Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1980-09-23 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD TUESDAY , SEPTEMBER 23 , 1980 ., The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday , September 23 , 1980 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street ( First Floor ) , Ithaca , N . Y . , at. 7 : 30 p . m . PRESENT : Vice - Chairman Montgomery May , Barbara Schultz , James Baker , Liese Bronfenbrenner , Edward Mazza , Carolyn Grigorov , Lawrence Fabbroni ( Town Engineer ) , Barbara Restaino ( Town Planner ) Lewis D . Cartee ( Building Inspector ) . ALSO PRESENT : John VanOrder , Patricia Whittle , Nick Krukovsky , Ralph G . Carpenter , M . E . Leach , Mark Hutchins ( Rockwell International Corp . , Dallas , Texas ) , Bruce Wilson , Esq . , Les Levitt ( WVBR ) , Dan Geller ( WVBR ) , Randy Brown , Katie Heine ( WHCU ) , Donna Kessler ( WTKO ) , Megan Stevens ( WICB - TV ) , Bruce Ryan ( WTKO ) , K . C . Donovan ( WICB - TV ) , Joe Schwartz ( Ithaca Journal ) . Vice - Chair" m.an May declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 40 p . m . PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION OF CORNELL RADIO GUILD , INC . D / B / A WVBR , FOR PERMIT TO ERECT A RADIO TRANSMISSION TOWER IN AN AGRICUL - TURAL DISTRICT , 245 BUNDY ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 2 - 27 - 1 - 7 . Vice - Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 7 : 40 p . m . and accepted for the record the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Posting and Publication of . the Notice of Public Hearing in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on September 10 , 1980 , and September 13 and 18 , 1980 , respectively , together with the Secretary ' s Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice upon 53 adjacent property owners of the parcel in question and Messrs . Geller and Wilson , as parties to the action . Mr . May stated that this is a Public Hearing before the Planning Board to obtain such information as the Planning Board requires in order for it to make a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals . He stated that there will be no action taken by this Board other than a recommendation - - either to recommend approval , recommend denial , or recommend additional requirements - - there will be no final action taken tonight of any kind . Mr . May pointed out that this hearing is an opportunity for everybody to make known their concerns in relation to this application . Mr . Dan Geller of WVBR stated that he could make the same presentation he made at the first meeting on this matter on February 19 , 1980 . Mr . May asked if the Board or the audience felt the need for a general presentation . There being no response from either body , Mr . May stated that the first part of the discussion would deal with the matters that the Planning Board had requested that more information be provided by the applicant on , and those items were : 1 . A letter of .intent from WVBR indicating their willingness to acquire additional lands immediately surrounding the proposed site location sufficient to contain the tower should it fall . 2 . A completed Environmental Assessment Form - long form . j 3 . Material from the Federal Communications Commission in re FM inter - ference to TV reception . • , Planning Board - 2 - September 23 , 1980 40 FCC authorizceit ion . • 5 . Report from Mr . Fabbroni in re the flow of water and its relationship to proposed accesses " a " , " b " , or " c " . 6 . If possible , a presentation by a representative of Rockwell Interna - tional , the firm that supplies the towers . Mr . Fabbroni presented his report on his on - site inspection of the proposed site and the merits of the three options for access to the site from Bundy Road . Mr . Fabbroni stated that as he looked at the three options available , he would recommend Option " A " , as shown on the document numbered 112 " in the package presented to the Board , because , as one walks the land , one finds an agricultural field just to the east as well as a diversion ditch to the east which, will lead the water to natural hollows . Mr . Fabbroni utilized the new 1980 aerial photo of the area and showed the natural hol - lows in the land . He stated that the deepest hollow is shown pretty pre - dominantly on the aerial . Mr . Fabbroni noted that if you used Option " B " or " C " in effect you would be crossing , it could be said , ten different hollows within a field to the west . He stated that at the two predominant hollows culverts would be needed , one just north of the east / west hedgerow which is like brush and willows , and just north of there there is a recog - nizable hollow . Mr . Fabbroni commented that in cases of rain you would see water washing the road out without culverts . He stated that by the same token the deep hollow , that is the very deep hollow , definitely carries most of the water across the Hopkins ' land . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the first hollow would require an 18 " pipe and • the deep hollow might require a 4 ' pipe . He commented that someone else might have data calling for something smaller than a 4 ' pipe , but from visual observation there is much water contained there and a 4 ' pipe could fill up without any problem . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the site itself sits on a high spot of the land and his last comment would be that in construc - ting an access , whether along that option or not , it would be a good idea NOT to tamper with the existing hedgerow between Carpenter and Hopkins , adding that the water finds its way to a deep natural depression and that the provision of culverts would not alter the land . Mr . Fabbroni concluded by stating that Options " B " and " C " would require a number of culverts to keep the drainage essentially the same as it is now without which you have . the possibility that you could dry out the land . Mr . May asked Mr . Fabbroni if the map depicting the accesses provided sufficient definition . Mr . Fabbroni replied in the affirmative , adding that it is sufficient in the case - he is talking about where , on the east property line , the 50 ' easement is described . Mr . Fabbroni pointed out that the standard for the access road is pretty well up to the applicant . Mr . Fabbroni reiterated that the sensitive thing is to leave the land and the hedgerow between Carpenter ' s and Hopkins " in as natural a state as possible , noting that when you get into the area of the trees , several trees will have to be cut down . Mr . Fabbroni also noted that where you fill in the ravine , you could wash the road right out if it were not properly culverted. . He continued , stating that the 18 " culvert should be placed . . just north of where the trees are , and in the deep draw a 4 ' culvert . would be the smallest size you would want . Mr . Fabbroni commented that in judging the size of the draw and the land it is draining , and when it is all filled up , with snow and rain on top of it , you would see a river down through there at times probably . Mr . May thanked Mr . Fabbroni for his presentation and stated that he would now open up the discussion to the public for any discussion , comments , % Planning Board - 3 - September 23 , 1980 or statements . • Mr . Nicholas E . Krukovsky , 244 Bundy Road , asked where the access road would go . and , further , he wondered whether it would be a private road going in only serving the transmitter , or would it be a road allowing for addi - tional building upon . Mr . May rep -Lied that the proposed access road is strictly a private road , unimproved , gravel , off Bundy Road at one corner of the site . Mr . Krukovsky asked if it were nearest the City of Ithaca . Mr . Fabbroni stated that it was - - nearest the Hopkins land . Mr . Fabbroni , utilizing the aerial photos , stated that where the road is proposed - - Option " A " - - is not opposite any house . Mr . May asked if there were any other questions . Mrs . Pat Whittle , 271 Bundy Road , asked how high the proposed tower would be . Mr . May respon - ded . that the proposed tower would be 283 ' high . Mrs . Whittle stated that she had heard that it was to be 500 ' high and added that she had no further questions . Mr . Krukovsky asked how far the tower would be back from the road . Mr . Fabbroni stated that it is proposed to be over 1 , 000 feet from the road . Mr . May asked again if there were any further questions from those present and there were none . Mr . May repeated his question . There was no response , whereupon Vice - Chairman May declared the Public Hearing duly closed at 8 : 00 p . m . , and opened the discussion to members of the Planning Board . • Mr . Baker stated that at the last meeting ( September 9 , 1980 ) , he had had concerns himself about dumping water down on the Hopkins ' land . He noted that Mr . Fabbroni had stated that there is a diversion ditch , and he asked if it were above or below . Mr . . Fabbroni replied that below the road is a diversion ditch which would lead to a depression , therefore , with a . little culvert the water still would go to where it goes now . He stated that with the culverts he proposed , you are not taking water away and you would not affect the drainage pattern at all . Mr . Baker commented that it should improve it if the road is in . Mr . Fabbroni agreed , adding that they will have to bring water to where the culvert is unless they want to rebuild the road every year . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the next depression , the second one , is very pronounced and deep - - it is like a twenty - foot drop . Mr . Baker stated that when there is rain and snow , there is a lot of water . Mr . Fabbroni agreed , noting that this is the ravine behind Perry ' s farm . Mr . Baker stated that he was satisfied . Mr . May asked Mr . Cartee if he had any questions . Mr . Cartee stated that he had thought it would be helpful to the Board and the neighbors if someone from the company providing the tower could speak to them , and added that he was pleased to see that the applicant had invited Mr . Hutchins of the Rockwell Corporation to this hearing . Mr . May invited Mr . Hutchins to speak . Mr . Mark Hutchins of North American Rockwell , Collins Division , stated . that this is a self - supporting tower and that one of the interesting things is that this is a relatively small tower in terms of height . He stated that it supports a very small antenna - - a three element antenna . He noted that because it has a small cross - section , the question is appearance . He stated that from a distance the tower is not going to be terribly noticeable and relatively low in height . He stated that the lighting is as required , as is the red and white paint required by the FAA . He noted that the cross - Planning Board - 4 - September 23 , 1980 section of the tower will be between 16 " and 24 " specifically , so from a distance of about 1 , 000 feet it is not a very wide tower . He added that • that cross - section is in turn composed of three 1 " steel rods held together with smaller steel . Mr . Hutchins stated that to give the neighbors an idea of the beacon that flashes , he would point out that it is a 620 watt bulb which is pre - focused out and away . He stated that it is not very bright , but bright enough for aeroplanes . He stated that the antenna will be attached between 253 ' and 273 ' and has a 20 ' run . He noted again that there are three elements and that from a distance it would not be very noticeable . Mr . Hutchins stated that there is proposed just one tower . He stated that that is important to note because some of the material that has been fi :Led talks about three but that is just the elements of the antenna . He stated that there is a 1 - 5 / 8 " transmission cable . Mr . Hutchins commented that something that came up earlier in the discussion is the additional land -that is required . He stated that he wished to note that technically the :rule of thumb in trying to figure space is about 2 / 3 of the tower height , so , if we had 200 ' out in each direction , we would consider that fairly safe , Mr . Mazza asked why 2 / 3 is fairly safe . Mr . Hutchins replied that , assuming that the tower falls , that is where it would fall . Mr . Mazza wondered if it would not fall 2831 . Mr . Hutchins replied that that is not probable because of the three elements , and , he added , that guying also tends to make it topple in sections - - thus the 2 / 3 radius . Mr . Mazza asked if it were . not possible for it to fall 2831 . Mr . Hutchins said that that is possible , but normally that would happen in a tornado , but even then probably the 2 / 3 radius would be sufficient . Mr . Mazza wondered why Mr . Hutchins had said that the tower was self - supporting . Mr . Hutchins stated that he stood corrected , having meant to say that this is a guyed tower . Mr . May stated that for the information of the people present , the Planning Board has required that the tower be contained within the site , and he noted that a letter of intent to acquire additional land had been transmitted to the Board . as requested . Mr . Mazza , turning to the Environmental Assessment Form , long form , which had been received by the Board as requested , noted that on page 4 , Item # 39 had been left blank . Item # 39 reads : Will activity cause a change in or affect visual character of natural or cultural landscape features ? Mr . Bruce Wilson , Attorney for WVBR , stated that Item # 39 was left blank intentionally . He stated that this is a difficult one , especially to ask an attorney , it being a subjective question . Mr . Wilson stated that the Board did know the height - - 283 ' - - and the width - - 16 " to 24 " . Mr . Mazza stated that the Planning Board will not take any action with respect to the EAF , however , the Board that does will probably note the absence of an answer . Mr . Mazza stated that he thought the answer has got to be " yes " with an explanation after that . Mr . Mazza stated that it may be a small change , but , nevertheless , a change . Mr . Wilson stated that they can add that with an explanation . Mrs . Schultz wondered about Item #45 on page 5 , where the number of . employees indicated is approximately 10 during construction and approximately 15 present at the site at one time . Mr . Wilson stated that that question was interpreted to mean during construction and that the five additional would be WVBR personnel reviewing construction . Mr . Geller stated that it is an unmanned site with someone coming out to it about once a week . The Board agreed. that the answer was correct for the question asked . Planning Board - 5 - September 23 , 1980 Mrs . Bronfenbrenner stated that this document ( EAF ) does not deal with possible interference with reception . Mr . Mazza agreed andLstated that that was his question . He asked what the emissions are . Mrs . Bronfenbrenner asked who is responsible for any costs to the public of putting in equipment in regard to interference . Mr . Geller stated that in the event that there is interference , they will take care of it within FCC regulations and in most cases at their cost . Mrs . Bronfenbrenner asked if this would be for existing homes now or for future homes also , that is , people who arrive after the tower has been established . Mr . Hutchins stated ,- that the . same , rules apply to both . Mr . May stated that it was his understanding that the FCC has become very explicit - - you may not interfere and if you do , you are responsible . Mr . Mazza asked what interference is . Mr . Hutchins . stated -- that i.t is interference with everything , but in the case of FM stations interference with