] and one unit from " The Pines " [ indicating ] , which was omitted because of site restrictions , also • would be " moved " to " The Meadows " . Mr . Weisburd pointed out that " Round Rock " was approved to have nine units and the road was to come straight down , but , after lengthy discussions with the NYS DOT and as the road was required to be built , and the sewer line also , it is clear that it is a very tight area . Mr . Weisburd commented that right now with the road in place , as one comes in , it is sort of nice and " this " [ indicating ] area is sort of open , however , if " Round Rock " were to be built as approved it would be very tight . Mr . Weisburd stated that he would like to comment on one issue that came up at the informal meeting on this last month [ See Minutes , Planning Board , January 15 , 1985 ] , being the matter of density and what they were doing . Mr . Weisburd stated that he had drawn up something in order to illustrate the density as it exists in the approved plan and then he drew an area around all of the buildings , which is the real density , commenting that , obviously , you cannot consider cluster lines because that figure is an arbitrary figure . Mr . Weisburd appended this drawing to the bulletin board and indicating upon it , he described the " movement " of units from " Round Rock " and " The Pines " to " The Meadows " and within the " The Meadows " itself . Mr . Weisburd noted that there will be 19 units in " The Meadows " and six in " Round Rock " . Mr . Weisburd displayed the revised plan , noting that this is what he had shown the Board earlier . Chairman May commented to Mr . Weisburd that he was sort of • centering the six units in " Round Rock " . Mr . Weisburd agreed and proceeded to describe the existing transformer pad which they cannot Planning Board 9 February 5 , 1985 build on and also pointed out the sewer line , and stated that he wanted to leave as much open as he possibly can by the turn - around . Mr . Stanton wondered if those six units would have a carport . Mr . Weisburd pointed out that his plan showed six carports and stated that that is an option . Mr . Weisburd stated that he suspected that only three will be sold . Mr . Lovi commented that the plan showed quite a bit of parking . Mr . Weisburd showed where they have had parking and described the history of the parking in the development area . Mr . Weisburd stated that he was trying to keep out of an area where it is tight . Chairman May commented that he thought Mr . Weisburd was saying that if he did not have a carport , he would have parking there . Mr . Lovi pointed out that Mr . Weisburd does have other kinds of parking for that phase . Mr . Weisburd stated that he has heard from DOT in connection with their Route 79 improvement and , noting that some land will be taken out , indicated where - - up by the drainage ditch . Mr . Weisburd described a piece of his property about 20 ' x 20 ' and the drainage ditch involved and an outright easement to the State . Mr . Weisburd stated that he wanted to bring this up to the Planning Board also this evening because it is an alteration to the amount of land in the subdivision . Mr . Weisburd stated that he did not think it would be a problem but , in any event , he has no choice . Mr . Weisburd presented a small 8z " x 11 " drawing showing what would be taking place in connection with the State improvement of Route 79 . Chairman May stated • that he agreed there was really no choice , commenting that they are taking land away from him too . Mr . Weisburd stated that , in essence , it does not really affect anything but , technically , it is a reduction in their land and should come up before the Planning Board . Mr . Weisburd stated that . 015 acres of land is involved . Mr . Fabbroni asked how the access drive off the north end of the parking lot was going to be treated . Mr . Weisburd explained , indicating on the plan , that all the parking would be in a certain spot and access would be from the parking lots . Mr . Weisburd described a path that goes in front of the buildings which is wide enough for a van for , say , moving furniture . Mr . Weisburd stated that he would keep it looking like a path , but it would be solid enough for a small truck . Mr . Weisburd described a screen from the main entrance road . Mr . Stanton wondered about access and Mr . Weisburd described same by pointing out and indicating on the plan . Mr . Klein commented that it struck him as " different " to go to six units there in " Round Rock . " Mr . Weisburd described how he felt about this structure in architectural terms . Mr . Weisburd commented that a change in design did not make him feel uncomfortable . Chairman May commented that he thought Mr . Weisburd was actually changing his design in the lower area , " The Meadows " , because of the slope of the land . Mr . Weisburd responded that that was really not the reason , adding that the reason is quite complicated . Mr . Weisburd • listed his reasons , stating - - ( 1 ) it is nice to change ; ( 2 ) new technologies ; ( 3 ) a certain amount of assumptions which turned out to Planning Board 10 February. 