Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1987-10-20 FILED TOWN OF ITHACA Date • TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD ClerkdifV TUESDAY , OCTOBER 20 , 1987 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday , October 20 , 1987 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York , at 7 : 30 p . m . PRESENT : Chairman Montgomery May , James Baker , Carolyn Grigorov , Virginia Langhans , David Klein , Robert Kenerson , William Lesser , John C . Barney ( Town Attorney ) , Susan C . Beeners ( Town Planner ) , Robert R . Flumerfelt , ( Town Engineer ) , Andrew Frost , ( Town Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer ) . ALSO PRESENT : Michael J . Hannan , Roderick Elston , Gertrude Armbruster , Lisa Ruchlin , Jeff Herz , David C . Auble , John Rawlins , Don Seifert , Elizabeth R . Blackmer , Florence S . Wrisley , Slade Kennedy Jr . , Hoyt Benjamin , Chairman May 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 in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on October 13 , 1987 , and October 15 , 1987 , • respectively , together with the Secretary ' s Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice upon the various neighbors of each of the properties under discussion , as appropriate , upon the Clerk of the City of Ithaca , upon the Building Commissioner of the City of Ithaca , upon the Regional Manager of the Finger Lakes State Parks Commission , upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning , upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Public Works , and upon each of the applicants and / or agent , as appropriate , on October 15 , 1987 . PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF A REVISED SITE PLAN FOR PROPOSED " SOUTH YARD " WAREHOUSE PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED ON FIVE MILE DRIVE ( N . Y . S . ROUTE 13A ) NEAR ELMIRA ROAD ( N . Y . S . ROUTE 13 ) , ON TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 31 - 3 - 3 . 11 , 1 . 46 ACRES TOTAL . MICHAEL J . HANNAN , OWNER / APPLICANT 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 . Mr . Hannan addressed the Board and stated that the proposed building is 180 feet long , 65 feet wide , and is a one story building . Mr . Hannan offered that the building would be used for a warehouse to store restaurant equipment . Mr . Hannan commented that he was before the Board in 1980 for approval for the construction of a storage warehouse , which was granted . Mr . Hannan stated that at the time approval was granted he encountered financial difficulties , and was • unable to finish the project , but noted that those difficulties have been rectified and he is now able to complete the project . Planning Board - 2 - October 20 , 1987 • Chairman May noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if there were anyone from the public who wished to speak to this matter . Mr . Hoyt Benjamin spoke from the floor and stated that he was the owner of the B &W Supply Company located on West State Street in the City of Ithaca . Mr . Benjamin stated that he had an agreement with Mr . Hannan to buy into the property , and noted that he was financing the completion of the project . Mr . Benjamin stated that he would be using the warehouse for storage of restaurant equipment . Mrs . Gertrude Armbruster of 850 Five Mile Drive spoke from the floor and expressed a concern with the traffic volume that would be created . Mr . Hannan responded that it would be very little , as the purpose of the warehouse is to store equipment until such time as it can be distributed , adding that it would be a situation where a manufacturer ' s truck would bring it to the warehouse , unload it and leave it . Mr . Hannan remarked that when the customer wishes to pick up supplies a B & W truck will load and then deliver to the customer , commenting that it would be very intermittent traffic . Mrs . Armbruster wondered about the junkyard nature of the property , and asked if it was going to be cleaned up . Mr . Hannan answered that he was well aware of the appearance of the property , and noted that it would be cleaned up . Roderick Elston of 736 Five Mile Drive spoke from the floor and • expressed displeasure with the present structure . Mr . Elston stated that he would like to know what the proposed building is going to look like , commenting that the building is pretty big for that area . Mr . Elston stated that he did not want anything to ruin the value of his property . Mr . Benjamin stated that the size of the building that was approved in 1980 was 180 feet by 65 feet . Mr . Benjamin noted that he would not become involved with an unattractive building , as he tries to maintain somewhat of a public image around Tompkins County , Chairman May asked if anyone else present wished to speak . No one spoke . Chairman May closed the Public Hearing at 7 : 45 p . m . and asked for questions or comments from the Board . Carolyn Grigorov wondered where the Light Industrial District ends , and the Residential zone starts . Town Planner Susan Beeners stated that the Light Industrial District ends just to the north of the Hannan property . Ms . Beeners noted that Mrs . Armbruster ' s house appears to be over 200 feet away from the proposed building . Ms . Beeners stated that there was a substantial amount of vegetation between the existing road and Mrs . Armbruster ' s property . Virginia Langhans asked Mr . Hannan what he planned to do with the cement boat and crane located on the property . Mr . Hannan responded that the boat .is presently in the process of being dismantled , and the rest of the equipment would be gone when the project is completed . Mr . Hannan stated that the intent is to not have anything stored around the outside of the building . Mr . Benjamin commented that , perhaps , some trucks owned by B & W might be parked outside . Mr . Benjamin noted, that the equipment he would store has to be kept Planning Board - 3 - October 20 , 1987 • indoors , as the elements would ruin it if it were stored outdoors . Mr . Benjamin stated that any defective material would be disposed of . Mrs . Langhans noted that there were two spaces available in the building , and wondered if Mr . Benjamin was going to utilize both spaces . Mr . Benjamin responded that he would not be able to occupy all the space immediately , but would have about 60 % of one space . Mr . Benjamin stated that he anticipated utilizing all the space , perhaps five years down the road . Mr . Benjamin stated that there are prospective tenants interested , and they would be a business similar to B &W Supply Company , but as of this date , it is unknown who the tenant is . Mr . Lesser wondered if there had been any contact with the Waldorf School . Ms . Beeners responded that the school had been notified . Mrs . Langhans asked about the right- of - way over the Mancini property . Mr . Hannan stated that it was his property , and Earland Mancini retained the right - of- way when the property was sold to Mr . Hannan , Mr . Klein asked if the structural steel framework had been inspected , with Mr . Hannan answering , yes . Ms . Beeners stated that it was her understanding that the 284 feet of right - of -way , as shown on the map , where the paved road is located , is actually on land that Mancini owns , but Mr . Hannan has the right to use it . Mr . Hannan noted it was his land , with Mr . Mancini ' s right to use it . Ms . Beeners referred to the Zoning Board of Appeals minutes of May 14 , 1980 , where Mr . Hannan stated that they both ( Mancini and Hannan ) have • mutual use of the right - of -way and deed 574 / 364 is cited , which shows mutual use and use of his road ( Mancini ' s ) the rest of the way . At this point , Ms . Beeners submitted for the record a copy of a Sewage Treatment System Construction Permit issued to Mike Hannan and dated September 29 , 1987 , which had been issued by the Tompkins County Health Department for the property located on Route 13A . Mr . Hannan stated that he would contact Earland Mancini to determine the right of access . Ms . Beeners wondered if the security lights that are shown could be downcast , with Mr . Benjamin answering , yes . Ms . Beeners wondered about a color for the building . Mr . Benjamin responded that there would be no problem in selecting a muted green or something along that nature . Ms . Beeners offered that if the building was going to be green it should be in the olive range , rather than the mint , or perhaps an earth tone would be appropriate . Mr . Benjamin stated that he would secure some samples of paint for Ms . Beeners . There appearing to be no further discussion or comments from the Board , Chairman May asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion . MOTION by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov , seconded by Mr . James Baker : WHEREAS : i . This action is the consideration of approval of a revised site plan for the proposed " South Yard " Warehouse , proposed to be • located on Five Mile Drive ( NYS Route 13A ) near Elmira Road ( NYS Route 13 ) on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 31 - 3 - 3 . 11 , 1 . 46 acres total . Planning Board - 4 - October 20 , 1987 • 2 . This is an Unlisted Action for which the Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency , made a negative determination of environmental significance on June 3 , 1980 . 3 . The Town Planner has recommended that such negative determination of environmental significance be reaffirmed because the revised site plan does not represent a significant increase in either size or scope of the project . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : 1 . That the Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency in environmental review of the revised site plan , reaffirm and hereby does reaffirm a negative determination of environmental significance for the action . 2 . That the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend that the Zoning Board of Appeals act as Lead Agency in the environmental review of any request for modification of a height variance granted by said Board of Appeals on May 14 , 1980s There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Baker , Grigorov , Langhans , Klein , Kenerson , Lesser . Nay - None . • The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . MOTION by Dr . William Lesser , seconded by Mrs . Virginia Langhans : WHEREAS : 1 . This action is the consideration of approval of a revised site plan for the proposed " South Yard " Warehouse , proposed to be located on Five Mile Drive ( NYS Route 13A ) near Elmira Road ( NYS Route 13 ) on Town fo Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 -31 - 3 - 3 . 11 , 1 . 46 acres total . 2 . This is an Unlisted Action for which the Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency for site plan review , has on October 20 , 1987 , reaffirmed. a negative determination of environmental significance that was made on June 3 , 1980 . 3 . The Planning Board , at a Public Hearing on October 20 , 1987 , has reviewed the following material : Two Sheets entitled , " Building for Michael Hannan : Five Mile Drive , Town of Ithaca " , by Robert A . Boehlecke Jr . , Architect - - Site Plan ; Building Elevations , SEQR Short EAF , dated September 23 , 1987 . • THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Site Plan Planning Board - 5 - October 20 , 1987 Approval to the revised plan as presented , with the following conditions : 1 . That the Zoning Board of Appeals consider any potential application for modification of the height variance previously granted by said Board of Appeals , prior to issuance of a building permit . 