HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1977-06-28 MINUTES
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD CITY OF ITHACA
Regular Meeting, June 28, 1977, Common Council Chamber, 7:30 P.M.
PRESENT: Chairperson LeGrace Benson, R. Hildreth, D. Fuller, M. Crowley,
R. Bordoni
ALSO: Mayor E.J. Conley, H. M. Van Cort, T. Hoard, E. Nichols, R.
Saccucci, D. Slattery, W. Burbank, P. Carlson, N. Meyer,
J. Gutenberger, members of the press and others
1. The Chairperson called the meeting to order. Mr.- Bordoni MOVED that the minutes
of the May meeting be accepted as submitted. Mr. Hildreth seconded. CARRIED.
The Chairperson then requested that the zoning cases be heard immediately, since
many citizens had come to hear and comment on them. This being acceptable to
members of the Board, the agenda was so altered..
5. Zoning Cases:
a. Appeal 1162: Request for an Area Variance to convert premises at 305 Stewart
Avenue from a garage to a bar, in a B-2 use district. Rear yard and one side
yard fall short of requirements and on site parking is not available
The building in question is a carriage house which is currently being used as a
garage. Proposed usage is permitted in a B-2 use district. There is insufficient
on-site parking,but there are .spaces in a nearby lot which the business can rent.
Staff noted that the deficiency in the back yard was not serious, but that he '
usage might be a problem for the neighborhood. Staff reluctantly recommended in
favor of recommending approval. The Appellants noted that they will rent parking
spots from Cornell. They said they are planning a quieter_-place than the Chapter
House, and that it was necessary for them to appeal to the State to... use the
building, since it is a frame structure. They feel they can make the building fire
safe by having grade level fire escapes on the second floor, since the building is
placed into the side of a hill.
Mrs. Bernice Tutton of Osmun Place, which is within 200 feet of the proposed
business, appeared before the Board and said she had not received notice of the
attempt to obtain a zoning variance, and that she felt that two taverns were
too much for'the neighborhood. She felt noise and parking were already a problem,
that parking signs have been taken and never replaced, that cars parked on both
sides of her street, even though parking is permitted only on one side, that cars
parked on residents' lawns, and that fire engines could not get through because of
the parking violations. She said that the police ticket cars but do not tow them.
Staff explained to her that legal notice was required for BZA meetings only.
P & D BOARD MEETING 2 _ 28 June 1977
Mrs. Annie Ripley of 214 .Stewart Avenue said she agreed that two bars were too
many. She said that there was insufficient room now for tenant parking, and that
the tavern would only exacerbate this problem, as well as increasing noise levels.
Bertha Jordan, 113 Stewart Avenue, said that patrons of the existing bar park in
driveways so that residents cannot use thein. Cornell parking is already rented,
she said, and wondered where the people currently renting those spaces would park.
Mrs. Sandford, 113 Osmun Place said she rented a small garage attached to the
carriage house and did not want to lose her space there. She said that traffic on
Stewart Avenue was at times very heavy, that cars used Osmun Place to avoid the
traffic signal at the corner of Buffalo and Stewart, and that further 'traffic
would bring additional problems. She said the alleyway between her house and
the Chapter House was frequently used as a urinal,that students had vomited on
the side of the Chapter House and that it had not been cleaned off, and that
students had had a knife fight on her front lawn.
The Appellants said, n response, that they had made an attempt to notify neighbors
within 200 feet of the building in question. Mr. Van. Cort stated that neighbors
are notified of the BZA meeting, not the Planning and Development Board meeting,
but that this would be changed in the future. He explained that it had been done
this way because the Planning and Development Board is merely a recommending body
for zoning cases and does not make policy. The AppelLant noted that law requires
a space for every five seatsin-the bar, and these would be rented from Cornell,
but he added that most students walk to the Chapter House, and that he expected
most would walk to his establishment. He said there would be a fire lane ..on the
south side of the property. He further noted.that he had spoken to the aldermen
from the district to get feedback cnithat type of bar, that the district was indeed
zoned for business, and that he was requesting only a fire lane variance. Mr.
