Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1976-10-26 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD MINUTES CITY OF ITHACA , Regular Meeting, 26 October, 1976, Common Council Chambers; City Hall PRESENT. Chairperson LeG. Benson, D. Fuller, R.. Hildreth, L\'.. Meyer, S. Stein ALSO. , T. Hoard,: Bldg. Cmsr. H. M. Van Cort, Dir. of Plnng. y D. Cornelius, Pres. , Fall Creek Assn.;F. Hoard, R. V. Hemming,3. Palmer, Members of the Media 9 C,. M. Van Marter, BZA In the temporary absence of the Chairperson, Mr. Stein called the meeting to order. The minutes of the last_meeting'were discussed, and it was agreed to change "R-1D9 to P4B-11' in the first paragraph of page 9. The minutes were then approved as corrected. There was no special order of business, and the Chairperson's report was held for her arrival. Zoning cases were discussed. . Appeal 1332. Request for area variance to enclose patio area to. existing structure at 374 Elmira Road in a B-5 use district. . This case was returned ,to the Planning Board from the Board of Zoning Appeals. The. Appellant originally chose to ask only for an, Interpretation. Appellant is now requesting an Area Variance, since the Board of Zoning Appeals` interpretation did not permit their enclosing the patio. 1-7r. Stein MOVED that the Planning.and Development Board recommend approval of the Area Variance. Ms. Peyer seconded. Ms. Benson reminded .the Board that the planning staff had recommended against approval of the variance. A vote was taken and motion CARRIED unanimously. Appeal 1134. Request for use variance and area variance to erect a commercial building not for public consumer use at 416 Adams Street in an R-3 use district. Appellants want to `build structure to house their electrical business. _ They presented 'a plot plan to the Board which-indicated-that the building is closer to the rear line than is alto-,aed. The front-and side yards are in conformance. An electrical con- tracting br?1ness is not permissible in an R-3 zone. The Appellant showed an aerial photo indicating that there are two residences on that block. The rest of the property consists of City buildings or commercial property. Previous use of the property was residential, but the structure burned down in 1970. The Appellant indicated that the .proposed business would not appreciably increase traffic on the street since there was no retail trade associated with it. He claimed economic hardship in that there was no other feasible way of using the property and returning it to the. tax,roll. The lot is presently in use for additional parking for a nearby bowling alley and supermarket. The Appellant agreed to do , whatever landscaping; would be necessary on the property to enhance the area. He said he had also received a letter from.Tayntonos,a neighboring business, stating-that - 2 - they had no objection to the establishment of an electrical business on the property. Mr. Stein asked if the Appellant was planning to move from where the business was now located to the Adams Street location. . The. Appel ant replied that they were. Air. Fuller asked whether the proposed placement of tie building would narrow the fire lane. The Appellant replied that he would like o have as much of the land covered as is allowable, but that the fire lanes were no blocked as the current plan stood. They would life to set the building back from tha street to allow room for more land- scaping. There is room for parking on the side f the proposed building. Ms. Meyer stressed the need to properly landscaiaa the parcel so that residential neighbors are not constantly confronted by a coercial building. The Appellant replied that they would do as much landscaping needed to please the Board and the neighbor's. They would also be screening off some of the City's buildings which they claim are unsightly. Mr. Van Cort noted that the area is zoned residential and the master plan states that it should be kept as such. Ms. Meyer suggested that if the Board recommend approval, they do so with the stipulation that proper screening be provided. The Chairperson asked if there were any comment from interested citizens at the meeting. Air. V. Giordano spoke for his brother who owns t e property at 421 Second Street, and for-other members of his family who have ooed four houses on that block since 1943. IIe claimed the supermarket was built over what was once a garden, and the '.bowling alley over a former residence. The lot in quesion -was originally bought for over flour parking. He claimed there were 'three hous s on the same side of the street as the proposed structure, and that building on the lot would cause the adjoining lot to flood. He also claimed that traffic would be considerably increased on that street by the advent of a possible 30-40 electricians per days, and rental of a crane truck. He claimed it was not fair for the Board, to make such allowances and that if they wanted commercial uses in that area, they shout zone the entire area commercial and allow residents to sell their property and ove to residential areas. Mr. Stein agreed that a usage such as this should be acco panied by a zoning change, not a variance. Mr. `Hildreth suggested that the idea proal would be to retain the area as residential, since it is close to shopping, nd said that spot zoning could only be detrimental. Ms. Meyer asked if a cherry pi ker truck were necessary for electrical use. Mr. Giordano replied that they use the tr ck only once a month and rent it out to other businesses the rest of the time. He c aimed that the other commercial buildings face on Third Street. The junkyard, Victory Supermarket, and Taynton's are not on t' e same block. Ile claimed the lot should be used for overflow parking which is ne: .