5 , 1985 be expensive , not that this is not expensive , because the units will be more expensive ; ( 4 ) market faith . Chairman May asked if there were any comments from the public . Mrs . Carolyn Peterson , 110 Dey Street , City of Ithaca , spoke from the floor and stated she has concerns about building in the area of the watershed , she always has had concerns and still has concerns . Mrs . Peterson stated that she was rather dismayed that the Planning Board was considering building there close to the border of the watershed . Mrs . Peterson stated that she was Chairman of the Six Mile Creek Oversee Committee and it is their hope to use the area as an undeveloped area for recreation of a very passive kind . Mrs . Peterson asked Mr . Weisburd why he chose that area rather than centering it , adding that she was also concerned about soils and drainage . Mr . Weisburd responded that , for one thing , they are simply balancing out what they are doing in " this " phase [ indicating ] . Mr . Weisburd stated that this part of the development is a year or two away and is keeping the numbers the same . Mr . Weisburd stated that they did not find that there was any reason not to put them in that area of " The Meadows " , and , in fact , as to the question about erosion and landslides that was an issue in the original approval meetings , the answer is not evident on these drawings but was shown at the last meeting . Mr . Weisburd described the " new " design and spoke of " grid beam " and pylons , adding that , in terms of net loss of permeable area , it is almost zero , adding that roof water goes over ground , so the net effect in terms of run • off , in terms of reducing it , is almost zero . Mr . Weisburd stated that he did not feel that the area is particularly fragile and sets up a reason not to have these units there . Mr . Weisburd commented that it seemed to him , as an architect , like a very nice idea to have that double row as a sort of urban streetscape , adding that the recreational space is also nearby and the community center and the pond . Chairman May commented that this " new " building in " The Meadows " is a little farther away from the property line . Mr . Weisburd stated that that was correct , adding that , also , that was the side that drains directly into the pond . Pointing to the drawing , Mr . Weisburd stated that the space between " this " building and " that " building is a ridge . Mr . Klein wondered how far away from the property line the closest building was , to which Mr . Weisburd responded , about 451 , adding that it has to be 30 feet in any case as required by the Subdivision Regulations . Chairman May asked if there were any other questions . Mrs . Peterson stated that she would prefer , of course , that that urban environment be created in another area and not impact on that area . Chairman May asked if there were any more questions from the public . No one spoke . Chairman May closed the Public Hearing at 8 : 50 • p . m . , and asked that the Board turn to the matter of the Short EAF which the Board members had before them and which had been signed and submitted by Claudia Weisburd for House Craft Builders , under date of Planning Board 11 February 5 , 1985 • 2 / 5 / 85 . Chairman May noted that all questions had been answered in the negative and the Town Planner , Mr . Lovi , had reviewed the submittals and recommended as follows : " As this project has already been extensively reviewed at the time of the original subdivision approval and there are no changes to the density , number of units , or other environmental factors , I recommend a declaration of negative significance . " Chairman May asked if there were any questions , or comments , or disagreements . There were none . MOTION by Mrs . Virginia Langhans , seconded by Mrs . Barbara Schultz : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , acting as lead agency in the review of the proposed amendment to the Final Subdivision Plan of Commonland Community approve and hereby does approve the Short 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 , Grigorov , Langhans , Klein , Stanton . Nay - None . Abstain - Mazza . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman May asked that the Board return to its consideration of the proposed amendments to the Final Subdivision Plan , Mr . Stanton stated that he thought the proposed movement from nine units to six units in " Round Rock " is a step in the right direction and it is an improvement from the whole project ' s perspective to reduce the density in " Round Rock " . Mr . Fabbroni stated that , as far as the site plan goes , the original set of documents detail the grading plan which we have seen to date has proved itself out in every single respect , so there is reason to believe that , as long as these additional four buildings are worked according to that grading plan , we would have no problems . Mr . Fabbroni pointed out that the pond is built and it functions , adding that it gives a good view of how our presumptions and assumptions have worked out . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the Town is just as sensitive as the City , and commented that that bank needs stabilization in and of • itself to stop what is going on in the gorge . Mr . Fabbroni commented on what he termed , the wash - out , noting that , as was said when Commonland was approved , 250 ' to 300 ' from these buildings , southwest of these buildings , the bank at the angle of repose it has needs some Planning Board 12 February 5 , 1985 things done . Mr . Fabbroni suggested that the bank could be riprapped and , so , stop the rate at which it is seeking its own angle again . MOTION by Mrs . Barbara Schultz , seconded by Mr . Bernard Stanton . RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board approve and hereby does approve Amendments to the Final Subdivision Plan of Commonland Community , 124 units , clustered , as presented at Public Hearing , this date , February 5 , 1985 , by Jerold Weisburd , architect / developer , House Craft Builders , Inc . , and as shown on Drawing No . 5 - R , entitled Commonland Community Phase - III , dated 1 / 29 / 85 , rev . 2 / 5 / 85 , stamped and sealed by Jerold M . Weisburd , Registered Architect . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Schultz , Grigorov , Langhans , Klein , Stanton . Nay - None . Abstain - Mazza . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman May declared the matter of the amendments to the Commonland Community Final Subdivision Plan duly closed at 9 : 00 p . m . INFORMAL DISCUSSION : RAY DELLI -CARPINI - CONCERNING PLANNING BOARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW AND A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS IN RE A CHURCH ON PINE TREE ROAD , Mr . Lovi stated that he had asked Mr . Delli - Carpini to come before the Board this evening to , again , look at a survey on which he has supplied certain information , so that its sufficiency can be determined in order for the Board to make a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals . Mr . Lovi noted that , although not a scale drawing , Mr . Delli - Carpini has shown on the survey , which he had enlarged , additional measurements , has indicated the parking , where he would propose to put a sign , the length of the driveway , the size of the garage in question , an enclosed garbage shed with dimensions given , and a security light . Mr . Lovi asked if there is any information in addition to what the Board has here that it would like for a final site plan , please make it known at this time . Chairman May referred to the survey map with the information written on by Mr . Delli -Carpini , and stated that the Board needed to understand the garage a little better , adding that there are several lines marked on the drawing and asking for clarification from Mr . Delli -Carpini , Mr . Delli - Carpini indicated on the drawing what the various items were , noting , among other things , the former three - bay garage about which he stated that they have removed one wall and also that the part that was the third bay of the garage is currently a garage . Chairman May wondered what the 20 . 5 feet referred to . Indicating on the drawing , Mr . Delli -Carpini stated that the 20 . 5 feet i41 s the short wall of the garage [ west side ] , adding that the other wall [ east side ] is 22 feet , and further adding , that the overall of the Planning Board 13 February 5 , 1985 . south wall of the whole building is 20 . 5 feet plus 14 feet which is still the garage part . Mr . Delli - Carpini stated that the room that they are using is actually 20 . 