Bordoni asked why the staff had recommended approval reluctantly. Mr. Van Cort
answered that the staff felt the neighbors would not be pleased to have another
bar in the neighborhood, but the use is permitted in such a zone, and that unless
the area variance were significant, it should be approved by the Planning and
Development Board. In response to questioning by Mr. Fuller, the Appellant
stated that there is a 4 to 6 foot backyard deficiency, but that the backyard of
the adjoining apartment building adjoins the property in question and therefore
there would be room for fire equipment to maneuver behind the building. Ms.
Benson asked if fireproofing had been discussed with Chief Weaver; Mr. Hoard re-
plied that the Appellants had told him they had discussed this with the Chief. He
noted that wood frame structures are not permitted in fire districts. A variance
on a fire district cannot be granted locally and must be appealed to the state,
which the Appellants are doing.
Mr. Fuller MOVED to accept the recommendation of the staff to suggest approval to
the Board of Zoning Appeals. Ms. Crowley seconded. The vote was as follows:
AYE: Ms. Crowley, Messrs. Hildreth and Fuller
NAY: Ms. Benson, Mr. Bordoni
CARRIED.
P & D BOARD MEETING - 3 - 28 June 1977
b. Appeal 1163: Request for an Area Variance to extend existing porch 7 1/2
feet and enclose to create larger living area on first and second floors of
premises at 117-119 Eddy Street, in an .R-3(a) use district. Lot size and one
side yard are slightly deficient.
Staff pointed out that' the work was begun before a permit was issued. The lot is
only 6% deficient, and the side yard has only Ia minor deficiency of three feet (it
is two feet instead of the required five). There seems to be adequate parking.
The staff recommended in favor of the variance with the condition that the number
of sleeping rooms not be .increased. Staff said that it would have to reconsider
should sleeping rooms be added.
The attorney for the Appellant said that there are now three bedrooms in the first
floor apartment and four in the second floor apartment which would be affected by
the change. The landlord is planning to increase the size of'the livingrooms
only, and in doing so to add a fireplace to each one and thus increase the recital
value of these units. The attorney noted that most properties in the area have
deficiencies in lot size. There are 14 tenants now in the building, and six
apartments. The owner plans to change the layout of the four apartments but there
will be no change in the number of bedrooms in the building. In response to a
question from Mr. Bordoni, he noted that there are eight parking spaces for six
apartments. Mr. Bordoni said that since parking was adequate., and there was no
negative expression from neighbors, he MOVED that"the Board recommend approval to .
the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Hildreth seconded. CARRIED unanimously.
c. Appeal 116+: Request for a Special Permit. to use a portion of the premises
at 527 North Aurora Street,in an R-2(b) zone for a home occupation, specifically
a travel consulting firm. Building exceeds permissible lot coverage and is
deficient in all yards and parking requirements.
i
Staff reported that the Appellant would be operating a travel consulting firm and
would not be considered a travel agent. He would be giving lectures, slide .presenta-
tions, etc. , and would not be booking travel arrangements. The building covers
most of the lot. Three parking spots are required, and only one exists. Staff did
not, however, feel that parking would be a problem in that neighborhood, and recom-
mended approval of t.he :appeal.
The attorney for, the Appellant said that a purchase contract has been completed sub-
ject to the action of the Planning and Development Board and the Board of Zoning
Appeals The premises used to be a grocery store, and were then a community center.
The Appellant is a teacher in the Ithaca City !School District and has been a travel
consultant for some years. He would like to use the ground floor of the building
as an office, classroom and library for travel information, and would not be selling
or booking travel. This is not to be operated as a full-time occupation, since the
Appellant will continue to teach. Mr. Bordonil asked if the neighbors had been
notified of this meeting. The attorney replied that they had not been notified as
yet of the Tpeal.. Ms. Benson stated that thelneighbors were not required to be
notified of the Planning Board meeting. Mr. Fuller asked if the Appellant was
planning to move to the building. The attorney replied in the affirmative. Mr.
Fuller MOVED that the Board recommend approval Mr. Hildreth seconded. CARRIED
unanimously.
P & D BOARD MEETING 4 - 28 June 1977
d. Appeal 1165: Request for a Use Variance for Section 30.25, Column 2 to permit
occupation of the premises at 212 Delaware Avenue, a two-family dwelling, by up
to nine (9) unrelated persons. The property is located in an R-1 (b) use
district under Section 20.25.