reception is usually related to the low FM stations and sometimes Channel 6 . Mr . Hutchins stated that his experience at several stations is that the FCC goes way beyond the intent of this document ( i . e . , the document requested by the Planning Board from the FCC relating to FM interference to TV reception ) . He stated that the operators have to take care of interference , and , it is not sufficient to go into a home with a good TV with you and prove that there is no interference ; the fact that a person had a bad TV makes no difference . He stated that he thought the FCC is a lot stronger than the document even indicates . Mr . May asked if . there were any other questions . from anyone . There were none . The secretary indicated to the Board that all the documents • appeared to have -- been - received , i . e . , those listed at the commencement of the hearing , :- -. and the Board members had received and approved the Minutes of February 19 , March 18 , and April 15 , 1980 , at which meetings the WVBR matter had been discussed and at which a neighborhood petition had been received . Mr . May . .asked again if there were any more comments or questions . Again , there werE! none . MOTION by Mr . Montgomery May , seconded by Mr . Edward Mazza : RESOLVED , that the Planning Board . of the Town of Ithaca recommend and hereby does recommend . to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals approval of the application of Cornell Radio Guild , Inc . d / b / a WVBR , for permit to erect a Radio Transmission Tower in an Agricultural District , 245 Bundy Road , being a portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 27 - 1 - 7 , with the following conditions : land 1 . That addition. al / is required in order to totally contain the antenna should it fall from the base . 2 . That Access Option " A " be selected insofar as such access pertains to the location. of the site , with the addition of two culverts , one 18 " to take care of the draw north of the tree line , and , one 4 ' to take care of the deep draw , both as further defined and approved by the Town EngineE! r . 3 . That the hedgerow between Carpenter ' s land and Hopkins ' land be left intact . 4 . That the Environmental Assessment Form , as amended during this public hearing by the Planning Board , be accepted . Planning Board - 6 - September 23 , 1980 There being no further discussion , the V;ice :- Chairman . called, for a vote . Aye - May , Mazza , Grigorov , Bronfenbrenner . ` Nay - Baker , Schultz , The Chair declared the MOTION to be carried . DESIGN REVIEW - - APPLICATION FOR SIGN PERMIT , INDIAN CREEK FRUIT FARM , 1408 TRUMANSBURG ROAD , Mr . May stated that under the newly adopted Sign Law , the Planning Board is designated as the Design Review Board and , among its duties , is submitting a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals when a legal non - conforming sign is to be altered , which is the case with the Indian Creek Fruit Farm sign . The Planning Board members reviewed the applica - tion for Sign Permit dated July 18 , 1980 , signed by Mr . Randolph Brown , together. . with the completed Appeal Form , dated July 18 , 1980 , signed by Mr . Brown and reading : " The Indian Creek Fruit Farm Sign is designed to provide information to motorists by allowing for the placement of small ' fruit or veg in season ' signs along its base . In order to be legible , these signs must be larger than would be allowed under existing ordinances . It is our aim to preserve the old time flavor of Indian Creek , while making it known that progress and positive change are taking place within . That is why we have altered the exact format of the sign while keeping its general appearance the same . I am asking the appeals board to allow the existing sign posts and board to be used to display the new version of the Indian Creek Fruit Farm Sign , which will differ only in the addition of • the words ' Littletree Orchards ' and the deletion of the words ' Retail Sales ' and ' Drive In ' . There will be a tree painted on the side of the sign . " Mr . Brown stated to the Board that they had understood that if they left the sign the way it was , nothing would happen since the sign had been there for a long time , but that approval was necessary if they took it down and changed a few words and put a picture of a tree on it . He stated that they hope they can still have it there , they need the little signs too . Mr . May asked if they have just painted the sign and not changed it . Mr . Brown replied in the negative and stated that they added a little tree on it and the little signs . He stated that he works with two other farms and they market together on The Commons . He said that they have an idea of the growing amount which they are applying to the three farms , but each of the three has its own identity . He stated that he tried to keep the sign very close to the way it used to be . He commented ,.