Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1985-03-05 . l r • TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD MARCH 5 , 1985 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday , March 5 , 1985 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York , at 7 : 30 p . m . PRESENT : Vice Chairman Carolyn Grigorov , David Klein , Edward Mazza , Barbara Schultz , Bernard Stanton , James Baker , Virginia Langhans , Peter M . Lovi ( Town Planner ) , Nancy M . Fuller ( Secretary ) . ALSO PRESENT : Jonathan C . Meigs , James Iacovelli , Jean Deming , Robert Deming , Tamme Steenhuis , Mike Clark ( WTKO News ) . Vice Chairman Grigorov declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 30 p . m . and accepted for the record the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings ( 2 ) in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on February 25 , 1985 and February 28 , 1985 , respectively , together with the Secretary ' s Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice upon the various neighbors of the properties in question , as appropriate , and upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning , on March 1 , 1985 . APPROVAL OF MINUTES - January 15 , 1985 . MOTION by Mr . Bernard Stanton , seconded by Mrs . Barbara Schultz : RESOLVED , that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting of January 15 , 1985 be and hereby are approved as written . There being no further discussion , the Vice Chair called for a vote . Aye - Grigorov , Klein , Mazza , Schultz , Stanton , Baker , Langhans . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . APPROVAL OF MINUTES - February 19 , 1985 . Mr . Klein offered a correction to the Minutes of February 19 , 1985 , noting that on pages 7 and 8 , Mr . Lemley ' s name was spelled " Lumley " . MOTION by Mr . Edward Mazza , seconded by Mr . Bernard Stanton * RESOLVED , that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting of February 19 , 1985 be and hereby are approved , as corrected on pages 7 and 8 thereof by the proper spelling of Mr . Lemley ' s name . There being no further discussion , the Vice Chair called for a vote . 1 . Planning Board 2 March 5 , 1985 Aye - Grigorov , Klein , Mazza , Schultz , Stanton , Baker , Langhans . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . CLARIFICATION BY MR . MAZZA OF STATEMENT MADE AT FEBRUARY 19 , 1985 PLANNING BOARD MEETING . Mr . Mazza stated , with regard to the Dell Grover et al cluster subdivision proposed for Danby Road , that he wished to clarify his meaning with respect to the first sentence in paragraph 5 appearing on page 3 of the February 19th Minutes . Mr . Mazza stated that he probably did say what appears there and , thus , was not offering his statement as a correction , but as a clarification . [ The sentence referred to was . " Mr . Mazza went on to add that the units to be built will be sold as separate dwelling units . " ] Mr . Mazza expressed his concern that that statement might be misleading . Mr . Mazza stated that that was the intent with regard to this subdivision development , however , if for some reason that does not happen , for example , interest rates rise and no one buys any of the units , they could be rented and , also , if someone else buys it , he and Mr . Grover were not going to restrict them . Mr . Mazza stated that he would like to clarify that particular sentence by saying here , for the record in the Minutes of this meeting , that the units are being built as separate units with the hope of their being sold as separate units . BUILDING INSPECTOR ' S REPORT Each of the Board members had before him / her a copy of Mr . Cartee ' s Report of Building Permits Issued for the month of February 1985 . Said Report indicates that 6 permits were issued in February 1985 for a total of $ 84 , 063 . 13 in improvements , as compared with February 1984 when 2 permits were issued for a total of $ 2 , 500 . 00 in improvements . STAFF REPORT - Peter M . Lovi Mr . Lovi discussed with the Board , briefly , the status of the Therm , Inc . proposal for the moving of the storage building , which , at the moment , is inside another building which was built around it , to another area of the site . The Secretary noted that the Board was waiting for a site plan delineating , on one plan , all the improvements in place on the Therm property . Mr . Lovi stated that he wished to inform the Board that Orlando Iacovelli will be coming before the Board soon with a proposed 5 - lot , maybe 6 - lot , subdivision of his lands at 362 West King Road . Referencing a proposed site plan which he passed among the Board members for their information , Mr . Lovi commented that Mr . Iacovelli appears to be including the right of way of the road in the square footage of the lots which he [ Lovi ] did not believe was the usual practice . Mr . Lovi stated that he was going to talk this matter over with Mr . Fabbroni . Mr . Lovi also pointed out that this present request is connected with another subdivision plan presented by Mr . Iacovelli involving some of the same lands for which , in June of 1980 , Mr . Iacovelli was granted 1 . Planning Board 3 March 5 , 1985 final subdivision approval for 4 - lots , but which was never recorded in the County Clerk ' s Office . Mr . Lovi further commented , stating that he was essentially thinking out loud , that if this parcel is over five acres , perhaps it could be considered for clustering . Mr . Lovi stated that his purpose , at this time , was to make the Board aware of what was coming along . Vice Chairman Grigorov commented that it did not seem to her , on the face of it , that cluster is the way to go . PUBLIC HEARING . SITE PLAN REVIEW IN RE THE PROPOSED YOUTH BUREAU FACILITY SITE PLAN LAYOUT AND ROAD RELOCATION AT THE PRESENT YOUTH BUREAU SITE , STEWART PARK , JONATHAN C . MEIGS , PLANNER , CITY OF ITHACA . Vice Chairman Grigorov declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted matter duly opened at 7 : 54 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Mr . Meigs , Planner , City of Ithaca , was present . Mr . Meigs appended to the bulletin board a large plan drawn on an aerial photograph of the Stewart Park area . Mr . Meigs stated that he had returned to the Planning Board this evening as a follow-up to his informational presentation to the Board on behalf of the City of Ithaca at its February 19th , 1985 meeting . Mr . Meigs stated , with regard to this application , that what the Board was seeing [ on the bulletin board ] is not a final site plan , thus , it was his question to the Board , before going any farther , at what . point must the site planning be in order for it to be valid to pass on . Vice Chairman Grigorov stated that the Board usually has before it a site plan in final form . Mr . Lovi inquired of Mr . Meigs how different a " final " site plan might be . Mr . Meigs stated that the location of the main building , the Youth Bureau building , may vary slightly by a matter of only a few feet , somewhat in a northeast to southwest movement , but , maybe a matter of 40 or 50 feet on the other axis . Mr . Meigs stated that the reason was budget and cost matters . Indicating on the large drawing , Mr . Meigs pointed out the possible movement and described preliminary results from the Soil Service , noting that the soil conditions are relatively good , and adding that there is no clay , the area being mainly silt and sand , largely particulate matter . Mr . Meigs stated that it is good to take advantage of the pre - loading that has taken place on the site of the existing Youth Bureau which , apparently , had about 3 to 4 feet of fill added . Mr . Meigs commented while indicating on the plan , that the building may be shifted more toward Route 13 and toward the " relocated " North Cayuga Street , Vice Chairman Grigorov interjected that this would probably mean a relocation of the proposed parking and other plans . Mr . Meigs stated that engineering drawings are on the way with respect to the road , adding that the City is working with the State DOT , Mr . Meigs stated that the road probably will not change very much , but the building may have to be moved . Again , utilizing the drawing , Mr . Meigs commented that the turn - around for busses and tourists , which is actually in the City , may be revised to make it a less substantial element of the site design . Mr . Meigs commented that the plan on the bulletin board is schematic and yet is what the City is working with . 