The Appellant seeks a variance so that he may sell the property to other':than a
single family. Staff noted that it is presently a two-family house with the
equivalent of five bedrooms on one side and four on the other. Mr. Van Cort said
it was his understanding that the Appellant would like to sell the house to a
family in a manner-Which would allow the future owner to rent the other- 6f'the
house to more than a family or two unrelated persons in this four or five-bedroom
unit.- A rental unit is now permitted if one unit is owner occupied. Mr. Van Cort
noted that he was not involved in the staff recommendation since he thought he
might have a conflict of interest. However, the staff recommended that up to four
unrelated persons be permitted to live in one unit, if t�:e other unit were owner-
occupied. There .is insufficient parking, but since the house is so large,it
would be a hardship if the owner were not allowed to rent to more than two
unrelatedpersons.
The Appellant apologized for being latero_ submitting his appeal. He said the home
is completely surrounded by income property. He has four young children,; and feels-
the neighborhood is no longer the best place to raise them. In addition, the yards
are very small. There are eight bedrooms, possibly nine if a family room is
considered a bedroom. He is having difficulty selling the house. He said he could
sell to a non-resident landlord who would rent out both'sides, in which case it
would be non-owner-occupied. Under current zoning regulations, an apartment
cannot exceed half the space of the owner's quarters. The Appellant noted that at
most times in the building's existence, it has housed thirteen people comfortably.
Because of changes in the nature of the neighborhood, he feels the building would
have little appeal to a family with children.. He noted that .there are 32 landowners
within 200 feet of the property, which means the area is very densely populated.
The building cannot be grandfathered because it has always been rented to families
in the past. Ms. Benson asked whether a double house is legally considered one or
two houses, Mr. Hoard replied that it is considered a duplex. The Appellant added
that one unit can be occupied by a family, but the other side can be occupied by no
more than two unrelated people. The realtor who found the Appellant's new home
stated that there are in-town landlords interested in'-the property, and that 13
persons have lived in the house at one time. She said the house could accommodate
nine persons with no structural changes. Mr. Bordoni asked whether the Board could
assume the Appellant would sell the house to a family. The realtor explained that
it would be difficult to get a;family to move into that neighborhood. The Appellant
added that if the building were owner-occupied, he would like to have a maximum of
five rentable bedrooms allowed. If not owner-occupied, he wanted permission to rent
to one person per bedroom. Ms. Benson replied that legal points would be discussed
by the Board of Zoning Appeals, and-, that the charge of the Planning and Development
Board was to deal with planning issues.
Mr. Fuller MOVED that the Board recommend approval of the appeal, since.he felt
that granting a use variance would not change the nature of the community as it
now exists. Ms. Crowley seconded. Ms. Benson noted that the motion on the floor
did not necessitate use of either side of the house by a family. CARRIED unani-
mously.
P & D BOARD MEETING 5 - 28 June 1977
4. Special order of business. Ms. Benson notified speakers that they would
be allowed five minutes .each to speak on Route 96.
Alderman Saccucci said he was convinced the solution would be found within
the :tate corridor which would have the least impact on the commercial and
residential sectors, and which would be most favorable to West End and East
Hill residents.
Alderman Meyer read a letter from the Department of Transportation,
regarding the design process and the speed limit of the proposed highway.
The DoT says it wants to involve the community in its plans, and would
like to have a design committee of no more than five local citizen
members. They feel the speed limit should be determined by the City,
and say they will initiate a study of the. impact on the City of the
proposed solution.
Alderman Slattery said that the letter indicated that a study is forth-
coming from the state. In that case, it would. seem premature for the
Planning and. Development Board to make a recommendation' to Council before
the study has been done and all facts are in.
Alderman Nichols said that on the previous Sunday she had visited a large
n unber of homes and had received more phonecalls than on any other issue.
She said not one person was in favor of building a four-lane highway.
Mr. Don Enichen of the Alternatives to 96 Committee and Ecology Action
said he was dismayed by the choices, which he felt were to do nothing, to
take the proposed four-lane highway, or for the City to fund the best
solution, a two--lane highway, itself. He said he had been in touch with
the Department of Transportation in Washington, D.C. and had been informed
that there are no hard and fast rules for sizes of highways to be con-
structed, only recommendations.
