Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2009-06-16FILE DATE REGULAR MEETING TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD TUESDAY, JUNE 16, 2009 215 NORTH TIOGA STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK Board Members Present Fred Wilcox, Vice - Chairperson; George Conneman, Hollis Erb, Jon Bosak, Susan Riha, Kevin Talty, and Ellen Baer, Alternate. Excused Rod Howe, Chairperson. Staff Present Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Mike Smith, Environmental Planner; Christine Balestra, Planner; Carrie Coates Whitmore, First Deputy Town Clerk. Others Ephraim Tomlinson, William Johnson, Greg Handley, Kathleen Pomponio, Ken Cowley, Tom Griener, and Pat Long. Call to Order Vice - Chairperson Wilcox declared the meeting duly opened at 7:03 p.m., and accepted for the record the Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on June. 8, 2009 and June 10, 2009, together with the properties under discussion, as appropriate, upon the Clerks of the City of Ithaca and the Town of Danby, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Public Works, and upon the applicants and /or agents, as appropriate, on June 10, 2009. Vice- Chairperson Wilcox stated the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled, as required by the New York State Department of State, Office. of Fire Prevention and Control. Vice - Chairperson Wilcox announced that the scheduled 7:15 p.m. public hearing regarding the West View Subdivision has been post -poned at the request of the applicant. AGENDA ITEM Persons to be heard None. AGENDA ITEM SEQR Determination: Tomlinson 2 -Lot Subdivision, 175 Culver Road Planning Board Minutes June 16, 2009 Final Ephraim Tomlinson appeared before the Board and briefly described his application. Vice - Chairperson Wilcox assumed that Mr. Tomlinson would be selling the parcel to the Steenhuises. Mr. Tomlinson agreed. Board Member Riha inquired about the odd shape of the. lot. Mr. Tomlinson explained that the shape of the proposed subdivision allows him to retain 3 acres. Board Member Erb clarified that Steenhuis owns everything to the south. Vice - Chairperson Wilcox stated that the subdivided lot is a legal lot on its own; the new owner would have to come before the Planning Board if s /he wished to subdivide the lot further. With no further discussion, Board Member Conneman moved the SEAR resolution and Board Member Erb seconded. Board Member Bosak noted that Mr. Tomlinson's first name was spelled wrong throughout both resolutions and should be corrected. Board agreed to the change. Vice - Chairperson Wilcox called for a vote — carried unanimously. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2009-045. SEOR, Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Tomlinson 2 -Lot Subdivision, 175 Culver Road, Tax Parcel No 31 -6- 1.24 MOTION made by George Conneman, seconded by Hollis Erb. WHEREAS: 1. This is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision located at 175 Culver Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 31 -6 -1.24, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing the +/- 8.667 acre parcel into 2 lots consisting of one +/- 3.162 acre parcel, containing the existing house, and a +/- 5.505 acre vacant parcel. Ephraim M. Tomlinson, Owner /Applicant; Tamme Steenhuis, Agent, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting as Lead Agency in this uncoordinated environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, and 3. The Planning Board on June 16, 2009, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, a survey map entitled "Subdivision Map – No. 175 Culver Road" dated 1011512008, prepared by T.G. Miller P.C., and other application materials, and 4. The Town planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Subdivision Approval, and Page 2 of 20 Planning Board Minutes June 16, 2009 Final NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance for the reasons set forth in the Environmental Assessment Form Part ll referenced above, in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed, and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Conneman, Bosak, Baer, Riha, Tally, Erb. NAYS: None. The Motion was declared to be carried unanimously PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2- lot subdivision located at 175 Culver Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No: 31 -6- 1.24, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing the +/- 8.667 acre parcel into 2 lots consisting of one +/- 3.162 acre parcel, containing the existing house, and a +/- 5.505 acre vacant parcel. Ephraim M. Tomlinson, Owner /Applicant; Tamme Steenhuis, Agent. Vice- Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:12 p.m. and invited the public to address the Board. There being no one wishing to speak, Vice - Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at 7:13 p.m. Board Member Riha moved and Alternate Board Member Baer seconded the proposed resolution. Vice - Chairperson Wilcox noted that the misspelled name would be corrected in the resolution. He then called for a vote — carried unanimously. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2009-046: Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Tomlinson 2 -Lot Subdivision, 175 Culver Road, Tax Parcel No. 31 -6 -1.24 MOTION made by Susan Riha; seconded by Ellen Baer. WHEREAS: 1. This is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision located at 175 Culver Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 31 -6 -1.24, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing the +/- 8.667 acre parcel into 2 lots consisting of one +/- 3.162 acre parcel, containing the existing house, and a +/- 5.505 acre vacant parcel. Ephraim M. Tomlinson, Owner /Applicant; Tamme Steenhuis, Agent, and Page 3 of 20 Planning Board Minutes June 16, 2009 Final 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, has on June 16, 2009, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part ll prepared by the Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board on June 16, 2009, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part 11 prepared by the Town Planning staff, a survey map entitled "Subdivision Map – No. 175 Culver Road" dated 1011512008, prepared by T. G. Miller P.C., and other application materials, and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Subdivision Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed two -lot subdivision located at 175 Culver Road, as shown on the survey map titled "Subdivision Map – No. 175 Culver Road" dated 1011512008, prepared by T. G. Miller P.C., subject to the following condition: a. submission for signing by the Chairman of the Planning Board of an original or mylar copy of the final subdivision plat, and three dark -lined prints, prior to filing with the Tompkins County Clerk's Office, and submission of a receipt of filing to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Conneman, Bosak, Baer, Riha, Talty, Erb. NAYS: None. The Motion was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM Approval of Minutes Board Member Erb moved and Board Member Riha seconded the approval of minutes. Board Member Erb noted that on page 5 of the minutes it should specify that Vice - Chairperson Wilcox was speaking of Mr. Wally Wiggins. Board agreed. Vice - Chairperson Wilcox called for a vote — carried unanimously. Page 4 of 20 Planning Board Minutes June 16, 2009 Final PB RESOLUTION NO. 2009-047. Minutes of June 2.2009 MOTION made by Hollis Erb, seconded by Susan Riha. WHEREAS: The Town of Ithaca Planning Board has reviewed the draft minutes from June 2, 2009, and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: The Town of Ithaca Planning Board approves the minutes, with corrections, to be the final minutes of the meeting held June 2, 2009. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Conneman, Bosak, Baer, Riha, Tally, Erb. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN. None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM Other Business Vice - Chairperson Wilcox noted that it would be advantageous for the Board to schedule a special meeting on June. 30th because there were 8 or 9 applications for the July 7th meeting. Two of the applications are time- sensitive and a special meeting would benefit the applicants' timeline. Vice - Chairperson Wilcox moved that the Planning Board schedule a special meeting on June 30th at 7:00 p.m. Board Member Erb seconded. With no discussion, Vice - Chairperson Wilcox called for a vote — carried unanimously. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2009-048: Schedule Special Planning Board Meeting —June 30, 2009 MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Hollis Erb. RESOLVED, that the Planning Board schedules a special meeting on Tuesday, June 30, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Conneman, Bosak, Baer, Riha, Tally, Erb. NAYS: None. Page 5 of 20 Planning Board Minutes June 16, 2009 Final The Motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Mr. Kanter then gave the Board an overview of the upcoming applications that would be on either the June 30th or July 7th agenda. Board Member Riha asked for a brief overview of the West View Subdivision; she commented that most of the Board was not serving at the time the subdivision was approved. Mr. Kanter explained that there.are proposed modifications to the tree preservation plan because of temporary stormwater improvements that were made to accommodate construction. He went on to say that there are substantial drainage issues as well. The Board briefly discussed the drainage on the site. AGENDA ITEM Update and preliminary report regarding the