5 feet square . Mrs . Schultz asked who uses the garage , to which Mr . Delli -Carpini responded that he did , adding that a small room above the garage is not used . Mrs . Grigorov asked if there were a bathroom . The Secretary stated that Mr . Cartee had reported to the Zoning Board of Appeals that there is no bathroom in the garage ; facilities are in the house . Chairman May stated that he would like to see the parking more carefully defined and asked if there were a gravel drive . Mr . Delli - Carpini described the bushes defining the driveway and parking area and explained his future plans for parking and a gravelled area . Mr . Delli - Carpini pointed out on the drawing the parking area , to the north of the circular driveway , which he had delineated and which was shown as an area 30 ' x 75 ' . Chairman May asked that the actual parking area be shown on a revised drawing using cross - hatching to delineate it . Mr . Mazza asked about lighting . Mr . Delli -Carpini described the exterior light in place on the garage and indicated where it was shown on the drawing . Mr . Lovi , noting that the Town site plan regulations call for a topo map , stated that the land involved here is very slightly sloped , and commented that it is very expensive to have a topo map drawn up . Chairman May stated that he would recommend to the Board that that requirement be waived . Mrs . Grigorov asked about the sign noted on the drawing . Mr . Delli - Carpini described what he planned for signage , speaking of an L - shaped sign , unlighted , of about 4 ' x 4 ' , and commented that he had been told by someone in the Planning Office that he was allowed , he thought , a 24 square foot sign . Mr . Mazza asked how many people attended a meeting , to which Mr . Delli -Carpini responded , about a dozen adults . Mr . Stanton wondered how many Mr . Delli -Carpini thought there might be in about five years from now . Mr . Delli -Carpini stated that they did not expect to grow that much , but if they go beyond 36 people , which they can accommodate now , they have options such as building on the vacant land adjacent , which they own . Chairman May wondered if Mr . Delli -Carpini understood that 36 people is the limit as indicated by the Zoning Board of Appeals . Mr . Delli - Carpini commented that he did not think that was the case , adding that Mr . Cartee was talking about the facility itself holding 36 people . Mr . Stanton asked if he were correct in stating that at the moment Mr . Delli - Carpini has no plans to build in the vacant land . Mr . Delli - Carpini stated that that was essentially correct , adding that the situation with the vacant lot has to be clarified because of a stipulation in the deed of title . Mr . Lovi requested Chairman May to direct the Secretary to prepare appropriate notifications to the newspaper for a public hearing on February 19th with respect to Planning Board site plan review in the Delli - Carpini application for a church at 203 Pine Tree Road and , also , for a public hearing at the same meeting with respect to the Drake subdivision discussed earlier . INFORMAL DISCUSSION : ROGER BATTISTELLA - CONCERNING THE DEVELOPMENT OF A FARM WINERY ON SLATERVILLE ROAD . The Board members each had received with his / her Agenda a copy of the following documents prepared by Mr . Roger Battistella : Planning Board 14 February 5 , 1985 • 1 . Discussion Draft - - Farm Winery Zoning Appeal : R- 15 to R- 30 . " FARM WINERY DEFINITION ' A farm winery is a premise located on a farm in New York State in which wine is manufactured or sold . A licensed farm winery cannot maunufacture more than 50 , 000 finished gallons of wine annually . ' ' The wine has to be produced entirely from New York State grapes , or , under recent amendment to the ABC Law enacted at the Authority ' s request , any other fruit or agricultural products grown in New York State ' ( Source : Alan J . Gardner , ' Legal Requirements in Establishing and Operating a Farm Winery ' . Farm Winery Proceedings . Geneva : New York State Agricultural Experiment Station 1979 . ) FARM WINERY LEGISLATION See attached New York State Liquor Authority alcoholic beverage control law and rules . LOCATION OF PROPOSED FARM WINERY 1551 Slaterville Rd . See attached survey map for lot size and boundaries . STRUCTURE SIZE Dutch - style barn 30 ' X 52 ' . Frame construction ( board and batten ) set on cinderblock foundation , 35 ' to peak . Barn consists of full basement ( 10 ' ceiling ) and two floors , with full utilities . NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES Family business . RETAIL SALES HOURS • Seasonal variation : Daily , 11 am . - 5 pm . , beginning Memorial Day and ending Labor Day . Weekends only for remainder of year . VOLUME Beginning with 1 , 000 gallons and expanding by 1 , 000 gallons annually to tenth year , with production levelling off at approximately 10 , 000 gallons . TRAFFIC PROJECTION Estimates are based on the following assumptions , the reasonableness of which have been verified by Mr . William Brown , Secretary , Finger Lakes Wine Council - - a consortium of local farm wineries for joint purchasing and promotions : 1 . Total production will be sold on site . 2 . Average visitor can be expected to purchase two bottles of wine . 3 . There are two occupants per automobile on average . 4 . Roughly 500 visitors annually are required for each thousand gallons of wine sales . 