�_dw Ms. Meyer suggested 'C''..at the Appellants design their building so that ingr s -.. I. egress are located in the rear of the building, to protect nearby residents r':om visual and sound factors. Mr. Stein MOVED approval of the concept that th4 parcel be used for commercial pur- -poses, but noted that the better way of doing t#is would be to change the zoning designation. Ms. Meyer seconded. Mr. ,STein noted that he did not think the Board of Zoning Appeals would respond to a hardship apeal. Ile felt the Planning and Development Board should recommend re-zoning, a d stated he did not approve of spot zoning. tits. Benson noted that the -motion would recommend the Board move toward commercial zoning for that district, but did no make specific recommendation on this appeal. Mr. Stein withdrew his motion, and Ms. Meyer agreed to withdraw her second. - 3 - Mr. Stein then MOVED that the appeal be referred to the Codes and Ordinances Committee, with power to act by November 1. Ms. Meyer seconded. A vote was called and the motion CARRIED unanimously. Ms. Meyer then MOVED that the Board recommend to the BZA that if this variance is passed, screening be required. Mr. Stein seconded. Motion CARRIED unanimously. Ms. Meyer also recommended that if there is possible access from the rear of the building,, it be considered. Appeal 1135. Request for use variance to use the premises at 409 Hancock Street for a dopy grooming business in an R-3 use district. The determination has been made that dog grooming is not allowable as a home occupa- tion. In the past it has not been permitted in an R-3 zone. A sign permit would also ::be required. The Appellant claimed hardship in that she had quit her job to take an expensive dog grooming course, and that her -.,home was the only place she could afford to establish her business. She claimed that this is not a high-volume business, so that traffic to the area would not be significantly increased, and that animals would be kept in cages inside the house. The Planning and Development staff was split. They were sympathetic to the hardship, but thought that a business of this nature might have adverse effects on the neighborhood. Mr. Van Marter noted that the City Ordinance does not permit veterinary usage in an R-3 zone. suis. Benson asked whether the Board, in considering planning for the neighborhood, wanted to allow coLnercial use. Pix. Stein MOVED that the Board recommend denial of the appeal. Mr. Fuller seconded. Motion CARRIED unanimously. Appeal 1136: Request for area variance to add a H° X 7° enclosed porch to the entrance of the existing house at 321 Hood Place in an R-1 use district. The staff recorneaded approval of this appeal, sug esting that it would have a positive effect on the neighborhood. Ms. Meyer asked if the land was sloped; res. Benson replied that it sloped slightly. IIs. Meyer 'MOVED that the Board recommend approval of the appeal. Mr. Hildreth seconded. Notion CARRIED unanimously. Appeal 1137° Request- for a retroactive area variance to convert a single family dwelling to a two-family dwelling at 1013 East State STreet, in a district which was rezoned R-3 from R-2 on September 4, 1976. The area in -•ihic?-, the building; is located was recently rezoned from R-2 to R-1. The property in que�t'w,n has an insufficient front yard under present R-1 regulations and. under R-2. Building permit was requested and granted when area was zoned R-2. Under present regulations only one unit is permitted on property, but building was converted to two units under the previously issued Building Permit. Much money has been spent in the conversion of the building from one-family to two-family. Mir. Van Cort read a memorandum from Martin Shapiro, City Attorney, to Peter Martin, Chairman of the Board of Zoning; Appeals, which follows, I have been advised of certain circumstances in re-ard to the subject property of the above referenced appeal which I believe are relevant to the legal requirements with regard to the issue of hardship. As I understand the situation, the appelants duly applied for a building - 4 - permit and were granted same. - Apparently, such permit was issued in ,error due to zoning requirements. To further compo nd the problem, the actual con- struction,, while not meeting building coda regulations, was allegedly in- formally approved by the Deputy BuildingCommissioner during construction. In reliance upon the building permit and the informal approvals the appellants spent several thousand dollars,. Upon requesting a Certificate of Occupancy, they were duly, and correctly, informed by Mr. Thomas Hoard, the new Building Commissioner, that such ertificate could not be issued due to a violation of both the Zoning Ord nance and the State Building Code. While the Board of Zoning Appeals has no ower to grant a variance as to the building code, the question before the Do rd of Zoning Appeals relates to a variance with regard to the zoning_ ord' ia4ce. I have advised the appel- lants that I thought it prudent for themo seek a zoning variance before proceeding to either correct the building code violations or apply for a State variance with regard to the buiidin code, due to the costs involved. They have apparently followed 'mmy advicea The point I would make is simply this. Although there is little doubt that a building permit issued in error is a nullity, the appellants have obviously ' proceeded in good faith relying upon such building permit. They have done, virtually all a lay person might be expected to do. Mile such actions do not mandate granting a variance, I believe the circumstances are relevant to the issues of hardship and unique circumstances both of which are required to be proven in order to be granted a variance, -I would appreciate consideration of this memo by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Van Cort pointed out that the building; was lin an R-2 zone when the building permit was issued. Mr. Stein noted that the change from R-2 to R-1 did not affect the illegality of the conversion because the .front yard was inadequate under R-2 regulation and the ceiling in the addition was1too low to meet the building code. When the permit was originally issued., several cf the neighbors discussed the legality of it with the acting bu3Hing commissioner. HE claimed if was legal. Mr. Stein suggested the building contractor might be heldresponsible, since he should have known the conversion was not permissible. He stated that the conversion might be detrimental to the neighborhood. 71s. Janice Palmer, a realtor, noted that the neighborb v-re informed of the case coming up *fore the Board of Zoning Appeals, but were nog: informed that it would be coming before the Planning and Development Board. She felt r­hey should have been notifie . She went on to state that there are few two-familydwellings, that parking is problem, and that she was concerned about the influx of transients and whether thi building would be owner-occupied. Mr. Stein stated that he would abstain because of possible conflict of interest, since he lives across the street from the residence in question. Mr. Van Cort remarked that Ms. Palmer's comments had merit, and that the Planning and Development Board should draft a form letter for appellants to use to inform neighbors of Planning and Development Board meetings in additionto tie required notification regarding BZA meetings. Ile remarked that while this kind of notification is not required by law, it might be useful. ` He also noted that tie owner of the property ;might try to sue the .City for damages. Mr. Van Harter asked who had signed the application - 5 - Mr. Hoard answered that it had been signed by the contractor. Mr. Van Marter remarked that the Appellant could sue the contractor. Ms. Meyer MOVU) that the Board recommend denial. Mr. Fuller seconded. Motion CARRIED by the following vote; Aye. Ms. Meyer, Messrs. Puller9 11ildreth, Moran Abstain: Mr. Stein. Appeal 1138: Request for area variance to enlarge an existing building at 505 Third Street in an I-1 use district, The Appellant's director of buildinn noted that they have been. at the location since 196; and have outgrown their present building. They propose to raze an old wood- frame structure, expand their existing steel frame building by enclosing the steel canopy, and extend a new canopy. The present building is non-conforming because it is one foot from the side setback line instead of the required six feet. The adjacent property on that side is owned by the railroad line which services Cross- man°s. The proposed change would cut total square footage and improve existing buildings. Air. Van Cort noted that the staff had recommended approval. Mr. Giordano remarked that the proposed changes would improve the property. Mr. Fuller MOVED recommending approval. Mr. Stein seconded. Mr. Fuller asked if the addition in the front of the building would make it non-conforming. The Appellant replied that it would not. Motion CARRIED unanimously, Appeal 1139-. Request for use variance to use the premises at 1023-25 North Tioga Street for a home decorating and upholstery business in an R-3 use district. Mr. Van Cort noted that there have been two other appeals for commercial use of this building, Ms. Benson remarked that the front of the building looks more like a storefront but is now residential. There is a business across the street, Mr. Van Cort stated that the Appellants claimed hardship because the space as it is currently set up is not conducive to apartment dwelling, and that allowing the variance would observe the spirit, of the Ordinance. He noted that parking was not a problem, and that the proposed business would not generate much traffic. In a previous appeal the staff recommended denial, the Board approved; and the Board of Zoning Appealsrequested further information,,which was never presented to them. Ms. Benson remarked that the premises have at other times been used to house a commerciaa.. , s.cility, and that because of recent building and conversions, there are more fmaily dwe"' ings in that neighborhood than there were three years ago. Mr. Fuller agreed `r...t there was a trend in that neighborhood toward further residential usage. _Mr. Cornelius, President of the Fall Creek Civic Association, stated that he was concerned about a restaurant doing business on the corner of Lincoln and Aurora, and the subsequent increase in the number of trucks in the neighborhood. T.-Ie noted that the neighbors are concerned about commercialization of their area, and that he did not see any problem, in converting;, the premises in question so that they could be used comfortably as an apartment. Mr. Fuller added that it would be possible to replace part of the large front window with a wall. He MOVED that the Board recommend denial of the appeal. Mr. Stein seconded. 'Motion CARRIED unanimously. Ms. Meyer remarked that the vote had changed since the last time this property came up for appeal because the Fall Creek neighbors have been so concerned about keeping their neighborhood residential. - 6 - Ms. Benson suggested moving next to the subject of Historic Districts. Mr. Van Cort informed the Board that Common Council had fornally referred the two proposed landmark districts to the Board for a recominenlation. Ile then.read the following , communication from Mr. Meigs to the Mayor: Dear Mayor Conley and members of Council At its September 13 meeting, this Commission voted unanimously to designate two areas as City historic Districts: one on East Hill, which was the subject of a,)Public Nearing on June 14 d one extending the DeWitt park District, -for which the Public Hearing was held September 13.. Maps of the designated districts are attached. Both areas contain many buildings of architectural and historical interest and value. In the East Hill District are the Hinckley louse and Museume the attractive group of early residences along the 400 block of East Seneca, the Sage Mansion, and East Hill School and several residences designed by noteworthy local architect William Fie Miller. In the DeWitt Park .extension are the 1821 Bank of Newburg- the Chambez of Commerce; Temple Beth E17 and several attractive early- to mid-19th Century residences. The Commission feels strongly that these structures and areas merit landmark recognition and protection for the part their early occupants played in the formation of this community, and for their ongoing contribution to the attractiveness of the urban scene. The Commission respectfully urges Common Council to acknowledge these reflections of Ithaca°s heritage, and to aid in their ;conservation, by ratifying the landmarks designation of these two areas in accordance with the purposes of the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance and the procedures of Sec. 32.6C thereof. Very truly yours, Jonathan C. Meigs Secretary, ILPC Ms. P-teyer noted that the small house at the b ttom. of Seneca Street was worthy of preservation efforts, since itisthe house in which the Ithaca Conservatory of Music-was originally established. The Ithaca Conservatory eventually grew to be Ithaca Co.-' 'age. Mr. Van Cort said that the r commendation on the Historic District would now . -)go to a Council committee, but eventually would have to go to Council fog _ra approval. Ms. Meyer added that it should be brought by committee to Council so that it does not;have to be sent back-to committee. She remarked that some additional buildings may b :made part of the district. Ms. Meyer then MOVED that the East Hill area as:.p oposed by the Ithaca Landmarks Commission be approved for designationas an historic district. Mr. Stein seconded. ?lotion CARRIED unanimously. Ms. Meyer then MOVED that the enlarged DeWitt District be approved as an historic districto Mr. Puller seconded. CARRIED unan ously. M .. 7 - The proposed zoning; study was next considered. The Planning Director noted that shortly after last month's meeting the City received a request .from the Fall Creek Civic Association to change their zoning to R-1. Council called for a public discussion of this at its November meeting. Mr. Van Cort then read the following proposed Moratorium on building changes: SECTION 1. ADDING §30<59. 111. That §30.59 entitled e'Lemporary Moratorium on Certain Building Permits and Certificates of Occupancy"' is hereby added." "2, That for a period of seven (7) months from the date this part becomes effective, the Building Commissioner shall cease to issue° a. Any Building Permit which involves building alterations, additions or new construction which would increase the ntmmber of dwelling units: or, in the opinion of the Building Commissioner, otherwise increase the residential occupancy on the property for which the permit is requested. b. Any Certificate of Occupancy for a change in use which would increase the subject property's residential occupancy. SECTION 2. APPLICATION OF MORATORIUM "This moratorium shall apply to all properties located in districts in the City in which residential uses are permitted, with the exception of R-1 districts."" SECTION 3. APPEALS PROCEDUP . "If an individual applying for a Building Permit or Certificate of Occupancy covered by this moratorium can demonstrate hardship as a result of the moratorium, he or she may appeal to the Board of Zoning; Appeals which at its sole discretion, upon recommendation of the Board of Planning and Development, may exempt the individual from the provisions of this moratorium." SECT10,1? 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. This or4inance shall take effect immediately and in accordance with law upon publication of a notice as provided in s3.11(B) of the Ithaca City Charter, and shall remain in effect for a period of seven (7) months from the date of enactment. Building; Commissioner Hoard said he did not want to stop people from building one-family houses. Mr. Stein asked how the Commissionervs office would view the building of sin6le--family units in an P-2 zone. Mr. Van Cort replied ,:that such projects would have to .obtain a variance, but that the moratorium would be in effect for the next seven months, during; which time there is not too much construction being done, since the building season is over. Ile added that this would be an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and must be recommended by the Y.. Planning and Development Board. his. Janice Palmer, a local realtor9 said she would support such action. Mr. Cornelius stated that he had presented to Common Council - petitions requesting the change in zoning from R-3 to R-1 and that he was very much in favor of this amendment, Mr. Van Cort added that he had learned a great deal from attending a Fall Creek neighborhood meeti ge Mr. rIemming asked if there would be a hearing at the November 3 meeting, Mr. Van Cort replied that there would. He asked if the Planning Board's decision would change the hearing. Ms. Benson replied that the Board could only mace a recation. res. Meyer MOVED approval of the recommendation to the proposed amendme= to the zoning ordinance to Common Council -- Section 30.59 -- effecting a tempor ry moratorium on certain building permits. Mr. Hildreth seconded. Motion CARRI{D unanimously. The staff recorm►ended establishment of an ad h' c citizens group to advise the City during the zoning study. The Department would like to get citizens involved in the study process, and proposes the formation of ai advisory committee, established by the Mayor, and with the following representation- Cornell Heights Civic Association Bryant Park Civic Association East dill Civic Association Fall Creek Civic Association South Bill Civic Association Northside/Southside Civic Association [rest Hill Civic Association Board of Realtors Landlord's Association Tenants'Association Cornell dousing Office Mr. Stein remarked that the Landmarks Commission had expressly requested to be involved in this, perhaps as an ex officio member. Mr. Stein ;asked also if the civic associations listed were all active, and suggested the staff be careful to include all active associations. Mr. Stein then MOVED the establishment of a citizen participation committee for the residential zoning study, as described, with the addition of the Landmarks Commission as an ex officio member. Mr. Fuller seconded. Motion CARRIED unanimously. Mr. Van Cort re-irked that the staff needs a good deal of hard information on what is going on in residential neighborhoods in theCity-. lie noted that the City does not have any accurate measure of the change that is occurring in neighborhoods. Because of the lack of information, HUD gave the city $100,000 less than it requested; the city was unable to. substantiate the need for additional Sec. 3 housing funds. The last change in the zoning ordinance toot: six 'years to effect. Mr. Roard feels the information to be gathered from such a survey would be very useful to the Building Commissioner's office, Information gathered In the survey would be added to data from the Building Commissioner's files, and computerized data available from county tax files. The survey would encompass a 25% E ample of Ithaca housing. At the r Board's recormendation, Council would be an roaches to . ,.fund the study, the cost of which is estimated at $6,000 - "10,000 including intervienrers, professionals in survey-talAng, computer pro'gramraers and. computer time. T,Zr. Van Cort stated that this was a low estimate and that one consultant ,had asl,.ed, as high as $40,000 for a similar survey. Ile added that the city would ma!--.e money back by establishing a ,data base to use in applying for grants. Ie noted that information on population and occupancy is inport.ant ,for planning for neighborhood development as well. The staff would like to establish the carryinf* capacity for various neighborhoods. s. "..ever asked if the information would be structured as the data was collected.; or if the staff *Manner! to wait until everything was returned. MY. Van Cort answered that the Jepartment has been corresponding with other cities to find- out indout what they are loin-� in this respect, and in trying to determine what ?rinds of zoning innovations would be useful to the city. "is. Meyer remarked that she thought all goals should be established before the information is collected. Pyr. Van Cort added that the staff is trying; to design a new ordinance that will be responsive to problems recently brought to the city°s attention including replace- ment of families by groups of unrelated persons. Mr. Fuller suggested the surveyors as?: people hmv they would li?:e their community to be improveE-?, what the city can ,Io to provide or allow for certain types of services. 1,111s. Tleyer a*�ain stressed the importance of discussing these issues before the survey is taken. Hr. Vara Cort explained that the staff is operating under severe time constraints. lie noted that getting information on people's values is very difficult, and that values were especially difficult to determine by questionaire, especially in the limited amount of time permitted.. f?e said the staff expected to 'get some attitudi-nal information in the next seven months, but that it needed t1he coopera- tion of Council, the Board, and civic associations. Mr. Fuller said he would lige to have a methodology established for obtaining information on community attitudes. Hs. Meyer said she would life a rudimentary outline for requests for changes by neighborhoods„ and that these questions should be asked from the beginning. Mr. Van Cort rerlied that this would ma-I47.e the study more costly, Ih•. Stein added that since the inforiaation on zoning is needed in a short time, attitudinal information should be collected at sortie other t:L�-ie. Mr. Van Cort noted that this data is difficult to collect, but said the staff would have some ideas :dor dealin� frith this at the next Board meeting. Ifs. Benson said she would like to have :a plan for incorporating ne.ighborhooA values, not in the survey:, but in the process, for the next meeting. 1,1r. Stein asked why CD funds could not be used for this survey. AIr. Van Cart replied that it would be appropriate to use CD funds for the study, but that -,'.'ie Mayor has consistently, requested CIS funds not be used for City Share items suciz as this survey. T:ar.o Stein asked if the funds could be used for a survey of the cc::Are City. Mr. Van Cort answered that they probably could be used, but that he would have to chec7r. Mr. ?ier_�mina asked that the question of non-owner occupied dwellings and R-1 and l'-2 zones be thoroughly covered in the survey. 11r. Van Cort replied that it would. 11s. Falmer said she would like a cony of the proposed survey. The draft of the survey was distributed. Mr. Stein MOVED passage of a resolution recornendinn to Common Council that the pro-nosed zoning study be initiated and .funded at the level su?gested by staff. Iir. Fildretih seconded. UL.RIED unanimously. _ 10 - Mr. Van Cort read the following resolution on the proposed school district reorganization-, WHEREAS, the Ithaca City School District is undertaking reorganization of the distriet- to affect educational program quality, financial savings, and socio-economic balance, and WHEREAS, included in this process is the consideration of school closures in our city and in the entire sc ool district which could affect the economic and social viabilit of the city's neighborhoods, and WHEREAS, the city's efforts %to rebuild its neighborhoods and encourage families to remain or return to he city could be negatively affected by such school board ac ions, and WHEREAS, it is questionable whether enrol ments will continue to decline beyond 1980 and, therefore a flexibility plan for the use of space is desirable, and WHEREAS, the city contains a number of no� -profit agencies occupying houses that could be otherwise oFcupied by a _family, and WHEREAS, recent legislation now allows th� joint occupancy of school buildings with non-school groups, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Planning and Development accept the Mayor's Task Force on Reorganization's report and adopt the following recommendation to be frwarded to the School Board- 1. Retain all schools in the entire Scho District except Columbia Street School as funtioning schools. 2. Relocate in the schools all compatibla Board of Education operations not presently in school-owned facilities. 3. Rent out vacant space to public or no -profit institutions. 4. Rent space to neighboring districts whose schools are overburdened. 5. C oaernte with other public bodies ani private organizations providing si_il services to save funds or reduce the school taxes to comply with the district tax limit. 6. Seek outside funds ,where available �to encourage community/school occupancy. 7. Establish long range goal of expandig the function of public education to serve a wider range of age groups. S. Establish commitment to maintaining a variety of educational opportunities throughout the district. 9. Strengthen the magnet program in Central School to attract pupils from other schools for socio-economic bal hce. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that these recommendations, while focused on the city's concerns, are not in any way intended to detract from and indeed are felt to be in support of the arguments put forth by suburban and rural communities in support of retention of schools in areas outside the city. Mr. Fuller MOVED the resolution. Mr. Stein seconded. In the following discussion Mr. Stein remarked that he felt this was a very important resolution. Ms. Benson pointed out that schools have become important neighborhood centers, as evidenced by the fact that most neighborhood civic associations meet in their local elementary schools. Mr. Van Cort noted that population information now being used by the Board of Education to support school closings is not reliable or complete. Ms. Meyer remarked that most of the discussion on school closings has centered around elementary schools, and that these are the schools most used for neighborhood activities. She noted that junior high schools are busing schools, and for this reason were not necessarily neighborhood centers. A vote was called, and motion CARRIED unanimously. The next item for discussion was the Elm-Maple Annexation. It was determined that this should be referred to committee but that the Board had not yet received any information from Council. Mr. Hildreth MOVED that the item be referred to committee with the power to act if necessary. Mr. Fuller seconded. PASSED unanimously. The committee report on a preliminary request for subdivision of the property at 229-31 Valley Road into two parcels noted that the request should be handled through the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Stein so MOVED. Mr. Hildreth seconded. CARRIED unanimously. The location of the next meeting will be determined by the chairperson. There being no further business, Ms. Meyer MOVED adjournment of the meeting at 10:45 p.m.