2 . That the premises be used solely for warehouse storage . 3 . That the Owner / Applicant demonstrate , to the satisfaction of the Town Attorney , that he has either fee title or a right of way to provide legal access over the existing paved road to the facility to be constructed thereon . 4 . That all storage be contained within the proposed structure . 5# . That the existing vegetation remain as shown on the site plan dated June 3 , 1980 , and on the revised site plan reviewed by the Planning Board on October 20 , 1987 . 6 . That the color of the structure be as approved by the Town Planner . • There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , . Bak.er , Grigorov , Langhans , Klein , Kenerson , Lesser . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman May declared the matter of the consideration of approval of a revised site plan for proposed " South Yard " Warehouse duly closed at 8 : 10 p . m . PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL FOR REVIEW OF A DETERMINATION OF THE TOWN BUILDING INSPECTOR / ZONING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WITH RESPECT TO BUILDING HEIGHT , DEER RUN SUBDIVISION , LOCATED BACKLOT OF THE INTERSECTION OF TROY AND EAST KING ROADS , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 44 - 1 - 4 . 32 . EDWIN A . HALLBERG , DEVELOPER , Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 8 : 11 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Mr . Edwin A . Hallberg , along with his Landscape Architect , Thomas Niederkorn , were present . Mr . NiedE! rkorn appeared before the Board and stated that the developer is requesting a waiver of the section of the subdivision . regulations dealing with 30 - foot height regulations . At this point , Mr . Niederkorn brought the Board up to date on the Planning Board. - 6 - October 20 , 1987 • project . e Mr . Niederkorn stated that the developer had presented to the Board a plan for a 120 acre conventional subdivision parcel , which consisted of 180 units , with the necessary roads and utilities to service those units . Mr . Niederkorn noted that a buffer strip was provided along- the Cornell South Hill Swamp , and a recreation area on Troy Road , Mr . Niederkorn stated that the developer had then asked for a Cluster Subdivision , which was granted . Mr . Niederkorn stated that the developer , basically , took the 180 units , and put most of them into townhouse clusters , adding that , in doing that , the developer had' put together 3 , 4 and 5 ( mostly 3 ) dwelling units with " 0 " lot lines on a common wall , and commenting , in doing that the developer has created some big buildings . Mr . Neiderkorn noted that the advantage; were : 1 . The developer was able to maintain about 40 acres of land at the top of the hill , which is wooded , and which the developer plans to give to Cornell University as an extension of the South Hill Swamp , 2 . The developer is going to maintain a certain amount of common open space in the southeast corner of the parcel . 3 . The size of the recreation area has been increased for the Town . Mr . Neiderkorn offered that about 500 of the site would not be developed , but maintained in an undeveloped state , and added that the linear footage of road has been reduced . Mr . Neiderkorn stated that site plan approval has been granted , along with final approval for Stage I and Stage IA . Mr . Neiderkorn noted that the difficulty now is with • the height regulation , adding that he understood how difficult that was for the Board , but felt there was the escape valve that , if there was a practical difficulty or significant hardship that there was an opportunity for the Planning Board to waive these things if , in fact , the spirit and intent of the regulation is not significantly violated . Mr . Neiderkorn stated that the developer felt there were practical difficulties on the sloping site , adding that it was much more beneficial to maintain the natural features of the site than to try to create construction paths , which would be roughly 100 X 100 , to place the buildings , in order to maintain the 30 - foot height regulation . Mr . Neiderkorn, stated that the floor level of the garage has been raised on the uphill units and has somewhat shortened the length of the garage by pulling it uphill a bit , increasing the grade on the driveway to an extent . Mr . Neiderkorn stated that the construction of the east wall of the downhill side of the units has been changed from frame to concrete block , at least for half of its height , and the back side would be built up at a distance of four feet , which reduces the variation from the height of 38 feet down to 34 feet . Mr . Neiderkorn offered that the developer had considered the possiblility of changing the truss design to a shallower truss , but the architect felt that the construction was significantly along , and to change the truss shape would be extremely difficult , adding that it would look funny , architecturally . Mr . Neiderkorn noted that , perhaps , the uphill side could be one and one - half stories , but the clients want two - story buildings , commenting that the buildings are fairly narrow , and not extremely big . Mr . Neiderkorn [ indicating on map ] pointed out the downhill and uphill elevations , adding that he had made a height deviation analysis to