5 . Number of automobiles annually per thousand gallons of wine equals 250 . The number of visitors per day ( 365 ) will begin at 1 . 4 ( 1000 gallons ) and level off at 14 ( 10 , 000 gallons ) . The number of automobiles per day ( 365 ) will begin at 0 . 7 ( 1000 gallons ) and level off at 7 ( 10 , 000 gallons ) . PARKING See attached plan . New York State Department of Transportation has authorized construction of 2nd driveway accessing Rte . 79 , together with piping and filling of drainage ditch from existing culvert face to distance near back of barn . Planning Board 15 February 5 , 1985 WASTES GENERATION -DISPOSAL On average , two ( 2 ) gallons of waste water are required for each gallon of wine . Solids consisting of grape skins will be returned to fields . In addition to clean washing and rinse water , waste water entering sewage system occasionally will include dead yeast cells and potassium bitartrate ( cream of tartar ) , when fermentation vessels are cleansed . " 2 . Sketch Site Plan , 3 . Short Environmental Assessment Form , completed and signed by Roger M . Battistella under date of January 23 , 1985 , with all questions answered " no " ; reviewed by Peter M . Lovi , Town Planner , under date of January 30 , 1985 , with the following recommendation : " On the basis of the following findings , I recommend that a negative determination of environmental significance be made : 1 . This project will not create a substantial adverse change in existing air or water quality . 2 . Noise levels associated with automobile traffic will increase , though I do not believe a projected average traffic flow of 7 cars / day at full capacity to be significant , given the overall level of traffic on State Route 79 , 3 . All solid wastes will be returned to the site ; water will be disposed of through the sanitary sewer system . 4 . There will not be a potential increase in erosion , flooding , • or drainage problems if proper soil maintenance practices are followed . Proposed Department of Transporation drainage improvements will not be compromised by this project . 5 . The project will not destroy large quantities of vegetation or fauna , and will in fact cultivate a high value crop . 6 . There is no evidence that the project will interfere with the movement of any resident migratory fish or wildlife species nor will the project have any substantial adverse impacts on a threatened or endangered species of plant or animal . 7 . A projected maximum of 5000 visitors annually will not interfere with the predominantly residential character of the area . 8 . The project will create a material conflict with the Town Zoning Ordinance . However , a portion of the vineyard is zoned R30 , and a roadside stand for the sale of farm products is a permitted use in such zones . Though the Zoning Board of Appeals is responsible for interpreting the Zoning Ordinance , and the Town Board is the only body empowered to make legislative determinations , I do not believe that this material conflict is significant . 9 . This project will not impair the archeological , architectural , or historic qualities of the area . Insofar as the owner has made a substantial restoration of the barn and an investment in the vineyard , I believe that the aesthetic character of the area has been improved . 10 . There will be no significant difference in the types or quantities of energy used in this project as compared with residential uses in our Town . Planning Board 16 February 5 , 1985 • 11 . The New York State Department of Transportation has authorized a second driveway on Slaterville Road . The parking areas appear adequate for the projected traffic flow . The use of pesticides should be controlled and monitored closely so that there is no possibility of runoff into the City of Ithaca reservoir . There are no other aspects of the project which might create either a short - run or long - term hazard to human health or safety . 12 . The proposed use is compatible with existing uses , both in type and intensity . 13 . I cannot foresee the creation of a future , material demand for any action which may have a significant environmental impact as the result of this project . " Mr . Battistella stated that he was present to answer any questions the Board might have . Mr . Battistella stated that he tried to spell out the major dimensions of what he has in mind in the " Discussion Draft " . Mrs . Langhans , commenting that there is an awfully steep drop there , asked , with respect to parking , if Mr . Battistella were going to be grading that area adjacent to the road , adding that the sketch plan showed a tentative plan for parking and driveway improvement . Mr . Battistella responded that he is in the process of completing negotiations with the State in order to have a second