Ms. Benson noted that this had been stated at a previous meeting, but that
there had been considerable waffling on the issue. Mr. Slattery noted
that there are several possibilities for getting 50-80% funding for a
smaller-scaled project. He said that solving the intersection problem
seems to be the major local concern, and that the DoT should be able to
provide funding based on environmental impact. He felt the Appalachian
Regional Commission could be approached for funding. He noted that Route
96 and. Route 13 are in the same project,and that they were meant to
improve traffic through Ithaca, and not to improve the Octopus. He
stated that 4,000 people had signed a petition in opposition to a four-
lane highway, and that the public was opposed to a highway that would make
Ithaca look more like Binghamton.
Mr. William Dillon added that the new DoT solution would leave 75% of the
present traffic remaining on the Octopus, and that traffic on Cliff Street
would increase to present proportions by 1995, given the Dot solution.
P & D BOARD MEETING - 6 - 28 June 1977
Mayor Conley stated that he had accumulated a large file on Route 96 over
the last three years, that the situation is bad,and that predictions
are that it will get worse. He felt the City should select a plan before
finding out what the impact is east of Meadow Street. DoT wants to know
what the City's plans are before they make their study. The Mayor noted
that as far back as 1972, the Octopus has beEn.the City's greatest traffic
problem. In 1973 the Planning Department accepted the present corridor for
a new highway. The Mayor noted that the Octopus is a dangerous intersection,
as evidenced by a fatal accident three years ago. A policeman is needed
to direct -traffic four hours each day. The Mayor said .it was unfair to
assume that Buffalo and Court Streets would receive all Route 96 traffic;
he did not feel the traffic load on these streets would change very much.
Currently it is impossible to get emergency vehicles through to West Hill,
he stated,and added that if the City intended to deal with this problem,
it was necessary to use State and Federal funding. Since the State and
Federal governments will only fund a four-lane solution, he felt this was
what the City must accepts He said he expected that traffic is going to
increase, and that itis unfair to ask the county and the town to partici-
pate in the construction of .a new highway if the City turns down federal.
funds. He said that the proposed two-lame highway, while it would be
a feasible solution to the problem, would be impossible to build without
federal and state backing, which they are reluctant to grant. The Mayor
noted that the intersection has been a problem ever since the flood channel
was built. He felt traffic would empty into Meadow Street from the new
highway, and move from there into all streets feeding off Meadow. He said
Cornell people would continue to use Court and Buffalo, as they have been
doing all along. He did not think Route 13 scarred Ithaca, but that it
did solve successfully the problem of heavy traffic passing through the
city. He stated that the proposed highway would only require relocation of
occupants of two homes, and that the only businesses affected would be
warehouses,which could be moved. He added that the proposed highway would
provide a better entrance to the City. He agreed that a two-lane solution
would be best, 'but that it is not possible at present. He urged that the -City
deal with the problem now,rather than trying to rework corridor and EIS dif-
ferences with the state .and federal governments. He said it has taken fifteen
years to get ,as far as we have on a new highway,and added that the Police and
Fire Departments are adamant about being able to move .emergency traffic.
Mr. Will Burbank of Ecology Action replied that there are in excess of 5,000
people who do not want a four-lane solution. He noted that the petition
was drawn up by Mrs. Romanowsky last fall, based on results of the first
EIS. Referring to the issue of fire safety on West Hill, he said he
would like to see a fire station on West Hill, and that the area should
not be depending on getting service from downtown. He also suggested
arranging signals so that the trains could be stopped in an emergency.
He urged the Planning and Development Board to weigh the situation carefully.
Mr. Slattery noted that any recommendations on the highway would be
premature without the upcoming DoT impact study. Ms. Benson said it was
important to clarify conditions under which the DoT would be willing to do
the study, Mr. 'Van Cort stated that he had been to Albany the previous
week to discuss the proposed highway,and had informed the DoT that the City
P & D BOARD MEETING - 7 - 28 June 1977
was concerned with the impact of added traffic on Court and Buffalo Streets.
The EIS which has already been done deals with the impact west of Meadow
Street, but not east. Building a four-lane highway in the proposed corridor
will have some impact on historic properties, including some National Register
properties on Court and Buffalo Streets. At the meeting with DoT,rather
than discussing plans for the EIS,they discussed whether there would be
such a study. They are unwilling to do a study without a commitment or
indication from the City. Mayor Conley added that when Mr. Hennessy was
in Ithaca, he too was looking for an indication from the City in order to
proceed He mould like to know that there is going to be a project before
he authorizes any further studies. Ms. Benson said the City would have to
indicate a choice from among alternatives provided by the DoT in order to
persuade them to do the study. Mr.Slattery stated that it was ludicrous
to ask for an impact statement after the commitment to build has been made.