- that he believed the words " Retail Sales " and " Drive In " were there , and added that they took that off . He said that they added the words " Littletree Orchards " and a little tree symbol . He informed the Board that the sign is exactly the same . Mr . Cartee stated that the sign , measuring 32 sq . ft . , existed prior to 1950 and is a legal non - conforming use since it existed before the 1972 Sign Law . He noted that the word changes were made in between the 1972 Law and the new 1980 Sign Law . He stated that the location is the same . Mr . Brown pointed out that some of the little signs they are using are the ones they found in the barn and painted . Mr . Cartee noted that the premises are located in an R - 15 zone where a 4 sq . ft . sign is permitted . He noted that the sign ' s wording is changed from the original sign that was there for years . Planning Board - 7 - September 23 , 1980 Mr . Fabbroni noted that the sign was put up illegally sometime during the repeal of the 1972 Sign Law and the enactment of the 1980 Sign Law . There followed some lengthy discussion as to which Sign Law should apply to this case . Mr . Fabbroni expressed his opinion that the Board should follow the procedure under the present law , i . e . , Local Law #6 - 1980 . Mr . Cartee commented for the Board ' s information that there is an approved sign about 50 yards away 24 sq . ft . in size . MOTION by Mrs . Barbara Schultz , seconded by Mrs . Liese Bronfenbrenner : RESOLVED , that the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca advise and hereby does advise the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca that said Planning Board approves of the renovation of the sign for Indian Creek Fruit Farm and recommends that said Zoning Board of Appeals grant a variance therefor . There being no further discussion , the Vice - Chairman called for a vote . Aye - May , Mazza , Grigorov , Bronfenbrenner , Baker , Schultz . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . REPORT OF COUNTY .PLANNING BOARD CHAIRPERSON - - TOWN COUNCILWOMAN SHIRLEY RAFFENSPERGER Mrs . Raffensperger reported to the Planning Board on the September 10 , 1980 , meeting of the County Planning Board which she described as a house - keeping session after their summer adjournment . Mrs . Raffensperger reported that a number of municipalities are working on new or revised zoning ordinan - ces , e . g . , Groton , Town of Ithaca , and Trumansburg , noting that the Village of Trumansburg had been driven to this because of commercial development . Mrs . Raffensperger commented that it was very interesting to note that several communities who had not had a zoning ordinance estimated that they would bring theirs to public hearing within two months . Both the Board mem- bers and Mrs . Raffensperger agreed that their optimism is refreshing . Mrs . Raffensperger reported that there was a discussion , a rather long one , of a letter to her from the EMC indicating the reinstatement of the Route 13 Study Committee and asking if the County Planning Board wanted to co - operate . Mrs . Raffensperger stated that she suggested a liaison member be sent from the County Planning Board to work with them and she was invited to do so . Mrs . Raffensperger stated that there is continuing difficulty in relationships and the County Planning Board was not willing to do this . She reported that she offered to meet with other chairpersons in the hope of arriving at some amicable agreement over Route 13 , adding that she is not sure whether this is possible , . however , she will try . Mrs . Raffensperger reported that Route 79 and its trucks took up a fair portion of the Agenda . She reminded the Board of a Petition that has been circulated which now contains over 1 , 500 signatures , petitioning the NYS Commissioner of Transportation that Route 79 within the City be restric - ted as far as trucks of more than ten tons . Mrs . Raffensperger reported • that that petition came to our Town Board and they recognize that the pro - blem is bigger than Route 79 , the difficulty being that in removing truck traffic from one road - - it goes to another and burdens someone else . She stated that the Town Board has asked the County Planning Board to look into the matter and , if possible , recommend a course of action suitable to the Town of Ithaca . She reported that the County Planning Board and the staff feel that the matter is not just one of Route 79 and so they are involved •• Planning Board - 8 - September 23 , 1980 in a study jointly with th.e Town of Ithaca , the City of Ithaca , and . NYS DOT , of . the role and impact of truck traffic in the county , primarily the • Ithaca Urban Area . This study will / i e° 'iow they go " , the " where they go " , and the " why . they go " . Mrs . Raffensperger commented that there really have not been any such surveys . The Town staff will be cooperating with the County Staff in this study of truck traffic within the County and there will be recommendations made for requests to NYS DOT , Mrs . Raffen : ftK anning Board - 9 - September 23 , 1980 • Tree Road , which is the worry to people along our road . But whither then ? If it is through - traffic we divert , it is only reasonable that such traffic • be sent over to Route 366 and then down in to town . This will disturb those along Ithaca Road. also and only avoids a mile or so of State Street and overall doesn ' t help Bryant Tract one whit . It merely swaps annoyance along East State Street for that along Pine Tree Road and Ithaca Road . To totally avoid the Tract , one