access to the highway . Mrs . Grigorov stated that the barn , as it has been restored . by Mr . Battistella , is very nice looking . Mr . Battistella agreed that the barn looked very good , adding that the restoration was done by Mr . James Iacovelli . Mr . Fabbroni asked if the parking area would " bench out " from the existing lay of the land . Mr . Battistella stated that there will be some grade there , but when the State comes in to build the culvert , they will have to use fill . Mr . Battistella stated that he will use that fill , and other fill , to improve the grade . Chairman May asked what the Planning Board needs to do eventually with this proposal . Mr . Lovi indicated that the Planning Board should review the site plan on the project and make a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals . Mr . Fabbroni explained that the Zoning Board of Appeals has to speak to the matter because of the R15 zoning in the front portion of the parcel , adding that it would probably be safe to assume that the operation is okay in the rear part of the land which is zoned R30 . Mr . Fabbroni commented that it was a variance matter of sorts , but the major consideration is access and a site plan that is consistent with the use , rather than the use itself , and added that the barn was used for agricultural purposes at the time the farm was in operation . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the comings and goings of the patrons of the winery is the biggest area of concern . Mr . Fabbroni noted that he , and the Board , are more than familiar with the drainage in the area , and spoke of it as one of the two major waterways coming from East Ithaca . Mr . Fabbroni pointed out that Mr . Battistella is in the process of improving the situation , both by the State and by • himself , by the covered culvert shown on the sketch plan , so , he will be able to move the drainageway away and get the area levelled off . Mr . Fabbroni , commenting that the parking area might turn out to be on the level of the barn and with Mr . Battistella agreeing , stated that , Planning Board 17 February 5 , 1985 • therefore indirectly , what the Board sees on the plan ties in with the Town ' s whole drainage scheme up the hill and insures that he [ Battistella ] will not be washed out by future development farther up . Mr . Fabbroni pointed out that Mr . Battistella will also be working with the local State people who issue the permits with respect to access and work the grade out as much as possible . Mr . Fabbroni also noted again that the winery would need a variance but the vineyard is okay in R30 , adding that there is minimal commercial activity that is anticipated by calling oneself a farm winery . Mr . Lovi commented that with part of the vineyard in R30 where a farm stand is permitted and with a winery of this type being much more like a farm stand , there are some grounds for considering a variance in that sense . Mrs . Langhans asked if the operation was sort of like a business . Chairman May commented that he had trouble calling that barn a roadside stand . Mrs . Grigorov said that she thought it was analogous . Chairman May noted that the winery is a seasonal use essentially . Mr . Battistella stated that the time of sales would be quite limited . Mrs . Langhans wondered if Mr . Battistella really thought that this was an appropriate business to go into at a time when so many wineries are closing . Mr . Battistella indicated that he was not overly pessimistic . Mrs . Grigorov wondered how soon Mr . Battistella might have wine ready for sale , to which Mr . Battistella responded , in about 24 months . Chairman May stated that he thought the barn and the vineyard fields looked very nice . Mr . Stanton , commenting that sometimes people start out with one thing and wind up selling other things , asked Mr . Battistella if he intended to sell milk and bread . Mr . Battistella stated that the New York State License requirements limit the sales and added that he did not intend to become a grocery store . Mrs . Grigorov stated that generally she had a very favorable impression herself . Chairman May agreed and stated that there was no question that there had been a material improvement to the property , particularly the barn , and the vineyard certainly looks nice . Mr . Fabbroni commented that the project is a lot cleaner to look at it in the form Mr . Battistella envisions , that is , a " farm winery " as it is regulated by the ABC Board and the Department of Ag and Markets . Chairman May stated that the Board would expect to see Mr . Battistella at Public Hearing on February 19th , Mr . Fabbroni stated that Mr . Battistella should have a plat plan prepared which includes a cross - section of the parking area and driveways perpendicular to the