1, Planning Board 4 March 5 , 1985 Mr . Lovi noted that , in any event , there will be a Youth Bureau Facility , a Maintenance Building , and parking . Mr . Lovi mentioned to Mr . Meigs , for his information , another problem that might occur with differential compaction . Mr . Meigs stated that that problem is being worked on and it could be two weeks to a month before the results are known . Mr . Klein pointed out that if the building were to be slid down toward the existing site , it would be on the proposed road . Mr . Meigs responded that Mr . Klein was correct , adding that the pre - load is not co - terminous with the footprint of the existing building . Mr . Meigs stated that the Town Zoning Board of Appeals has granted Special Approval and a variance for the use of the accessory apartment [ February 27 , 19851 subject to site plan approval by the Planning Board . Vice Chairman Grigorov stated that it seemed to her that the Planning Board could give site plan approval within the possibilities of what has been described . Mr . Klein , commenting that it was hard to approve what one cannot see , suggested that the Board could approve this plan as preliminary and then Mr . Meigs could come back with the final plan . Mr . Mazza commented that , in his view , moving the building a few feet was not significant , but moving the parking all around was significant . Mr . Meigs stated that the City will receive word from the engineering consultant with respect to " this relocation " [ indicating ] and the cost therefor , and whether or not that cost would be lessened by moving the 0 building on to the pre - load . Mr . Meigs stated that what the Board sees is pretty close to what the City proposes . Mr . Mazza commented that he thought that the Board could pass - or not pass depending on the vote - - on the site plan before it and , if it changes significantly , such as parking on a different site , they would have to come back . Mrs . Schultz commented that she felt they would definitely have to come back to the Planning Board were the site plan not to be substantially in the form approved . Mr . Mazza indicated his agreement and pointed out that a change of a couple of feet would be acceptable as not being a substantive change , but moving a significant amount of parking is a different matter . Vice Chairman Grigorov asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak to the matter of the proposed Youth Bureau Facility site plan . No one spoke . Mr . Stanton read aloud from the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , Article IX , Section 46 - a , paragraph 3 , as follows : " Upon submission of a final site plan , the Planning board shall approve or disapprove the site plan . The owner shall be bound by the site plan as approved by the Planning Board . " Following a brief discussion in light of the paragraph cited by Mr . Stanton , it was the consensus of the Board that the City would have to get final site plan approval based on a final plan . Mr . Meigs stated that that was reasonable . In response to Mr . Klein ' s request for a description of what was planned because he was unable to attend the February 19th meeting , Mr . Meigs described the history of all the discussions within the City by its officials and planners with respect to the Stewart Park Master Plan including such matters as the proposed road relocation and the City property in the area and that which is located within the Town of i Planning Board 5 March 5 , 1985 • Ithaca . Mr . Meigs stated that in the course of working on the Stewart Park Master Plan , the issue of what to do with the Youth Bureau was raised and , thus , came the idea of coordinating the development of the Park with the construction of a " new " Youth Bureau Facility . Utilizing the large drawing , Mr . Meigs showed the location of the existing " Tin Can " , the principal structures and streets on the site plan and the way the facility relates to Stewart Park . Mr . Meigs stated that the City is proposing a full redevelopment of the site and the inclusion of some new facilities and functions , i . e . , a park watchman ' s apartment on the second floor of the " new " Youth Bureau and a second building which he termed the " Park Maintenance " building , and , a new information booth for the Chamber of Commerce . Mr . Meigs stated that many , many plans were prepared of which five were ultimately discussed by the City and which have led to the plan before the Board tonight . Mr . Meigs described the reasoning for the site plan here presented , mentioning views , solar access , and entrance oriented toward the Park . Mr . Meigs described the proposed Youth Bureau building itself and mentioned a multi -purpose area , use by the " Auto All - Stars " , use by Theatre Arts program people , an amphitheatre , a covered atrium wrapped with a single row of offices / administrative rooms . Mr . Meigs noted that there would be basketball areas both inside and out , adding that the inside court would be very small but would permit half - court ball . Mr . Meigs commented on the importance of the view from the caretaker ' s apartment from a safety standpoint . Mr . Meigs continued and described the proposed Park Maintenance 0 building , commenting that it was decided that it should be a separate building because of concerns about soil and weight and also because it seemed to be inappropriate to have the maintenance building a part of the Youth Bureau Facility per se . Mr . Meigs stated that it is possible that the Park Maintenance building may not make it this year anyway because of budget constraints . Mr . Meigs described the service access into the Park for maintenance purposes . Mr . Klein wondered how the proposed paved area compared with the proposed uses , and asked , if there were going to be some public spaces , were there enough public parking . Mr . Klein commented that , off - hand , it seemed to him a little deficient . Mr . Meigs described the parking needs which were associated specifically with the Youth Bureau Facility , i . e . , for the City program , and stated that it is adequate . Mr . Meigs stated that 30 spaces are being provided . Using the drawing , Mr . Meigs showed the staff area and the public area . Vice Chairman Grigorov asked if there were any comments from the public . No one spoke . Mrs . Langhans wondered if the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance established any requirements for parking in cases like this . It was noted that Section 69 [ Article XIII ) referred to parking , however , it did not appear to speak to parks . Mr . Stanton commented that the present parking seems limited . Mr . Meigs agreed that parking is a concern which will be alleviated by the accessibility of parking under the Stewart Park Renovation Plans in the future . Mr . Lovi inquired of Mr . Meigs how many people , staff and visitors , he would expect on an Planning Board 6 March 5 , 1985 average day . Mr . Meigs replied that regular staff comprises 30 people and the public , about a dozen . Mr . Meigs explained that most of the use is by the youth of the community who arrive by mass transit , " shank ' s mare " , or bicycle . Mr . Meigs stated that the City felt the parking was adequate and is proposed as the program is . Mr . Lovi suggested that the parking for this type of use could , perhaps , be related to Business Districts and referred to Article VII , Section 38 , Sub- Section 1 . Mr . Lovi also commented that the numerous studies done by the City seemed to indicate that the parking proposed was adequate . Mr . Klein stated that he still had a problem with the parking and mentioned the matter of persons crossing the road . Mr . Klein also asked where or how the needs of the handicapped were to be met . Mrs . Langhans noted that Mr . Meigs had spoken , at the previous meeting of the 19th , about dropping off people on the loop [ shown on the drawing ] . Mr . Klein stated that he thought that , functionally , that loop will be blocked off . Mrs . Langhans commented that she brought that point up at the last meeting . Mr . Lovi commented that maybe the information booth could be relocated also , particularly if it is necessary to change some of the parking areas . Vice Chairman Grigorov wondered if the Board thought that site plan approval may be a little premature at this time . Mr . Mazza referred to Section 38 again , commenting that it deals with " Special Requirements " . Mr . Lovi read aloud from Sub - Section 1 of Section 38 [ Article VIII , as follows : " Parking . a minimum of 300 square feet of parking area , . including lanes and driveways , shall be provided for each 100 square feet of floor area , excluding basements used for storage , except in the case of the following uses , for which off - street parking shall be provided in accordance with the following schedule : Office or bank building : one space for each 200 square feet of office or bank floor area . . . " Mr . Lovi stated that he thought " 3 to 1 " was not appropriate here . Mr . Mazza commented that he was not sure the Planning Board can pass on this matter and asked if the Zoning Board of Appeals should not be the approval body . Mr . Lovi stated that the Planning Board should pass on the site plan . Mr . Klein suggested an actual calculation of the parking proposed , commenting that he thought the Zoning Ordinance should be followed . Mr . Klein stated that if it turns out that more parking is available than necessary , that is fine , however , if there is less there should be a good reason . Mrs . Langhans suggested splitting the calculations between office use and activities . Mr . Meigs stated that , obviously , it is desirable from the City ' s standpoint to have the Board ' s approval at this point - - in some form , even if such be the absence of disapproval . Mrs . Schultz stated that she believed it would be great to have a new Youth Bureau Facility , adding that she has no problem with that . Mrs . Schultz stated that she was uncomfortable with giving final site plan approval to a plan which is incomplete . Mr . Meigs stated that , from the City ' s point of view , he would refer back to what he just said , and say that if postponement were to indicate a lack of negative feeling about this proposal , it would be { Planning Board 7 March 5 , 1985 important for the City to know that . Mr . Meigs stated that the City needs that input in order to finalize their plan . Mr . Klein offered the comment that he thought the Planning Board should have the benefit of the program requirements in terms of parking and some calculations therefor based on interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance . Vice Chairman Grigorov asked Mr . Meigs how the proposed parking compares with what they have now . Mr . Meigs stated that it was about equal . Mr . Klein stated that he would like to look at the single row of parking parallel to Cayuga Street Extension and have there be consideration of parking on the north side rather than on the south side because everybody parking will have to cross the driveway which will include little kids and handicapped persons . Mr . Klein reiterated that access for handicapped persons was not indicated . Mr . Klein suggested that study also be made of the drop - off area [ the loop ] . Mr . Stanton commented that another look was important , particularly if the building were moved toward the street which would complicate parking even further , adding that at least it looked to him as if it would . Mr . Lovi commented that he thought it would simplify it . Mr . Stanton stated that he thought the Hearing should be adjourned . MOTION by Mr . Bernard Stanton , seconded by Mr . James Baker : RESOLVED , by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , that the Public Hearing in the matter of site plan review of the Youth Bureau Facility proposed by the City of Ithaca be and hereby is adjourned . a There being no further discussion the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Grigorov , Klein , Mazza , Schultz , Stanton , Baker , Langhans . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Vice Chairman Grigorov declared the Public Hearing duly adjourned at 8 : 32 p . m . Mr . Meigs stated that he would try to return on the 19th of March . PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR A RESUBDIVISION OF LANDS OWNED BY JAMES IACOVELLI AT 145 - 149 KENDALL AVENUE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO . 6 - 54 - 4 - 30 AND 6 - 54 - 4 - 31 . Vice Chairman Grigorov declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 8 : 35 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Mr . James Iacovelli was present . The Board members had received with their Agenda a copy of Mr . Iacovelli ' s plan of development of his properties together with a copy of the Short EAF as completed and signed by James Iacovelli under date of 2 / 25 / 85 , as reviewed by Mr . Lovi under date of 2 / 28 / 85 indicating his recommendation for a negative declaration of environmental impact . Mr . Iacovelli stated that he was present to answer any questions the Board might have with regard to his proposal . Mr . Iacovelli stated . 1 Planning Board 8 March 5 , 1985 • that he owns a 100 - foot lot which is actually comprised of two 50 - foot lots and which is next door to a 50 - lot which he also owns , all of which he proposes to be resubdivided into two 75 - foot lots upon each of which he proposes to construct a house . Referring to the plan before him , Mr . Stanton inquired about what appeared to him to be eight parking spaces fronting on Kendall Avenue . Mr . Iacovelli stated that he was proposing to build a two - family dwelling on each of the two " new " lots . Vice Chairman Grigorov asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak to the matter of the proposed Iacovelli resubdivision . Mr . Tamme Steenhuis , 266 Pennsylvania Avenue , spoke from the floor and stated that he and his family live in a division of the Town with single family housing but all they see is students , students , students . Mr . Steenhuis asked for an explanation of why this is the way it is so that he could understand how come they live in a single family place , and yet there are only students because he really did not understand . Mr . Steenhuis stated that cars race by all the time at 45 m . p . h . , adding that he has six children , four of whom walk to school in a dangerous situation . Vice Chairman Grigorov noted that there is no single family residence zone in the Town . Mr . Iacovelli commented that the Pennsylvania /Kendall Avenue area is posted at 30 m . p . h . and suggested that the problem of speeding cars is a matter for the Sheriff . Mr . Mazza pointed out that , first of all , the Planning Board is not • deciding what is going to be built upon Mr . Iacovelli ' s property , adding that the matter before the Board is a resubdivision of existing lots . Mr . Mazza stated that the proposal is to take three lots and make them two lots . Mr . Mazza pointed out that under the Town Zoning Ordinance , Mr . Iacovelli could build a house on each of his three lots and rent to anybody , and further that each could be a single family house with an apartment . Mr . Mazza commented that with no approvals other than a proper building permit Mr . Iacovelli could have three houses each occupied by three unrelated persons , i . e . , nine unrelated persons . Mr . Steenhuis stated that there should be some consideration for those living there , adding that there are apartments there . Mr . Steenhuis stated that he wanted the Board to be aware that there are so many students in the area . Mrs . Langhans commented that living so close to Ithaca College could cause that . Vice Chairman Grigorov suggested that if Mr . Steenhuis wished to he could talk to Mr . Cartee , the Building Inspector , and discuss any possible occupancy violations . Vice Chairman Grigorov asked if there were any further questions or comments from the public . There were none . Vice Chairman Grigorov closed the Public Hearing at 8 : 40 p . m . A brief discussion followed with the Board members speaking about what the Zoning Board of Appeals would be looking at , for example , two - family dwellings with units of equal size and , possibly , the matter of parking in the front yard . Mr . Mazza commented that he thought it an improvement to go from three 50 - foot . lots to two 75 - foot lots . Vice Chairman Grigorov suggested that the Board turn to the matter of the Short EAF and noted that each of the questions had been answered in the negative and the Town Planner had recommended a negative declaration . Planning Board 9 March 5 , 1985 . MOTION by Mr . Edward Mazza , seconded by Mrs . Barbara Schultz : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , acting as lead agency in the review of the proposed resubdivision of lands owned by James Iacovelli at 145 - 149 Kendall Avenue , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 6 - 54 - 4 - 30 and 6 - 54 - 4 - 31 , 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 Vice Chair called for a vote . Aye - Grigorov , Klein , Mazza , Schultz , Stanton , Baker , Langhans . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . • Mr . Mazza wondered if any member of the Board saw any reason to hold another public hearing to consider final subdivision approval of this resubdivision of Mr . Iacovelli ' s three lots into two lots . The Board members indicated that it would be appropriate to waive the need for another hearing . MOTION by Mr . Edward Mazza , seconded by Mr . James Baker : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the resubdivision of the lands of James Iacovelli located at 145 - 149 Kendall Avenue , shown on the Tax Map as Parcels No . 6 - 54 - 4 - 30 and 6 - 54 - 4 - 31 , said resubdivision creating two lots , each with 75 feet of frontage on Kendall Avenue and each with a depth of 120 feet , as shown on plan presented by the said James Iacovelli at public hearing this date , March 5 , 1985 , and FURTHER RESOLVED , that said Planning Board waive and hereby does waive Final Subdivision Approval in this matter . There being no further discussion , the Vice Chair called for a vote . Aye - Grigorov , Klein , Mazza , Schultz , Stanton , Baker , Langhans . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . . Vice Chairman Grigorov declared the matter of the James Iacovelli resubdivision duly closed at 8 : 45 p . m . Planning Board 10 March 5 , 1985 • CONSIDERATION OF RESPONSE TO REQUEST OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR COMMENT AND / OR RECOMMENDATIONS WITH RESPECT TO CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH SPECIAL APPROVAL OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS MAY BE GRANTED IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF ITHACA CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP TO CONVERT A PORTION OF A GARAGE TO A PLACE OF WORSHIP AT 203 PINE TREE ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO . 6 - 57 - 1 - 1 AND 5 - 57 - 1 - 7 . 12 Each of the Board members had before him/ her a copy of the Zoning Board of Appeals Chairman ' s letter of January 28 , 1985 to the Chairman of the Planning Board with respect to the matter of the application of the Ithaca Christian Fellowship to convert a portion of a garage into a place of religious worship , to which were attached a list of tentative conditions being considered by the Board of Appeals , and about which the Zoning Board of Appeals requested the Planning Board ' s comments and recommendations . The Board members noted that at their February 19th meeting the Planning Board had " approved the site plan for the Ithaca Christian Fellowship as presented " and , further , had recommended to the Board of Appeals the " granting of Special Approval for a place of worship at 203 Pine Tree Road with the condition that the membership remain less than forty persons " . The Board members briefly discussed whether the Planning Board ' s approval of the site plan , granted at its February 19th meeting , showing the location and specifications of the parking area , all required dimensions , a schematic description of landscaping and garbage shed and sign detail and location , was sufficient or not . The Board spoke particularly about the " tentative conditions " which they had received and noted that they had not referred • to them specifically but had approved the site plan which set forth what was , or would be , on - site . With respect to the tentative conditions specifically , Mr . Stanton stated that it seemed to him that this kind of extra detail for this particular group seemed to be more than necessary and it was his quick reaction that this was a kind of over - kill . Mr . Stanton referred to " access " and " parking " and " outdoor activities " and so on , in the form of conditions to the extent where " plastic garbage bags " were specified , and commented that it seemed , to him , too much . Mr . Mazza stated that he thought the Planning Board should review this list of tentative conditions carefully and then draw up its recommendation at its meeting on March 19th . Mr . Mazza pointed out that the Planning Board could make a recommendation on conditions , could make a recommendation not recommending these conditions , or , could inform the Zoning Board that it has no opinion . Mr . Mazza stated that he thought the Planning Board should cooperate with the Zoning Board of Appeals , noting that they have asked for a recommendation or comments on this matter which they can do on any matter they have before them . The Board members agreed that they would discuss this matter further later this evening since Mr . and Mrs . Deming were waiting and it was now 9 : 00 p . m . . INFORMAL DISCUSSION : ROBERT C . DEMING - SKETCH PLAN REVIEW OF A 2 -LOT SUBDIVISION AT 24 RENWICK HEIGHTS ROAD , PARCEL N0 . 