show exactly what was being discussed . Mr . Neiderkorn pointed out the roof ridges as they presently exist , and Planning Board'. - 7 - October 20 , 1987 • noted that the " yellow " represents the areas that are under the 30 - foot height. limitation . William Lesser wondered about determining which buildings would or would not receive a waiver , based on the estimated slope of the driveway . Ms . Beeners responded that she would prefer to have it confirmed by an engineer . The developer , Mr . Hallberg , wondered if the waiver only applies to buildings with a resulting driveway slope of 7 % or more . Town Attorney Barney noted that Phase 1 has been granted approval , and variances that were needed were obtained . Mr . Barney stated that Phase IA has final approval , and noted that the Board has to deal with Phase 1A Height before proceeding . Mr . Barney commented that: , as far as he knew , nothing else has received final subdivision approval , adding that he thought it would make some sense that as the developer comes with each subsequent phase , after IA , that the developer denominate which buildings need to have a variance . Mr . Hallberg agreed . Mr . Hallberg wondered if there would be a way to establish the criterion in which a waiver would be granted in subsequent phases , such as the 7 % driveway condition . Mr . Barney responded that , in one instance the Board may be willing to accept a 7 % grade , but in another instance they may say there is another way to handle the problem . Mr . Flumerfelt , Town Engineer , stated that , at this point , pE� rhaps it would be much clearer for the next phase to have a little Cross - section through each building showing the original ground line , the building section , and the proposed finished ground • line with the driveway slope . David Klein stated that he felt the elevations were showing a totally level ground plane from one end of the unit to the other . Mr . Klein commented that the variance is for the center unit , and wondered if it was necessary to change all the garages . Mr . Neiderkorn noted that the regulations state , from the lowest point of the ground to the highest point of the roof . Chairman :May noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak to this matter . No one spoke . Chairman May closed the Public Hearing and asked if there were any further questions from the Board . There being none , Chairman May asked if anyone wished to make a motion . MOTION by Mr . Robert Kenerson , seconded by Mr . David Kleine WHEREAS : 1 . This Action is the Consideration of an Appeal for review of the decision of the Town Building Inspector with respect to building height in Phase I -A of the Deer Run Clustered Subdivision , located backlot of the intersection of Troy and East King Roads , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 44 - 1 - 4 . 32 . 2 . This is bE! ing reviewed as a Type I Action , for which the Planning • Board has been legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency for environmental review . The Tompkins County Planning Department is a potentially - involved agency which has been notified of this Planning Board - 8 - October 20 , 1987 • action . 3 . The Town Planner has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the granting of a waiver of the 30 - foot maximum height requirement of Article V . Section 32 , Paragraph 6 , of the Town of Ithaca Subdivision Regulations , to permit a maximum height of 32 feet on uphill units and 34 feet on downhill units . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED , That the! Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency in the environmental review of this Action , make and hereby does make a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the granting of a waiver of the 30 - foot maximum height requirement as set forth in Article V , Section 32 , Paragraph 6 , of the Town of Ithaca Subdivision Regulations , to permit , for Buildings No . 6 , 7 , and 8 in Phase I -A only , a maximum height of 32 feet on uphill units and 34 feet on downhill units , substantially as shown on the revised building elevations reviewed on October 20 , 1987 . Aye - May , Baker , Grigorov , Langhans , Klein , Kenerson , Lesser . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . • MOTION by Dr . William Lesser , seconded by Mrs . Virginia Langhans : WHEREAS 1 . This Action is the Consideration of an Appeal for review of the decision of the Town Building Inspector with respect to building height in Phase I -A of the Deer Run Clustered Subdivision , located backlot of the intersection of Troy and East King Roads , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 44 - 1 - 4 . 32 . 2 . This is a Type I Action for which , at Public Hearing on October 20 , 1987 ,, the Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency for environmental review , has made a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the granting of a waiver , for Buildings No . 6 , 7 , and 8 in Phase I -A only , of the 30 - foot maximum height requirement as set forth in Article V , Section 32 , Paragraph 6 , of the Town of Ithaca Subdivision Regulations . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED , 1 . That the Planning - Board find and hereby does find the following : a . That the strict application of the thirty - foot maximum • height requirement of Article V , Section 32 , Paragraph 6 , of the Town of Ithaca Subdivision Regulations , would cause practical difficulties in the development of Phase I - A of Planning Board - 9 - October 20 , 1987 • the clustered subdivision . b . That. neither a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor of the policy enunciated or implied by the Town Board in adopting the Subdivision Regulations pertaining to clustered subdivisions would be made in the grant of waiver as described hereinafter in this resolution . 2 . That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant waiver of the thirty- foot maximum height requirement of Article V , Section 32 , Paragraph 6 , of the Town of Ithaca Subdivision Regulations , substantially as shown on the revised building elevations reviewed at Public Hearing on October 20 , 1987 , to permit a maximum height of 32 feet for Building No . 7 of Phase I -A if the driveways for said Building No . 7 exceed a seven per cent ( 7 % ) slope , and , a maximum height of 34 feet for Buildings No . 6 and 8 of said Phase I -A if the slope , measured from the front of said Buildings No . 6 and 8 to the back of said buildings , exceeds four feet ( 4 ' ) , with such gradients to be determined by the Town Engineer . 3 . That this grant of waiver with respect to Phase I - A is conditional upon the submission of an overall landscape plan for the entire Deer Run development for approval by the Town Planner prior to the issuance of any certificates of occupancy for said • Phase I -A . Aye - May , Baker , Grigorov , Langhans , Klein , Kenerson , Lesser . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman May declared the matter of the Deer Run , Phase IA , height waiver duly closed at 9 : 30 p . m . REPORT ON NEW FIRE STATION PLANS Town Planner Beeners stated that she had received a copy of a letter from William Gray , City of Ithaca Engineer , stating that the Ithaca College Board of Trustees had approved the Preliminary Plan for the South Hill Fire Station , as long as it stays pretty much the same in size , location and materials . Ms . Beeners noted that there are some revisions which are currently being discussed , as far as ways to cut down on the cost . Chairman May commented that the first costing of the West Hill Fire Station has come in over budget , and noted that the South Hill Fire Station is pretty well along . Chairman May stated that there has been discussion to see if the cost could be brought a little more in line with the budget . APPROVAL OF MINUTES - ` NOVEMBER 18 , 1986 • MOTION by Robert Kenerson , seconded by Virginia Langhans : RESOLVED , that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Planning Board - 10 - October 20 , 1987 • Meeting of November 18 , 1986 , be and hereby are approved as written . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Baker , Lesser , Grigorov , Langhans , Klein , Kenerson . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JULY 21 , 1987 MOTION by William Lesser , seconded by Virginia Langhans : RESOLVED , that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting of July 21 , 1987 , be and hereby are approved as written . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Baker , Lesser , Grigorov , Langhans , Klein , Kenerson . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . STAFF ATTENDANCE AT NEW YORK PLANNING FEDERATION CONFERENCE • At this time , Ms . Beeners reported on the attendance of Nancy Fuller , Susan Beeners , and Mary Bryant at the New York Planning Federation Conference . Ms . Beeners reported that Mary Bryant attended the Planning and Zoning Training Institute sessions . Ms . Beeners reported that she and Mrs . Fuller had attended the SEAR sessions , which was the second SEQR session she and Mrs . Fuller had attended in the last week - one being at NYSEG . Ms . Beeners offered that there were some interesting discussions about the First Evangelical case in California and the " Death of Zoning " ( headlines in the newspaper in California ) , adding that everyone was somewhat reassured that that was not the case , and noted that the rights of zoning laws to limit development on a property are still being upheld , and added that they were not necessarily challenged by that First Evangelical case . Ms . Beeners noted that there were interesting discussions concerning impact fees , which are being tested out in a number of locations at this time in New York State , Virginia Langhans asked if the impact fee charges were in . use , with Ms . Beeners responding , yes , there are impact fee charges in other states . Again , Ms . Beeners noted that impact fees were being tested out in a number of towns and a number of cases at this time in New York , and noted that most of that was about road improvements in not being able to get DOT to move along and make improvements . Ms . Beeners commented that there was one town near Albany , that was taking it upon themselves to charge impact fees for any type of development within the town to pay for a part of the cost of improving the State roads . • DISCUSSION OF HEIGHT REGULATIONS At this point , Chairman May asked if there were any volunteers Planning Board - 11 - October 20 , 1987 who would like to think about a subcommittee to look at the regulation on the 30 - foot: height limitation . Town Attorney Barney mentioned that there is a Codes and Ordinances Committee that is already functioning , and is dealing with some of these problems , noting that definition of heights was on the agenda . Virginia Langhans commented that it would be a good idea for the Planning Board to have some input , with Ms . Beeners agreeing . ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion , Chairman May declared the October 20 , 1987 , meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 10 : 00 p . m . Respectfully submitted , Mary S . Bryant , Recording Secretary , Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary , Town of Ithaca Planning Board .