road . INFORMAL DISCUSSION : ON DANBY ROAD , DELL GOVER - CONCERNING A CLUSTERED SUBDIVISION Mr . Mazza stated that he was , at this point , stepping away from his position as a member of the Planning Board , Mr . Mazza appended a large drawing to the bulletin board entitled " Sketch Plan " , Grover Clustered Subdivision , dated 2 / 5 / 85 , prepared by Robert R . Flumerfelt , P . E . Mr . Mazza stated that he and Mr . Dell Grover are involved , • together with William Reed and William Grover , as principals , in this development which is proposed to be 32 -units of clustered housing on property owned by Dell and William Grover on the Danby Road , south of Planning Board 18 February 5 , 1985 • NCR on the west side of Danby Road . Mr . Mazza stated that Mr . Flumerfelt is acting as the Engineer for the principals , adding that Mr . Flumerfelt is a part - time Engineer with the Town of Ithaca and that he had talked with the Town Supervisor about this situation and has been told that there is no problem and also that there is no problem with his being involved . Mr . Mazza also appended a USGS map to the bulletin board which , he stated , would give the Board a rough idea of where the property is and its features . Mr . Mazza pointed out the location of Ithaca College , NCR , the Lake , and Route 96B ( Danby Road ) . Utilizing the sketch plan , Mr . Mazza indicated the structure existing on the property [ 1020 Danby Road ] which is not a part of this project and pointed out the proposed lot boundary for that structure as the lot will be reduced from its present size . Mr . Mazza stated that that is the house Mr . William Grover lives in . Mr . Mazza described an old roadside stand which exists on the property and which is going to be torn down . Mr . Mazza stated that there is also an old house on the property and something is going to be done with it , commenting that it will go in one form or other . Mr . Mazza stated that what they intend to do is put in a cul de sac , which he indicated on the sketch plan . Mr . Mazza indicated the existing sanitary sewer line and the proposed extensions off that and the proposed water main off the existing water main on Danby Road . Mr . Mazza stated that there will be a total of 32 units clustered in groups of fours . Mr . Mazza pointed out how the clusters are all pretty much facing northwest and commented on the tremendous view of the Lake and • West Hill and the sunsets , adding that they want to take advantage of those views . Mr . Mazza noted that , just for the moment , the topo is from the USGS maps , however , the houses will be put far enough apart so the views are not obstructed by other buildings . Mr . Mazza stated that it may very well be possible that the bedrooms would be on the lower level and the living area on the upper level , as well as a deck , to take advantage of the views . Mr . Mazza described the access to the clusters off the proposed road except for cluster " 7 " for which , if they can work it out with the State DOT , they would like to have a driveway come in to from Danby Road " here " [ indicating ] . Mr . Mazza pointed out that this way they would be able to keep more green space in the project , adding that they want to keep as much green space as possible , but they do have to have a road in there but would like to minimize the amount of roads covering the green space . Mr . Mazza pointed out that the NYS DOT is responsible for establishing how access is gained to a State Highway and , therefore , their requirements may result in these accesses being adjusted to meet those requirements . Chairman May asked how many acres of land were involved in this proposal . Mr . Grover responded that there are about 72 acres of land . Mrs . Langhans asked for clarification as to where on Danby Road . Mr . Mazza stated that William Grover ' s house is 1020 Danby Road and the so - called " blue house " is 1018 , adding that as you go north there are a couple of houses and then vacant NCR property . Chairman May wondered about parking . Mr . Mazza stated that that depended on whether they can • get this driveway access or not , otherwise , the driveways would probably be " here " [ indicating ] . Chairman May wondered if there would be a central parking area . Mr . Mazza stated that the parking would be Planning Board 19 February 5 , 1985 • at the individual homes , adding that it is their intention to sell off the units as separate units , like Commonland Community , Mr . Mazza stated that he had talked to Mr . Lovi about the height , adding that the idea is for some of the units to have the garage on the lower level , then the bedroom level , and then the living area . Mr . Mazza commented that it is sort of a gray area as to this idea being " 3 " stories . Mr . Mazza stated that in some of