6 - 17 - 3 - 28 . Planning Board 11 March 5 , 1985 • Vice Chairman Grigorov welcomed Mr . and Mrs . Deming for this informal discussion of their plans . Mr . Deming had prepared a booklet from which he read and in which were photographs and drawings and architect ' s renderings of the home they propose to build on their lot after its subdivision . Mr . Deming stated that about a year ago they asked Mr . Cartee to come out and look at their situation and to discuss with them their considering building on the property if they could get a subdivision . Mr . Deming stated that he had discussed this matter further with Mr . Cartee and with Mr . Lovi , his presentation being the result of those discussions and in response to what they thought might be a proposal for a subdivision of their land on Renwick Heights Road , Mr . Deming stated that he and his wife would like to bring this before the Board to see if they could make a strong case for the subdivision , adding that they have provided details for the Board ' s consideration . Mr . Deming read as follows : " The Deming family moved to Ithaca five years ago after an eight year residence in Hamilton , N . Y . We personally looked at 34 residences in Ithaca and the surrounding community , before settling on the Renwick Heights area . With two teenage daughters the proximity to schools was outstanding and the location met all the personal preference priorities we were seeking . It was an attractive settled area of well kept homes located on the bus route and close to the City . The Town of Ithaca tax rate was favorable , compared to Cayuga Heights , and the utility services • were adequate . We feel we made a wise decision in 1980 . Our family circumstances are about to change , with one daughter going to college this fall , and a second will follow in 1986 . For sometime we have talked about building a new energy efficient home , which could better accommodate our changing needs . We have a strong desire to stay close to the City and the fact that we really like the Renwick Heights Area brings us before the Town of Ithaca Planning Board . If you were to visit the three street area of Renwick Heights you would find approximately 50 homes , all of which are situated on odd shaped lots with irregular frontage . Each home has attempted to take advantage of the sloping topography of the area , without imposing on the neighbor . The particular lot that we own ( Tax Map # 6 - 17 - 3 - 28 ) fronts on 24 Renwick Heights Road , where we have 127 feet frontage . The lower side of the lot fronts on Renwick Place with 125 feet of frontage . There are only four homes on Renwick Place . The north lot border is 164 feet and the south border is 159 feet . Some Renwick Heights residents feel our frontage on Renwick Place is wasted land . We maintain the grass and trees but in order to mow the • lawn for example , I have to circumvent our Southern boundary . The topography is such that the only other access to the lower lot is by a Planning Board 12 March 5 , 1985 • set of ten ( 10 ) railroad tie stares [ sic . ] . A natural hill exists which divides the property into two almost equal halves . We would very much like to sub - divide our lot near the mid -point , or at the top or bottom of the hill . That would allow us to sell our current two - story four - bedroom Dutch Colonial residence , and build a one - story , three bedroom contemporary on Renwick Place . We do not feel that sub - dividing the lot will create a problem with a prospective buyer . We also do not feel that a second residence on that lot would create any soil conservation problems . With the limited number of lots available in close proximity to the City , we feel that sub- dividing would make sense , given the limited expansion of the existing tax rolls . Having lived in the home for almost five years , we realize how inconvenient it is to maintain the lower lot . If a one story home was built there , it would in no way interfere with the existing home sight line at ground level or at the level of the first or second floor . The possibility of building has been discussed with Hovanec Builders . We have found a very attractive and appropriate three bedroom Viceroy design that lends itself to our lot . By reversing the original design and placing the garage under the house , we could take advantage of the southern exposure for living space . Hovanec Builders have provided mini - plans of the desired home and we have received a cost factor that is within our limitations . In the late Fall , Hovanec built a home from the Viceroy plans in their new development on West Hill . We were able to tour the building shortly before occupancy , and are very impressed with both the Viceroy materials that were shipped for construction , and the Hovanec labor that built the residence . The builders have confirmed that the materials were by far the best they have dealt with in a packaged home . " Mr . Deming displayed the booklet he had prepared and showed the Board an older survey - type drawing therein showing his lot as # 39 and noted an additional 25 ' which is a part of the present lot # 17 - 3 - 28 . Mr . Deming stated that the building they live in now is 35 feet from the edge of the road , i . e . , 35 feet from the pavement . Mrs . Deming pointed out that what is " brown " in the booklet is theirs . The booklet was passed among the Board members for their perusal . Mrs . Langhans asked how many square feet there would be for each lot if the existing lot were to be divided . Mr . Deming replied that one lot would be 82 ' x 127 ' and the other lot would be 82 ' x 125 ' . Mr . Stanton commented that it appeared that Mr . Deming had not had the area surveyed , noting , however , that he understood that this was a proposal for informal discussion as this point . Mr . Deming stated that he hoped to get a copy of the survey from Dr . Kathleen Gaffney , the former Tompkins County Commissioner of Public Health , from whom he purchased the property , however , up to this time he had not been able to since she she lives in the Rochester area now . Mr . Deming commented that he . thought their home was built in 1926 . Mr . Stanton pointed out that each " new " lot would be around 10 , 000 square feet . Planning Board 13 March 5 , 1985 • At this juncture , using the Town VCR equipment , Mr . Deming presented a video of his house as well as the area in which it is located which he augmented by verbal descriptions of several area residents ' homes , a stream , the difficult topography of his lot and views toward Boynton Middle School , Mr . Stanton wondered if Mr . Deming ' s neighbor will be able to see across the roof line of his new house , were it to be built , with Mr . Deming responding , absolutely , yes . Mr . Klein wondered what would prevent Mr . Deming ' s two immediate neighbors from doing the same thing . Mr . Deming stated that the Mancini house sits dead - center on his parcel . Mrs . Deming commented that she knew what Mr . Klein was talking about and described other lots which might be able to do the same thing , pointing out the different circumstances of those lots which might not make such a thing possible . Mr . Klein stated that he would not want everybody in a row coming in for the same sort of thing . Mr . Stanton asked the Demings how much they have talked to their neighbors about this idea . Mrs . Deming stated that they were advised to talk to the Planning Board first . Mr . Deming stated that they would certainly talk to all of their neighbors and mentioned the Poppenseiks [ 1 Renwick Place ] . Mr . Deming stated that they did talk to one of their neighbors , the Koslowski -Boyds [ 18 Renwick Heights Road ] , however , they have moved . Mrs . Deming further described other homes on irregular lots and spoke of a 1921 map she worked with while preparing their booklet and the difficulty with sites in the area dating from that time . Mr . Stanton stated that one thing he was worried about was precedent and another thing is what the Renwick Heights community would feel . Mr . Mazza commented that it probably would be necessary for both the Planning Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals to speak to this proposal . Mr . Lovi stated that Mr . Mazza was correct , adding that the reason he had asked Mr . and Mrs . Deming to come before the Board in this informal manner was referred to by Mrs . Langhans and Messrs . Stanton , Klein , and Mazza - - precedent , size . Mr . Lovi stated that this proposal is considerably different from what zoning would allow , however , he felt there was some merit to their idea in that the effects of the topography could , perhaps , fit there being two parcels each with a single family home , not unlike certain older areas of Cayuga Heights , Mr . Klein pointed out that Mr . Deming ' s lot , as it exists now , is just about on the nose of the R15 100 feet by 150 feet lot . Mr . Klein stated that he would be concerned about precedent since the lot essentially meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance now . Mr . Klein stated that everyone in the area could say that they should be able to do the same thing . Mr . Klein pointed out , however , that there was a unique aspect to this proposal in that the Demings ' property has double road frontage . Mr . Deming stated that if the Board were dealing with a flat piece of property he could agreed with Mr . Klein , however , with the topography specific to his lot it is reasonable . Mr . Deming described the steps up . the hill and each house overlooking the other . Mr . Deming reiterated that there are 50 residences in their little three - street area . Mrs . Schultz commented that the proposal was a nice idea , however , she did Planning Board 14 March 5 , 1985 • not know how it could be achieved legally , that is , under the requirements of the zoning ordinance . Mr . Stanton stated that it could only be allowed by variance . Mrs . Schultz agreed . Mr . Lovi , commenting that informal discussions such as this were good , offered as a suggestion that something that might be an alternative for this area if there were , as it appears , more than one lot which could be proposed for this same kind of division , could be that a portion of this area be considered for rezoning to R9 . Mr . Lovi noted that most of the properties could not be split but some could and , as in the case of the Deming property , could meet the 9 , 000 square foot lot requirement . Mr . Lovi commented that , in light of the other R9 zones in the Town near the City of Ithaca , an R9 designation might not be inappropriate . Mr . Stanton responded , stating that it seemed to him that this is one of the places where the Town Attorney ought to be informed and queried because , if a rezoning were requested , the Town Board would be involved . Mr . Stanton expressed a concern about spot zoning . The Board members thought a look at the current tax map for the Renwick Heights area was in order ; Mr . Lovi retrieved the tax map from the Planning / Engineering / Zoning office and it was reviewed . Vice Chairman Grigorov asked for comments from the Board members as to what it would like to do at this point . Vice Chairman Grigorov commented that perhaps the Board could say that it can see why the Demings want to do what they have proposed . Mr . Lovi stated that he will talk to the Town Attorney , the Town Supervisor , and Mr . and Mrs . • Deming , and will get back to the Board . INFORMAL DISCUSSION . JIM DILL - PROPOSED CONVERSION OF AN ABANDONED CHICKEN FARM IN THE 1400 BLOCK OF MECKLENBURG ROAD TO A SELF - SERVE STORAGE FACILITY . Mr . Dill was not present . Mr . Lovi reported to the Board that Mr . Dill has a piece of property at the far end of Mecklenburg Road near the corner of Sheffield Road , and he would like to take the barn located thereon and convert it into a self - serve storage facility in which people can rent a space . Mr . Stanton stated that he thought the use proposed is inappropriate for the location of the barn . Mr . Klein stated that he agreed . Mr . Mazza stated that he felt it an inappropriate use of the building in that location . Vice Chairman Grigorov stated that , also , it is a commercial use and the area is zoned Agricultural under the Town Zoning Ordinance . Mr . Lovi stated that he would inform Mr . Dill of the Board ' s comments . INFORMAL DISCUSSION : MR . AND MRS . GARRISON - PROPOSED CONVERSION OF A HOUSE IN FOREST HOME TO A BED AND BREAKFAST INN . Mr . and Mrs . Garrison were not able to be present because of the death of a very close friend in the New York City area . Mr . Lovi recalled that the Garrisons had been granted permission to have a bed and breakfast within their home at 233 Forest Home Drive and stated that the house next door to the Garrison ' s home is on the market and they are Planning Board 15 March 5 , 1985 thinking about coming before the Board to discuss purchasing this property for use as a bed and breakfast inn . Mrs . Langhans commented that she assumed the property in question to be the Palmer ' s home which is situated just before the " S - curve " . Mr . Lovi stated that Mrs . Garrison had telephoned him last night to tell him that they could not come this evening but that they would like to make a presentation in person to the Board . Mrs . Langhans wondered if a " bed and breakfast " did not have the owner living in it and commented that Mrs . Garrison would be running back and forth between the one in their house and this proposed separate one . After a brief discussion , Mr . Lovi stated that he would report to the Garrisons that it was the sense of the Board that the proposal seemed to be more like a motel . INFORMAL DISCUSSION : TOMPKINS COMMUNITY HOSPITAL - PROPOSED EXTENSION . No one was present from the Tompkins Community Hospital , Mr . Lovi stated that he wanted to inform the Board that the Tompkins Community Hospital , represented by Ms . Bonnie Howell , Administrator , and Mr . Scott Perra , Assistant Director of Fiscal Services , is working with a group of physicians , two of whom are affiliated with Cornell but will be leaving in August and will have their