The Mayor answered that if the impact statement showed there would be major
harmful effects, the City should be able to back out of the project. It was
his feeling that the City should give the DoT the go-ahead by expressing
interest in the project. He said that if the City did not want to solve
the problem, it should let the DoT know. He felt a four-lane solution was
the only way of dealing with the problem at hand.
6. Communications. Mr. Van Cort read the following letter,addressed to Mr.
Powers of the DoT, a copy of which was sent to the Planning and Development
Board:
20 June 1977
Dear Mr.Powers,
We are writing this letter to express our concern over the proposed new
Route 96 here in Ithaca. After studying the proposal, we are strongly
opposed to the Route 96 "solution" of a four-lane superhighway running
through and near Ithaca. The negative effects,)on the community as well
as the environment so much outweigh any benefits which the highway might
provide, that we ar aanazed that such a plan would even be considered!
It is certain that such a highway would decrease rather than increase the
quality of life in Tompkins County.
We question the need for a four-lane highway, as opposed to a regular
two-lane highway as a solution to the Octopus and hospital access problem.
We do not feel that a four-lane highway should be forced upon us, as is now
being done, by using the funds for a highway as a leverage.
We request that a public hearing be held in which the residents of Ithaca can
express their views on the Route. 96 question.
Yours,
Patricia L. Page, 417 Cascadilla St. , Ithaca
Dennis D. Wille, 417 Cascadilla St. , Ithaca
Peter Hess, 766 Elm St. Ext. , Ithaca
Sara Hess, 766 Elm St. Ext. , Ithaca
7
P & D BOARD MEETING - 8 28 June 1977
T. Committee Reports. None.
8. Old Business.
a. Route 96. Mr. Bordoni asked whether the City.Trould be able to refuse
the highway, should the study indicate that the highway would have unaccept-
able impacts. Mayor Conley replied that Common Council could make the final
decision as to whether there would be a highway in the City. He said that
Council has the power to refuse the highway up to the last minute. Ms..
Meyer noted that Mr. Hennessy has indicated a willingness to work with
Council. Mr. Van Cort added that Council could back out up to the begin-
ning of construction, but that ;the .longerlthe City waited, the more
difficult it would be to work with the DoT. Mr. Van Cort said he would
check the State legislation to find out exactly what approval power the
City has.
Mr. Bordoni then MOVED the following:
BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development
Board recommends that Common Council obtain the New York
State Department of Transportation's impact statement.
dealing with the areas east and west of Meadow Street, and
recommend that Common Council proceed in the joint venture
With the state and federal governments toward .a solution
to the Route 96 problem.
Mr. Fuller seconded. In the discussion which followed, Ms. Benson said
she would like to recommend that the economic impact of Route '96 on the
city be given consideration, including what happens outside of city limits.
Mr. Fuller pointed out that there was not a lot to discuss since Board
members had been meeting on Routen96 to stay informed. They have heard
estimates that the proposed highway would take only 25-40% of the present
traffic off the octopus. He also noted that planners are concerned that
a larger highway will facilitate an exodus from the center city to
suburban areas. Mr.'"'Saccucci said he thought it would be unfair for the
state to decline to make the impact study if they knew the city were ready
to solve this problem with the best possible solution. He felt it unfair
for them to demand a commitment before they did the study. In the vote
that followed the resolution was CARRIED unanimously.
b. Collegetown beautification. Mr. Van Cort reported that the Planning
Department is continuing with Phase I of the project, and is working with
Ms. Meyer in planning Phase II. There have been many meetings with
merchants and owners. Parking is repeatedly mentioned as a problem, and
although expanding parking facilities is being investigated, so far there
is no solution.. Ms. Nichols stated that merchants are interested in making
Collegetown safer and more convenient.. Council has decided to order ten
litter cans. She said she hoped the Planning Department would continue to
work on Collegetown, rather than bringing in an architect from outside.
P & D BOARD MEETING 9 28 June 1977
9. New Business.
a. South Hill Playground.' Mr. Fuller MOVED and Ms. Crowley seconded
the following resolution:
WHEREAS, we have reviewed the proposal for establishment
of a neighborhood park as identified in the
Application for State-Grant-In-Aid, Part I
Initial Submission, and
WHEREAS, the plan for the proposed neighborhood park is
in general conformity with the existing compre-
hensive plan for the overall development of the
municipality, and
WHEREAS, the proposed neighborhood park is in general
conformity with other plans for municipal park
development, and
WHEREAS, the proposed neighborhood park is located in or
convenient to a densely populated area as defined
in regulations governing the Neighborhood Park
Land Acquisition Program, and
WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works and the Ithaca Youth
Bureau have been consulted about the proposed
park, and
WHEREAS,`the existing zoning- of the site prorosad for
neighborhood park development and surrounding
environs is adequate,
THEREFORE,- BE IT RESOLVED that approval of the proposed
neighborhood park as detailed in the Part I
submission is recomnended.
CARRIED unanimously.
b. Municipal. Overburden. Mr. Van Cort explained that Ithaca had 61.4%
of its properties off the tax rolls, the highest percentage in the State.
He noted that present legislation tries to reimburse too many cities,
and so cities with Overly large burdens do not get much relief. He said
he would like to see this legislation. narrowed to favor the more over-
burdened municipalities. Mr. Bordoni MOBED and Mr. Hildreth seconded the
following resolution:
WHEREAS, the state legislature has seen the necessity of
providing additional assistance to cities and counties
with excessive amounts of tax exempt property to
relieve them of tax overburden, and
P & D BOARD MEETING - 10 - 28 June 1977
WHEREAS, the cities that have been assisted to date- are
large cities with as little as 23% of their
taxable property exempted,and
WHEREAS, the average tax exemption for cities in the state
is 36%,and
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca has the highest percentage of
tax exempt property for any city in the state,
61.4% in 1976, and
WHEREAS, the tax burden to Ithacans is greater than that
imposed on residents of other cities of comparable
size, with approximately $2,500,000 foregone in
tax revenues,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Planning and
Development urges the City of Ithaca's Common
Council to pursue legislative action to relieve
the city of its disproportionate tax overburden,
through financial assistance tocities with over
50% tax exempted properties. Such aid formulas
should reflect-the' de.jzree of overburden-to narrow
the discrepancy between cities with and without
high percentages of non-taxable -oro-oerties.
CARRIED unanimously.
c.. Preservation League. . Mr: Van Cort reported that the New York State
Preservation League has received a grant from the:;New York •State Council
on the Arts to look into adaptive reuse of schools such as the DeWitt
Building.
d. City Graphics System. Mr. Van Cort described the problems which
necessitate a city-wide graphics system. Included in the system would be
directions to universities and natural attractions, downtown, parking
facilities, as well as a directory for City Hall.. He said the system
must be carefully worked out with the DPW,taking present regulatory signs
into consideration. He said the staff had spoken with five designers,
and had chosen the one it considered best suited to this task. Mr. Hil
dreth MOVED and Ms. Crowley seconded the following resolution:
WHEREAS, there is ,a need to assist the many visitors to our
community who conte here to.visit both our man-made
and natural points of interest, and ,
WHEREAS, a graphics system which will orient and direct city
visitors has been part of the Board's work program,
and
P & D BOARD MEETING — 11, 28 June 1977
WHEREAS, the Downtown Ithaca Business Association
has requested ',that such a system include
graphics for the Central Business District,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning and
Development Board recommends to Common Council
that a capital project be established in order -
to design and ,implement a city graphics system
as soon as possible.
Mr. Bordoni asked how much money would be required for this capital
project. Mr. Van Cort said staff recommended that $10,000 be appropriated
for design services and some of the implementation, including supervision
of fabrication of the signs. He noted that the City has a good sign shop
in the Department of Public Works, but that he would rather discuss this
with Mr. Dingman before making a commitment on cost. The figure given
does not include fabrication or installation of signs. He added that
the cost would not be known until the schematic phase of the project was
about to begin. In the vote following, resolution CARRIED.
Mr. Van Cort then read an addition communication from John Bentkowski
relating to zoning case#1162.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:20 P.M.