the other units maybe there would be a detached garage , or even attached , and then two stories . Chairman May asked Mr . Lovi if he thought there was no problem with a garage and then two stories . Mr . Lovi stated that he could not speak to that , adding that the Board would have to ask Mr . Cartee as the person who interprets the zoning ordinance . Referring back to the sketch plan , Mr . Mazza noted how the units were angled for a view to the north and to the west . Mrs . Langhans commented that she thought the proposed cul de sac seemed to detract from the view . Mr . Mazza pointed out that this drawing was only a sketch plan . Mr . Flumerfelt displayed a conventional grid sketch plan of the proposal and pointed out that the result would be about 36 units . Mr . Mazza noted that the sanitary sewer can be installed without a lift station . Mr . Fabbroni wondered what , if any , consideration had been given for access either to the south or to the west of this particular property . Indicating on the sketch plan , Mr . Mazza showed the space left open for access to backland which , he stated , they do not own . • Discussion followed with respect to how the lots will be sold , in fee simple ; with respect to any homeowners ' agreements ; and with respect to the role of the Town Board , Mr . Stanton commented that he liked the proposal of having the garage as part of the system . Mr . Mazza stated that they could be prepared for a Preliminary Subdivision Approval hearing on February 19th , Mr . Fabbroni stated that he would like to see some provision for that land to the west even if only by the use of dashed lines and also some provision for extension of the water main , commenting that , in that regard , there might possibly be need for an easement permitting enough room for a right of way and utility easement . Mr . Fabbroni stated that also there should be plans for landscaping presented . Mr . Mazza agreed , however , he pointed out that they really do not want to obstruct the views with large trees . INFORMAL DISCUSSION9 THERM - CONCERNING THE RELOCATION OF A BUILDING TO THE VICINITY OF PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE . Mr . Arnold Albrecht appeared before the Board and stated that he would like to speak in an informal manner about Therm ' s plans to relocate a warehouse that already exists inside another warehouse . Mr . Albrecht displayed a partial site plan of the Therm property , a copy of which each Board member had received with his / her Agenda , which indicated where the warehouse was coming from and where it was going to . Mr . Albrecht stated that the large building delineated as • " warehouse " already exists and inside it , shown as a " square " on the drawing is what is goi dng to carefully dismantled and rebuilt attached to the building marked on the drawing as " house " . Planning Board 20 February 5 , 1985 • Chairman May wondered what it will look like . Mr . Albrecht responded that it will have steel sides and a steel roof . Mr . Mazza , having resumed his seat at the Planning Board table , asked what the relocated building would be used for . Mr . Albrecht stated that it will be used for cold storage , and described its being set upon a slab . Mr . Mazza wondered where the driveways were and Mr . Albrecht showed them by indicating on the drawing . Mr . Albrecht commented that this is a temporary situation until Therm builds another building . Chairman May asked if anyone had any particular problems with Therm ' s proposal . None were indicated . Mrs . Schultz stated that she had never heard a neighbor ever say a word against Therm . Mrs . Langhans stated that she had no problems . Mr . Klein stated that he would , most probably , not have any problems , however , this map does not have a whole lot of detail although it does indicate that the relocated building will be 130 feet from the property line . Mr . Albrecht stated that the building is one - story , metal , and commented that the " house " is old . Councilwoman Howell wondered if anyone lived there , to which Mr . Albrecht responded , no , adding that it is also used for storage . Mr . Albrecht indicated that he would return for site plan approval at the first meeting in March [ March 5th ] . SCHEDULE OF PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ' ATTENDANCE AT TOWN BOARD MEETINGS After discussion , it was agreed that Mr . Klein would attend the • February 11th Town Board meeting , Mr . Stanton , the March 11th , and Mr . Mazza , the April 11th . ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion , Chairman May declared the February 5 , 1985 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 10 : 15 p . m . Respectfully submitted , Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary , Town of Ithaca Planning Board .