own offices . Mr . Lovi stated that the group of doctors have proposed to build offices connected to the Hospital which would have shared services with the Hospital , would be administered by the Hospital , but would be owned by the doctors ' corporation . Mr . Lovi stated that the Hospital and the doctors have two locations for this facility in mind - - one , their preferred choice , being attached to the Hospital but on the Biggs property site - - the other , not -preferred choice , but one that does not involve working with the County , being in the parking lot . Mr . Mazza inquired as to what services this facility would provide and what the intent behind this proposal was . Mr . Lovi replied that they have not gotten into what services would be provided nor what the intent behind the proposal was , adding that he will be getting together with Ms . Howell and Mr . Perra later in the month . Mr . Lovi mentioned that they are also working with the County because they would like to obtain the " D " wing . Mr . Lovi stated that their preference , basically , is to put this new building in the open area between the two wings , i . e . , in the " courtyard " between the east wing and the west wing . Mr . Stanton wondered why the doctors were considering a new building , asking why they would not use one that is there . Mr . Lovi commented that , as he understood it , they would use the east wing for storage . Vice Chairman Grigorov inquired if this group were related to the Professional Building to which Mr . Lovi replied , no . The Informal Discussion portion of the Agenda ended at 9 : 50 p . m . FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF RESPONSE TO REQUEST OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR COMMENT AND / OR RECOMMENDATIONS WITH RESPECT TO CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH SPECIAL APPROVAL OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS MAY BE GRANTED IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF ITHACA CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP TO CONVERT A PORTION OF A GARAGE TO A PLACE OF WORSHIP AT 203 PINE TREE ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO . 6 - 57 - 1 - 1 AND 5 - 57 - 1 - 7 . 12 . 4 Planning Board 16 March 5 , 1985 [ Secretary ' s Note : For the record , following is that portion of the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting of February 19 , 1985 , pertaining to the matter of a proposed place of worship at 203 Pine Tree Road . ] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * " PUBLIC HEARING : SITE PLAN REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WITH RESPECT TO THE CONVERSION OF A GARAGE TO A PLACE OF WORSHIP AT 203 PINE TREE ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 57 - 1 - 1 , ITHACA CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP , RAYMOND DELLI - CARPINI , AS AGENT , Vice -Chairman Grigorov declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 8 : 25 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Mr . Delli - Carpini presented the Board with a final site plan as requested at the informal meeting of February 5 , 1985 . Vice - Chairman Grigorov asked if anyone wished to speak to this matter . Mr . Lovi informed her that all members of the audience were here on other matters . • Mr . Lovi recounted the specific information requested by the Planning Board at its informal discussion . This information was presented by Mr . Delli -Carpini in the present plan including the sign detail and location , the location and specifications of the parking area , all required dimensions and a schematic description of landscaping and the garbage shed . Mrs . Langhans asked if a second driveway was to be constructed or whether it already existed . Mr . Lovi stated that it already exists . Mr . Stanton asked if the cross - hatched area was the proposed parking lot . Mr . Delli -Carpini said that it was and added that an area was cross - hatched in front of the garage because they can park cars there as well . Mr . Stanton asked whether this parking lot would be stone ; Mr . Delli - Carpini said it would be graveled and defined by railroad ties . Mr . Stanton asked whether the driveway was presently blacktopped . Mr . Delli - Carpini said that it was and there would be no change to the driveway other than normal maintenance . Vice - Chairman Grigorov asked whether there was an environmental review on this site plan . Mr . Lovi indicated that the Zoning Board of Appeals would be the Lead Agency for this action . He then stated that there are two separate Planning Board 17 March 5 , 1985 • matters before the Board ; first , a site plan review on the place of worship , second , a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on whether a Special Approval should be granted for this use . As staff to the Board , Mr . Lovi stated that he could not give an opinion as to whether the site plan review conducted by the Planning Board would be sufficient according to our recently passed Local Laws . However , the Board has been asked to give a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals as to whether this use should be permitted . It is free to make a resolution on the sufficiency of the site plan if it wishes . Mrs . Langhans made the following motion : RESOLVED , that the Planning Board approve and hereby does approve the site plan for the Ithaca Christian Fellowship as presented . The motion was seconded by Mr . Stanton and passed unanimously . Vice -Chairman Grigorov then asked if anyone would make a motion on the recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals . Mr . Mazza commented that , when he read the Zoning Ordinance , he wasn ' t sure that this wasn ' t already a permitted use . With that in mind , Mr . Mazza offered the following motion : . RESOLVED , that the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend that the Zoning Board Appeals grant Special Approval for a place of worship at 203 Pine Tree Road with the condition that the membership remain less than forty persons . This motion was seconded by Mrs . Langhans and passed unanimously . " * * * * * * * * * * * * * [ Secretary ' s Note : For the record , the proposed conditions being reviewed by the Planning Board follow : ] " 1 . USE OF THE PREMISES . A . The two west bays of the garage shown on the map will be remodeled to provide a place of worship for the communicants of the Fellowship . Services will be held two nights a week beginning at 7 p . m . and continuing until 9 p . m . , now scheduled for Monday and Wednesday of each week and also on Sunday from 11 a . m . All services will be held inside the structure . No change to the exterior of the structure . Structure must comply with Fire Safety Code and any other applicable codes governing . the use of the building . According to such codes occupancy would be restricted to 36 people . No amplifying sound system within the building . No organ . Planning Board 18 March 5 , 1985 • A piano will be used . Also trio or quartet of guitar , flute , violin and similar instruments . 2 . ACCESS . A . Ingress and egress to and from the premises and Pine Tree Road will be over the ' loop ' driveway shown on the map . No parking will be permitted on the driveway except that at such times as no church activities are being held or conducted in any degree , parking may be permitted on a temporary basis for the owners and occupants of the residential dwelling on the premises . This would be no different than what is permitted to any other residential owner in the vicinity in this residential district . 3 . PARKING . A . Parking will be limited to and permitted only on the area north of the driveway . A portion of the area north of the driveway and the ' vacant lot ' so called will be used for that purpose . Land will be prepared so that it will be suitable for parking either by use of gravel or any other ' macadam type ' material as the Fellowship may choose . A reasonable time will be allowed to the Fellowship to prepare the land for such purpose . . No parking , in any event , will be permitted on Pine Tree Road or Snyder Hill Road or any other public highway which may be established or constructed in the vicinity . 4 . OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES . A . These will be permitted on a limited and infrequent basis . Be No church services will be held outside of the structure . Picnics will be permitted provided that they are held on the ' vacant lot ' . These activities will not be permitted prior to 11 : 30 a . m . and will not continue beyond sunset of any day . C . No cooking over a fire will be permitted except over metal receptacles commonly known as charcoal grills . No fires will be unattended . On termination of outdoor picnics , fires will be doused and disposed of in metal containers or in other ways to prevent spread of fire . D . Garbage will be disposed of in plastic bags and deposited in plastic or metal containers . All of these activities , including outdoor activities will be held on the vacant lot north of the garage structure . . Consideration will be given to placing garbage in a wooden box . Planning Board 19 March 5 , 1985 E . All outdoor activities , and indoor activities , for that matter , will be conducted in such a manner that they will not constitute a trespass or a nuisance and will not interfere unreasonably with the use , occupancy and enjoyment of other properties by the occupants of other properties in the neighborhood . 5 . OUTDOOR ELECTRIC LIGHTS . A . No additional electric lights or other illumination will be permitted except with the approval of the Board of Appeals upon filing application to the Building Inspector . 6 . SIGNS . A . All signs must comply with the requirements of the Town Sign Regulations . No more than one sign will be permitted . 7 . Grounds will be policed and kept free from accumulations of debris , unsightly matters and the like . If it is required that garbage cans be stored in a wooden box , the religious group itself would undoubtedly wish to have the box looking attractive . " . The Board members commenced further discussion of the above - noted Agenda item at 9 : 51 p . m . with several opinions being offered with respect to the tentative conditions about which the Zoning Board of Appeals had requested Planning Board comment , and , with respect to the Planning Board ' s role in the establishing of conditions which the Board of Appeals imposed . Mr . Mazza commented that any thing or any matter may be a concern of the Planning Board if the Board of Appeals asks the Planning Board to consider such things , adding that the Planning Board does not have to do so , but if they ask for recommendations it does not have to be something that the Planning Board " normally " considers . The Board members indicated that it was unfortunate that their approval of the site plan , together with their recommendation that the Board of Appeals grant special approval with the condition that the membership remain less than forty persons , did not provide enough information for the Board of Appeals . Mr . Lovi suggested that the Board members work their way through the tentative conditions and comment as they do so . Further discussion followed , commencing with Item 1 . USE OF THE PREMISES , with the Board indicating that a good deal of the text proposed was either unnecessary or overly restrictive . The Secretary suggested that a preliminary statement , somewhat like a " preamble " could be set down followed by more particularized comments with respect to the various conditions proposed . MOTION by Mr . Bernard Stanton , seconded by Mr . James Baker : . WHEREAS , the Town of Ithaca Planning Board granted approval of the site plan , presented at public hearing held February 19 , 1985 by Raymond Delli -Carpini , Pastor of the Ithaca Christian Fellowship , with respect n. • Planning Board 20 March 5 , 1985 to their application to convert a portion of a garage , located at 203 Pine Tree Road , into a place of religious worship , and WHEREAS , said Planning Board also recommended at said public hearing that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant special approval for a place of worship at 203 Pine Tree Road with the condition that the membership remain less than forty persons , and WHEREAS , the Zoning Board of Appeals has requested the Planning Board to comment upon and make recommendations about proposed conditions which the Board of Appeals is considering as part of its special approval process , and WHEREAS , said Planning Board , at its regular meeting held March 5 , 1985 reviewed in detail said proposed conditions , as requested , NOW , THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED , by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board that the following comments and / or recommendations , with respect to proposed conditions pertaining to the Appeal of the Ithaca Christian Fellowship , be forwarded to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals : 1 . Occupancy should be restricted to 40 people . ( Item # 1 -- USE OF THE PREMISES . ) 2 . Reference to amplified sound systems and types of instruments is • unnecessary . ( Item # 1 - - USE OF THE PREMISES . ) 3 . Length of services need not be so specifically designated and frequency of services need not be noted . ( Item # 1 - - USE OF THE PREMISES . ) 4 . The last sentence in Item # 2 - - ACCESS - - is unnecessary . [ " This would be no different than what is permitted to any other residential owner in the vicinity in this residential district . ] 5 . The second paragraph in Item # 3 - - PARKING - - can be omitted because all parking must be on - site . [ " No parking , in any event , will be permitted on Pine Tree Road or Snyder Hiil Road or any other public highway which may be established or constructed in the vicinity . " ] 6 . Item # 4 - - OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES . All of Item # 4 is unnecessary and is either covered by existing ordinance or is unenforceable . 7 . Item # 5 - - OUTDOOR ELECTRIC LIGHTS - - is appropriate . 8 . Item # 6 - - SIGNS - - is not needed because signs are regulated by the Town of Ithaca Sign Law , 9 . Item # 7 - - " Grounds , etc . " - - is unnecessary because such matters are covered by Local Law # 4 - 1979 Regulating the Maintenance of Real . Property in the Town of Ithaca . J YI• Planning Board 21 March 5 , 1985 • There being no further discussion , the Vice Chair called for a vote , Aye - Grigorov , Klein , Mazza , Schultz , Stanton , Baker , Langhans . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion , Vice Chairman Grigorov declared the March 3 , 1985 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 10 : 23 p . m . Respectfully submitted , Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary , Town of Ithaca Planning Board . •