is surely not going to send the traffic through the University and Forest Home and Cayuga Heights over to Route 13 and then down and out to the West . It seems a nearly impossible situation . A solution , which would disturb others , would be the construction of the Circle Route around the East side of the city , taking off , I would naturally hope , from Route 79 well to the East of Pine Tree Road . But I view this as an undertaking of such magnitude that it will not be done . Another approach which would at least somewhat alleviate the situation for both Bryant Tract and for Pine Tree Road , would be to establish some sort of noise limit ordinance for the town . Some vehicles are clearly more noisy than others , in many cases purposely so . There is very wide variation ; there are some trucks even not too objectionable actually , noise -wise . Could we not establish some sort of noise level limit and enforce it ? That sounds difficult ; it would be difficult . But could it not Be done ? Would it not be worth it - - - at least to people all along through - routes in the town - - - West Hill as well as East Hill ? But my main :point here is that I hope , in your mollifying the citizenry of Bryant Tract , ;you do not raise hackles on those of us living on Pine Tree Road . SI ' m not sure that even Solomon could work around this one . Anyway , please keep us in mind . Sincerely , ( sgd . ) Paul L . Hartman Copy to : Joe Learning , Bryant Tract Assn . " The Board members agreed that the noise is certainly a problem and noted that Mrs . Raffensperger . and . Mr . Elmer Phillips , have spoken about the noise problem . Mr . Fabbroni suggested that a Board resolution might be in order whereby the Town could investigate how the Vehicular and Traffic law handles such a question . Some members felt that it did insofar as larger trucks are concerned . Mr . May stated that he lives right on Route 79 ( Slaterville Road ) and there is a regulation as far as muffled noise , but , what they do not have is a regulation as to the amount of noise a truck body will make insofar as loose material , gearing down , etc . He commented that it would be awfully nice to ban all trucks over 10 tons , but it is not really realistic . He stated that ; however he did not understand why we do not control speed and to some degree , noise . Mr . May recalled that four weeks ago for one five - day period there was a. truck that went by every day every morning early and it • geared down -right in front of his house - - he was doing 70 at the time . Mr . May stated that the speed of coming into the City is very unreasonable , both as to road conditions and speed limits . Mrs . Bronfenbrenner pointed out that there is no Town Law on " noise " . ` Planning Board - 10 - September 23 , 1980 MOTION by Mrs . Liese Bronfenbrenner , seconded by Mr . James Baker : • RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca that one solution to the problem of Route 79 traffic and others is enforcement of speed limits , particularly in the early morning hours . There being no further discussion , the Vice - Chairman called for a vote . Aye - May , Mazza , Grigorov , Bronfenbrenner , Baker , Schultz . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . MOTION by Mrs . Liese Bronfenbrenner , seconded by Mr . Montgomery May : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board commend and hereby does commend the Town Board on the action taken . at . its _ adj.ourned meeting of September 22 , 1980 , in relation to its consideration of East Ithaca Circulation Improvements involving the roads in East Ithaca and Forest Home , with the further statement that this is a problem that needs to be solved as soon as possible . There being no further discussion , the Vice - Chairman called for a vote . Aye - May , Mazza , Grigorov , Bronfenbrenner , Baker , Schultz . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . DISCUSSION OF NEW BOARD ROOM ON THE FIRST FLOOR MOTION by Mr . ,. Montgomery May , seconded by Mrs . Liese Bronfenbrenner : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board inform and hereby does inform the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca that the Planning Board finds the new meeting room to have many advantages over the meeting room as it was located on the second floor including the ramp for the disabled and the ready access to the parking area , however ., the Planning Board suggests the looking into a. change in the location in the room of the Board table in order that there be more visual contact between the members of the Boards . and the audience , and that the Town Board also consider an arrangement whereby the representatives of the media may be able to talk to members of the public at the conclusion of a discussion of an issue before the Boards without going outside in inclement weather . There being no further discussion , the Vice - Chairman called for a vote . Aye - May , Mazza , Grigorov , Bronfenbrenner , Baker , Schultz . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion , . the Vice - Chairman declared the September 23 , 1980 , meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 9 : 20 p . m . Respectfully submitted , Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary .