HomeMy WebLinkAbout021423 - ATT Staff Report and Decision1 | Page
Telecommunications Facility Staff Report & Decision
Date: February 14, 2023
Applicant: Centerline Communications LLC on behalf of New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC (AT&T) Project locations: All equipment is to be mounted on existing or replacement utility poles in the
City right of way. The list of addresses below reflects the closest address corresponding to each pole. Also see drawings listed below. 1. 507 N Albany Street 2. 307 Franklin Street
3. 312 Thurston Ave Street 4. 120 Utica Street 5. 202 King Street 6. 635 W State/MLK Jr Street 7. 333 W State/MLK Jr Street
Tier Classification: Tier One Pursuant to §325-29.7(B)(1), all PWSFs are proposed to be located on existing or replacement utility poles. Additionally, all proposed PWSFs meet all location, siting, design, and safety
standards, except for those proposed PWSFs which do not meet setback requirements set forth at §325-29.8(B)(1)(h) and §325-29.8(C)(1)(c). However, the applicant received relief from such requirements from the Board of Zoning Appeals on January 3, 2023. Therefore, all above listed proposals are classified as Tier One applications and are subject to staff approval in accordance with §325-29.7(B)(1)(d). Type Classification: All above-listed proposals are new small wireless facilities and are therefore classified as Type III Applications in accordance with §325-29.5. SEQR/CEQR Classification: All above-listed applications are classified as Unlisted Actions
under the City of Ithaca Environmental Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, except for 312 Thurston Ave, which is classified as a Type I Action due to its location within the Cornell Heights Historic District. The Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA), acting as the Lead Agency in Environmental Review, issued a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance for all proposals on January 3, 2023.
CITY OF ITHACA
108 E. Green St. — Third Floor Ithaca, NY 14850-5690
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT Lisa Nicholas, AICP, Director Planning & Development – 607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA – 607-274-6565
E-Mail: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org
2 | Page
Materials reviewed and accepted: Cover Letter www.cityofithaca.org/DocumentCenter/View/14468/10-31-22-AT_T-Cover-Letter-for-Batched-
Small-Cell-Submission54511981
Batched Application www.cityofithaca.org/DocumentCenter/View/14469/City-of-Ithaca-Small-Wireless-Pole-Application-10-27-2254482191
507 North Albany Street www.cityofithaca.org/DocumentCenter/View/14470/CRAN-1---Application-Memorandum-Packet-full
Site Visit Photos 1/31/23
https://www.cityofithaca.org/DocumentCenter/View/14866/Photos-of-507-N-Albany 309 Franklin Street www.cityofithaca.org/DocumentCenter/View/14471/CRAN-4---Application-Memorandum-
Packet-full
Site Visit Photos 1/31/23 www.cityofithaca.org/DocumentCenter/View/14863/Photos-of-309-Franklin
312 Thurston Ave
www.cityofithaca.org/DocumentCenter/View/14472/CRAN-5---Application-Memorandum-Packet-full Site Visit Photos 1/31/23 https://www.cityofithaca.org/DocumentCenter/View/14864/Photos-of-312-Thurston
120 Utica Street https://www.cityofithaca.org/DocumentCenter/View/14473/CRAN-6---Application-Memorandum-Packet-full
Site Visit Photos 1/31/23 https://www.cityofithaca.org/DocumentCenter/View/14862/Photos-of-202-King 202 King Street
https://www.cityofithaca.org/DocumentCenter/View/14474/CRAN-7---Application-
Memorandum-Packet-full Site Visit Photos 1/31/23 https://www.cityofithaca.org/DocumentCenter/View/14862/Photos-of-202-King
625 W State/MLK Jr Street https://www.cityofithaca.org/DocumentCenter/View/14475/CRAN-8---Application-Memorandum-Packet-full
3 | Page
Site Visit Photos 1/31/23 https://www.cityofithaca.org/DocumentCenter/View/14867/Photos-of-635-W-State 333 W State/MLK Jr Street https://www.cityofithaca.org/DocumentCenter/View/14476/CRAN-9---Application-
Memorandum-Packet-full Site Visit Photos 1/31/23 https://www.cityofithaca.org/DocumentCenter/View/14865/Photos-of-333-W-State
All locations – visualization without cabinet https://www.cityofithaca.org/DocumentCenter/View/14860/Batched-Applications-without-cabinet
All locations – additional photo simulations 12/22
https://www.cityofithaca.org/DocumentCenter/View/14859/Additional-Photo-Simulations-1222 Ithaca Cluster Drive Data and Capacity Forecast https://www.cityofithaca.org/DocumentCenter/View/14673/BZA-3245---ATT-Batch-SWF---
January-Update-Board-Copy
Small Cell Siting Summary https://www.cityofithaca.org/DocumentCenter/View/14868/Siting-Small-Cell-Summary
Dropped Call Affidavit
https://www.cityofithaca.org/DocumentCenter/View/14861/Dropped-Call-Affidavit-12023 Additional Information Considered
BZA Meeting Discussions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eMsDfLyfiM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tl2YadU4GkM BZA Application materials https://www.cityofithaca.org/DocumentCenter/View/14494/BZA-3245---ATT-Batch-SWF---
Board-Copy https://www.cityofithaca.org/DocumentCenter/View/14544/12-6-22-ATT-Supplemental-Submission-to-BZA
https://www.cityofithaca.org/DocumentCenter/View/14673/BZA-3245---ATT-Batch-SWF---January-Update-Board-Copy BZA Decision
https://www.cityofithaca.org/DocumentCenter/View/14871/BZA-3245---ATT-Batch-SWF---
Decision
4 | Page
Public comments received and considered as of 2/10/23 Dennis Anello Brian Walder Andrew Molnar Lisa Bertuzzi
Will Fuderrman Chelsey Kingsley
Debra Martens April Peress Neil Golder Fazilee Buechel David Gallahan Quinn Kingsley Marty Blodgett Irina Peress
Todd Sadler Monica Daniel
Natalie Lester Cindy Getchonis Jerone Gagliano Richard Entlich Cynthia Brock
Description of the proposed PWSF(s) (§325-29.14(A)(1))
All above-listed applications are for new small cell facilities of identical size and equipment. All will be mounted on existing or replacement utility poles at the same height and same position relative to the poles. All are within the City right of way. Each PWSF will consist of the following:
• One 42”x 24”x 20” equipment cabinet mounted 8’ from the ground.
• One 60 amp disconnect switch, one 20 amp circuit breaker, and one meter mounted below the equipment cabinet no lower than 5’ from the ground.
• One antenna and associated mount mounted near the top of the pole
• Associated cables in a 2” U-guard.
• And other associated and relocated cables and associated hardware.
Information regarding existing PWSFs in the vicinity of each proposed PWSF is available in the above listed application materials. Location (§325-29.14(A)(2))
Identification of whether the proposed PWSF(s) is/are in an avoidance area Except for 312 Thurston Ave, all proposed PWSFs are located outside of the following avoidance areas set forth in §325-29.8(A)(3): flood hazard zone; historically or culturally significant resource; unique natural area and/or critical environmental area; park, greenway, or natural area;
scenic or visual corridor; wetland; lakeshore or waterway. 312 Thurston Ave is within the Cornell
Heights Historic District. Identification of whether the proposed PWSF(s) is/are at an opportunity site All proposed PWSFs will be on existing or replacement utility poles within the City right of way.
Staff has determined that all proposed PWSFs are therefore located at opportunity sites in
accordance with §325-28.8(A)(1)(e). Determination of whether location standards have been met Staff has determined that location standards have been met. In accordance with §325-
29.8(A)(3)(b), the Director has reviewed 312 Thurston Ave in consultation with the Neighborhood
and Historic Preservation Planner and determined that the new PWSF will not have a negative
5 | Page
impact on the character of the Cornell Heights Historic District as it is in front of an existing non-contributing building on a replacement utility pole. Referral to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission for a certificate of appropriateness is not required pursuant to §325-29.8(A)(3)(b).
Siting (§325-29.14(A)(3)) Determination of whether siting standards have been met All proposed facilities will be mounted on existing or replacement utility poles in the City right of way, which the Ordinance indicates is favored over new ground-mounted structures in accordance
with §325-29.8(B)(1)(c).
All PWSFs are to be concealed within equipment cabinets in accordance with §325-29.8(B)(1)(a), as provided by the conditions set forth below in this Staff Report & Decision.
All equipment is side mounted to the pole. Cabinets and cables are mounted directly to the surface
of the poles and will not extend beyond 20”. The proposed antennas are mounted near the top of the pole and will project 36 inches from the surface of the pole, and therefore do not comply with the provisions of § 325-29.8(B)(1)(e) which requires side mounted PWSFs to be mounted within 20” from the face of the mounting structure. The applicant has stated this provision conflicts with
NYSEG’s engineering standards requiring any attachment to the side of the pole to be no less than
24” distance between the nearest part of the antenna and the nearest part of the pole. AT&T’s proposed antenna will provide 28” between the nearest part of the antenna and the nearest part of the pole, with a total distance of 36”. NYSEG is the owner of the utility poles, and the applicant must comply with their engineering standards in order to locate facilities on said poles.
Staff finds that locating PWSFs on existing (or replacement) utility poles has several advantages that support the legislative intent stated in §325-29.4 and indicated throughout the Code. These include: avoiding the need to erect a new structure that may not be compatible with the surroundings, avoiding roof mounted facilities that can add to the perceived height of an existing
structure, using existing or replacement structures that are already consistent with and a part of the
urban landscape, and limiting the size of the facility so as not to contribute to visual clutter and to preserve character and aesthetics. New York State Electric and Gas (NYSEG) owns and controls the utility poles. As such NYSEG’s
standards must prevail as to the size and location of equipment on the poles. Staff finds the
abovementioned advantages of utility pole mounted PWSFs outweigh the requirement that no attachment can extend beyond 20” from the surface in this case because the attachments in question (the antennas) are near the top of the pole, and therefore do not infringe on the aesthetics or general enjoyment of the public space at the pedestrian level. Furthermore, utility attachments at the tops
of the poles already extend well beyond 20”. The proposed antennas of relatively small scale and
visibility will not, in this case, add significantly to visual clutter. Section 325-29.7(B)(1)(c) states: In the event that any of the standards in the article are in conflict for a particular application, one or the other conflicting standard shall be met. The decision of
which standard shall be met shall be subject to the approval of the City of Ithaca. For the reasons
outlined above, staff determines that the requirement that no attachment can extend beyond 20” would prevent PWSFs from being located on utility poles and therefore conflicts with other provisions of the Code intended to encourage the least intrusive and impactful siting feasible, including without limitation §325-29.7(B)(1) (classifying utility-pole-mounted PWSFs for Tier
6 | Page
One review); §325-29.8(A)(1)(e) (identifying utility poles within public rights of way as opportunity sites for PWSF placement); §325-29.8(B)(1)(c) (favoring placement on existing nonwireless structures); §325-29.8(C)(1)(b) (minimizing visual impact of PWSFs).
For all applicable proposed PWSFs, the Board of Zoning Appeals granted relief from the
permissible spacing requirement set forth at §325-29.8(B)(h) on January 3, 2023. For the reasons stated above, the staff determines that siting standards have been met for all proposed PWSFs.
Identification of any necessary practical measures to avoid, minimize and/or mitigate (in that order of preference) adverse impacts of the proposed PWSF Staff has determined that the applicant should take the following measures to avoid, minimize and/or mitigate potential adverse impacts:
Approval is conditioned on Applicant satisfactorily addressing the following issues:
Pertaining to 507 North Albany Street:
• Grounding rods may conflict with nearby street tree, and curbing. Install grounding rods without disturbing the tree (or its roots) or curbing.
• Equipment Orientation Plan (detail 3/A-1) appears to indicate that a new pole would be
placed in the existing sidewalk. The new pole shall instead be located in a grassy area within the right of way.
Pertaining to 120 Utica Street:
• Equipment Orientation Plan (detail 3/A-1) appears to indicate that a new pole would be
placed in the existing sidewalk. The new pole shall instead be located in a grassy area within the right of way.
Pertaining to 202 King Street:
• The existing pole is located within an ADA ramp at the corner. A new replacement pole
has been installed directly adjacent to the existing pole. The applicant shall coordinate
with NYSEG and City staff to relocate the new pole to a more appropriate location outside of the concrete ADA ramp in a nearby grassy area.
• Concrete restoration is required for this relocation.
Pertaining to 635 West State Street:
• The original pole must be removed.
• Equipment Orientation Plan (3/A-1) and Elevation (4/A-1) appear to conflict. In the
former the antenna and cabinet are 90 degrees to each other. In the latter, they are 180
degrees. Confirm with City staff which is intended and update submissions.
Pertaining to 333 West State Street:
7 | Page
• Make ready work is already complete; however, the site was not properly cleaned up following work in colored concrete area. Applicants or NYSEG must satisfactorily finish cleaning disturbed area.
Pertaining to Thurston Ave:
• The original pole must be removed.
Pertaining to Franklin St – Two poles shown:
• The original pole must be removed.
Design (§325-29.14(A)(4)) Type of mount All equipment is structure-mounted. See applications for further details. Type of antenna(s) All are cannister antennas CommScope model # NNV4SSP-360S-F4 or equal. See Sheet No.A-2 Equipment Details of each application for further details. Treatment of equipment cabinet or shelter
All equipment is hidden in a cabinet except for cables, which will be shrouded. As a condition of approval, cabinets must be dark green or brown and exposed cables must be painted brown to match the color of the poles. § 325-29.8(C)(1)(c)[2] states that equipment should be shrouded and that shrouding should be
designed to comply with certain guidelines to the greatest extent feasible. The applicant offered two alternative designs for the equipment cabinet. The first is the cabinet described above. Staff requested an alternative design. The applicant then proposed to remove the cabinet completely and to mount two radios per PWSF vertically directly on the pole. Finding this
configuration unsatisfactory given the concealment requirements of §325-29.14(C)(1), staff asked the applicant to explore a narrower cabinet and/or one with a tapered design to conform to the guidelines more closely, or an explanation regarding why such designs are not “technically feasible” within the meaning of §325-29.14(C)(1)(c)[2]. The applicant responded with the following analysis by email dated 02/10/23.
The NYS PSC small cell pole attachment order that governs the electric company and wireless carrier
attachment rules is Case No. 16-M-0330. In that and other cases, the PSC continues to allow electric utility
companies to prohibit the boxing of poles because the added surface area can contribute to ice and wind
loads, lead to downed poles and outages. Under these orders, the utility companies regulate where on the
pole and what type of equipment can be attached to the pole in accordance with National Electric Safety
Code requirements.
NYSEG has very specific requirements for pole use and equipment areas including location, size, design
which are in the pole attachment agreements they have with companies like AT&T. The top of the cabinet
8 | Page
shroud needs to be 40” below lowest communications wire, and 96” from the ground. The disconnect has
to be directly below and the electric meter between 60” (minimum) and 72” (maximum).
We have looked at various manufacturers and there are no round cabinets for utility pole attachments
that can be identified. Nor can something be fabricated to put on the pole to smooth the transitions which
would actually go into the prohibition on boxing identified above. Any round types of designs are for brand
new standalone small cell poles where the pole is steel and hollow and the equipment is incorporated, not
for wood utility pole attachments. We did look at other square or rectangular cabinets. There is one that
has corner edges that are more rounded, but it’s still a square cabinet and it’s got a bigger volume. The
proposed cabinet is 42”H x 24.5”W x “14”D whereas the alternative would be 50.1”H x29.7”W x
27.2”D. So, the cabinet proposed is the smallest to fit the equipment AT&T requires.
The proposed cabinet comes in black, brown, green and grey color options. In our experience, brown is
the best choice on wood utility poles and an aesthetic standard many other communities have required.
Based on all of the above, we believe the project meets the City’s standards, to the extent applicable to
utility pole collocation, and to the greatest extent practicable for a cabinet if required. If a cabinet is not
required, AT&T can implement equipment attachments as we showed in that alternative drawing.
Staff has determined that of the alternatives given, the proposed 42x24x40” box is the best
alternative technically feasible considering NYSEG, state, and electrical code restrictions. Putting the equipment in a smaller cabinet, painted to blend into the surroundings, is preferable to either a larger cabinet or mounting the radios directly on the pole, and furthers the Code’s objectives of minimizing adverse visual impacts of proposed PWSFs and encouraging placement of PWSFs on utility poles as opposed to more intrusive installations on buildings or new structures.
Distance from residences All proposed PWSFs received relief from this requirement from the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) on January 3, 2023.
Determination of whether design standards have been met Staff has determined that the applicant has met the design standards outlined at City Code §325-29.8(C) provided cabinet and cables are painted as described above.
Alternatives Analysis (§325-29.14(A)(5)) Based on application materials dated October 31, 2022, including the Ithaca Cluster Proposed Coverage Plots prepared by AT&T dated March 14, 2022, and other materials, the applicant asserts that there are no feasible alternative small cell locations that address their need while further
offsetting any perceived impacts from small cells on utility poles.
The height and size of the proposed facilities are restricted by the existing poles upon which the facilities are placed as well as the technical limitations governing pole design and attachments imposed by NYSEG, state law, and applicable safety codes. Similarly, the siting of the proposed
facilities are limited to the public right-of-way where NYSEG currently maintains its electrical
transmission equipment as well as the City of Ithaca’s regulations regarding alignment and facility placement.
9 | Page
The applicant asserts that its proposed small cell design using NYSEG poles is the only feasible option for achieving its coverage and capacity goal and there are no other heights, number, siting, or design options to pursue that would materially differ from the proposed facilities. AT&T has considered several alternative locations as reflected in alternative analyses which presents an aerial
view of the 450’ radius considered by the Applicant for possible alternative locations of its
proposed small cell facility. Each potential location evaluated provides a brief description of the reason each alternative was not suitable to address the applicant’s need. For the reasons set forth in the alternative analysis, the Applicant submits that there are no feasible alternative small cell locations that address their need while further offsetting any perceived impacts from small cells
on utility poles. Based on application materials dated October 31, 2022, the applicant asserts that no alternative design exists or is feasible that would allow collocation of the proposed equipment without increasing the height of the pole as compared to what currently exists. As reflected in the provided
NYSEG Make-Ready Determinations, the required separation standards applicable to these
facilities require additional pole space to accommodate all necessary equipment. There are no landscaping or vegetated buffer options given the placement within the public right-of-way and use of existing utility infrastructure.
Applicant also asserts that the proposed facilities include the use of existing or replacement utility
poles in locations which do not adversely impact any view corridors, vistas, or viewsheds and therefore, no potential visual impacts exist that would necessitate further consideration of alternative designs.
Alternatives studied by City staff – Given the information above, staff concurs with the applicant’s
alternative analyses and finds that there are no other heights, number, siting, or design options that would materially differ from the proposed facilities. The proposal to use existing or replacement utility poles within the public right-of-way and low-profile, small installations, when considered in light of the presence of existing, similarly sized equipment on utility poles throughout the city, minimizes any adverse visual impacts from the proposed PWSFs. Placement of similar PWSFs on
utility poles in alternative locations would not reduce the size or number of the proposed PWSFs or provide any cognizable advantage, and while larger and/or taller installations could potentially reduce the number of proposed PWSFs, the effect of such facilities would be more intrusive in terms of changes in community scale, impacts on view corridors, vistas, and view sheds, and other adverse impacts. Based on the findings in this Staff Report & Decision, and subject to compliance
with the conditions set forth above and below, staff has determined that the proposed installations will not conflict with the character of the existing surroundings or be out of scale with the existing community.
Description of narrative attachments (§325-29.14(A)(6))
See materials listed above. Staff Determination (§325-29.14(A)(7))
Findings of Fact
Staff adopts all information set forth in this Staff Report & Decision, including any referenced portions of the application materials, as its findings of facts with respect to each application.
10 | Page
Determination
Section 325-29.7(C) provides that “Tier One applications are subject to staff approval of the zoning findings specified in this article” that are reserved for the Board of Zoning Appeals for Tier Two and Three applications. These requirements are set forth at §325-29.12(B), and are addressed here based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in this Staff Report
& Decision, and all evidence (including without limitation all application materials, supplemental materials, responses, public comments, and any additional materials set forth herein and/or submitted in connection with the Board of Zoning Appeals proceedings) submitted to the City in connection with these applications:
1. Whether the applicant has proven, based upon the evidence presented that an identified wireless carrier suffers from a “significant gap” in its personal wireless service coverage by demonstration of the following: (a) Reliable drive test data to demonstrate the significant gap in coverage or actual dropped call records to demonstrate a capacity deficiency, including the location and geographic boundaries of such, that the PWSF proposes to remedy; Staff has reviewed and accepted the following information provided by the applicant: Ithaca Cluster Drive Data and Capacity Forecast dated 12/29/2022 (test drive data).
Certification and attestation by Rupang Mehta dated 1/20/23, certifying that AT&T experienced 4,436,358 dropped calls between 10/1/22 and 12/31/22 in the coverage area. Dropped call records submitted for staff review subject to Public Officers Law Section 87(2)(d).
Based on review of this information and other record evidence, staff finds that applicant has demonstrated through drive test data that coverage is inadequate within portions of the areas to be served by the proposed PWSFs, and that applicant’s network is experiencing capacity deficiencies, dropping over one million calls per month in the most recent three-month period, with said capacity
deficiencies projected to increase with additional network traffic. Applicant has therefore demonstrated coverage gaps and capacity deficiencies for the areas identified in the applications. (b) that the proposed installation will remedy that significant gap or gaps in an identified wireless carrier’s personal wireless coverage;
Based on the record evidence, the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed installations will remedy the gap by providing both additional capacity and coverage in the proposed service area. (c) the installation will not create an unnecessary redundancy in wireless infrastructure within the city; Based on the record evidence, the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed installation will remedy the gap and is therefore not redundant, as existing infrastructure does not provide adequate capacity or coverage in the identified service area.
11 | Page
(d) the proposed height proposed for the PWSF is the minimum height necessary to remedy any significant gap in personal wireless coverage for any identified wireless carrier.
The facility is on an existing or replacement utility pole in the City right of way. Pole height and
location of equipment is dictated by NYSEG. As discussed above, any feasible alternatives would be either taller or otherwise more intrusive. 2. Whether or not any gaps in coverage are limited in size, or confined to a limited
number of homes, or are situated in a rural sparsely populated area, or that any lack in coverage would be de minimis. Based on the record evidence, including the test drive data, dropped call data, and mapping submitted by applicant, staff determines that the coverage gaps are not limited in size, confined
to a limited number of homes, situated in a rural sparsely populated area, or de minimis within
the meaning of the Code. 3. Whether the applicant has proven, based upon the evidence presented, that its proposed installation is the least intrusive means of remedying any such significant gap
in coverage. (a) whether or not the proposed facility presents a minimal intrusion on the community.
Staff has determined that the facilities represent minimal intrusion for the following reasons:
• All PWSFs are on existing or replacement utility poles.
• Photos taken by staff at the 1/31/23 site visit as well as photo simulations provided by the applicant demonstrate that the poles and the mounted equipment are not out of character with
the surrounding neighborhoods, do not add significant visual clutter, and are otherwise
consistent with the existing appearance and uses of utility poles within the City right of way.
• Findings and analysis set forth earlier in this Staff Report & Decision are incorporated by reference. (b) whether or not the proposed installation will, or will not, inflict a significant adverse aesthetic impact upon adjacent or nearby properties or surrounding neighborhood or community, specifically: As set forth earlier in this Staff Report & Decision and incorporated herein by reference, staff finds
that the installations will be impose only a minor aesthetic impact similar to other equipment located on utility poles, which impact will be mitigated by the color of the cabinet as well as the position and height of the equipment. Locating PWSFs on existing or replacement poles (as opposed to on buildings or new PWSF-specific structures) is also preferred and serves to minimize community impact.
12 | Page
(1) Inflict a significant adverse impact to the property values of adjacent or nearby properties;
Based on the minimal intrusion set forth above, there will be no significant difference to aesthetics and character of the neighborhoods in which the PWSFs are located. There is no evidence to
support a finding or reason to believe that the proposed PWSFs will impact the fair market value
of any adjacent or nearby property.
(2) inflict a significant adverse impact upon historic resources or scenic views;
• In accordance with §325-29.8(A)(3)(e), none of the proposed locations are in a scenic or visual corridor as defined by the City or as defined in the Tompkins County Scenic Resources
Inventory, January 2007, and other prominent views, such as from the Commons, the Cayuga
Waterfront Trail, Cascadilla Creek trails, Cass Park, City Cemetery, Ithaca Falls, Stewart Park, or views within any other City park, natural area, or trail.
• In accordance with §325-29.13, the Director has reviewed 312 Thurston Ave in consultation
with the Neighborhood and Historic Preservation Planner and determined that the new PWSF
will not have a negative impact on the character of the Cornell Heights Historic District, as it is in front of an existing non-contributing building on a replacement utility pole.
(3) whether the proposed siting of the PWSF, both in terms of site location and the specific area upon the site where the installation is proposed, would
minimize the adverse visual impact of the facility;
Staff has determined that the facilities represent minimal intrusion for the following reasons:
• All PWSFs are on existing or replacement utility poles.
• Photos taken by staff at the 1/31/23 site visit as well as photo simulations provided by the
applicant demonstrate that the poles and the mounted equipment are not out of character with
the surrounding neighborhood and do not add significant visual clutter, and are otherwise consistent with the existing appearance and uses of utility poles within the City right of way.
• Findings and analysis set forth earlier in this Staff Report & Decision are incorporated by
reference.
(4) whether or not the proposed installation will, or will not, provide and maintain a sufficient fall zone and/or safe zone around the facility to protect the public from the potential dangers of structural failures, icefall, debris fall
and/or fire;
Based on materials submitted and reviewed by staff, all PWSFs and the utility poles on which they are to be mounted meet applicable safety requirements.
Pursuant to §325-29. 9(B), restrictions on habitable structures, congregation areas, and property lines within fall zones applies to Tier Three applications only.
(5) whether there are potential, less intrusive, alternative locations for the placement of a wireless facility which would fill any significant gap(s) in coverage;
13 | Page
The proposed PWSFs are all to be located on existing or replacement utility poles in the City right of way. In accordance with 325-28.8(1)(e), such utility poles in publicly owned rights of way are considered Opportunity Sites and are favored for placement of PWSFs. The alternatives analysis and locations analysis set forth above are incorporated herein by reference.
(6) that a facility of a lesser height, or multiple shorter facilities at less intrusive sites, would be sufficient to remedy any significant gap(s) in coverage.
The alternatives analysis and locations analysis set forth above are incorporated herein by reference. The proposed PWSFs are at the minimum height permissible for placement on NYSEG utility poles. Whether or not the granting of the application at issue would be consistent with the
legislative intent of the Telecommunications Facilities and Services section.
Staff finds that locating PWSFs on existing (or replacement) utility poles as proposed by these applications has several advantages that support the legislative intent of the Code as set forth at § 325-29.4 and throughout the applicable provisions of the Code. These include avoiding the need
to erect a new structure that may not be compatible with the surroundings; avoiding roof mounted
facilities that can add to the perceived height of existing structure: using structures that are already consistent with the urban landscape; limiting the size and placement height of the facilities so as not to contribute to visual clutter and to preserve character and aesthetics. All findings and analysis set forth earlier in this Staff Report & Decision are additionally incorporated by reference. Staff
finds that granting the applications would be consistent with the stated legislative intent of the
Code. Approval Determination Based on the information set forth in this Staff Report and upon review of the application
materials and other record evidence, all submitted PWSF applications are conditionally approved subject to Applicant’s satisfactory completion of the following conditions: Conditions of approval
1. Cabinets shall be dark green or brown and exposed cables should be painted brown to
match the color of the poles. 2. Applicant must address the following specific conditions to the satisfaction of City staff:
Pertaining to 507 North Albany Street:
• Grounding rods may conflict with nearby street tree, and curbing. Install grounding rods
without disturbing the tree (or its roots) or curbing.
• Equipment Orientation Plan (detail 3/A-1) appears to indicate that a new pole would be placed in the existing sidewalk. The new pole shall instead be located in a grassy area
within the right of way.
Pertaining to 120 Utica Street:
• Equipment Orientation Plan (detail 3/A-1) appears to indicate that a new pole would be placed in the existing sidewalk. The new pole shall instead be located in a grassy area
within the right of way.
14 | Page
Pertaining to 202 King Street:
• The existing pole is located within an ADA ramp at the corner. A new replacement pole has been installed directly adjacent to the existing pole. The applicant shall coordinate with NYSEG and City staff to relocate the new pole to a more appropriate location
outside of the concrete ADA ramp in a nearby grassy area.
• Concrete restoration is required for this relocation.
Pertaining to 635 West State Street:
• The original pole must be removed.
• Equipment Orientation Plan (3/A-1) and Elevation (4/A-1) appear to conflict. In the former the antenna and cabinet are 90 degrees to each other. In the latter, they are 180 degrees. Confirm with City staff which is intended and update submissions.
Pertaining to 333 West State Street:
• Make ready work is already complete; however, the site was not properly cleaned up following work in colored concrete area. Applicants or NYSEG must satisfactorily finish cleaning disturbed area.
Pertaining to Thurston Ave:
• The original pole must be removed.
Pertaining to Franklin St – Two poles shown:
• The original pole must be removed.
Failure to satisfy each of the above-listed conditions on or before June 1, 2023, will result in
denial of the application and immediate revocation of any permit, license, or other approval of the affected PWSF conditionally granted through this determination.
February 14, 2023 ________________________________
Lisa Nicholas Director of Planning & Development