Town of Ithaca consultant's review of the Verizon cell tower application material. This relates to the Verizon proposal at 651 Five Mile Drive Mr. William Johnson appeared before the Board and presented his preliminary report regarding the Verizon cell tower application material. Mr. Johnson stated that the Planning Board hired him.to review, summarize, and scrutinize the technical information regarding Verizon's cell tower application. He noted that the Board is trying to balance aesthetics with technical need; he pointed out that he is only looking at the technical aspect and whether the site is justified or if there is another site that is technically feasible if the Board feels that the Carroll site is not an option aesthetically. Mr. Johnson explained that Verizon has an FCC license to cover three bands in the area —the 700 MHz, the cellular band and the PCS band. Verizon is at currently at capacity and would like to use the proposed Carroll site to draw capacity away from sites that are being limited (such as the Ithaca Downtown site). He said that Verizon generally does a good job.documenting in detail what their need is and explaining their rationale. Mr. Johnson stated that he has submitted a preliminary report to the Board and the basic conclusion is that Verizon has a need in the area for the reasons he described. The proposed Carroll site is a site that can fill the need in the area as Verizon has described. Alternative sites have been discussed and Verizon has provided propagation plots for some of the sites; there are a number of towers in the area, but they are not close enough to the target area to be able to provide reasonable coverage. He added that he learned from the minutes that there were not structures in the area suitable for colocation. Mr. Johnson explained that that means that Verizon has to find a site to put up a tower, which is why they have come forward with the proposed Carroll site. Page 6 of 20 Planning Board Minutes June 16, 2009 Final Mr. Johnson went on to say that there are two alternative sites. The first, the County Department of Public Works site, is a possible site with possible manipulation of the antennas. Mr. Handley ran simulations for the DPW site and the simulation tentatively shows that the coverage is not as good as Verizon would be able to get from the proposed site, but there is coverage. Mr. Johnson stated that the Carroll site is a winner from a technical point of view, but from an.aesthetic point of view the Board may decide that it is not a site that they can zone at 125 feet. He said that if it comes down to the Board not being able to approve the site, then they have to start looking at the alternative sites more seriously. They know what the propagation plots look like for the DPW site. The. other sites that have been looked at —for one reason or another because they failed to cover either Route 13, Coy Glen, Five Mile Drive, other major roads in the area, or they failed to draw capacity off the Ithaca Downtown site, are on the far backburner in terms of being useful. Mr. Johnson said that he went through the Town Code and commented on each of the points so that the Board had findings to draw from them. He knows that the Board tries to make a decision based on a rational basis. He went on to say that he representing the Town as an RF engineer looking at the technical aspects. Aesthetics are lower on his horizon and he does not have a lot of expertise to give the Board solid advice regarding aesthetics, but the Board has already received that advice from Town staff and the public. Board Member Conneman asked if the Maguire site is the other site Mr. Johnson was talking about. Mr. Johnson responded that it was. The Maguire site is a viable site; it does not have the exact coverage of the Carroll site. The tower would still be 125 feet tall and the Board has to decide whether the tower would be suitable aesthetically from that location. Mr. Johnson has not heard Verizon's comments on that site, but from the propagation plots he assumed that Verizon would concur that the site was a reasonable alternative. Vice - Chairperson Wilcox noted that the site is in a different municipality. Board Member Riha asked if the second- and third - generation cell phones take up more bandwidth than the average voice cell phone. Mr. Johnson responded no. The second - and third - generation cell phones operate as cell phones, but they also operate as data servers. Board Member Riha followed up by asking if sending videos or photographs uses more capacity than a phone call. Mr. Johnson said that it conceivably could and suggested that Mr. Handley answer the question. He understood that the PCS carrier that is going to be installed is to handle voice calls. Vice - Chairperson Wilcox asked if there were any questions. Attorney Brock said that she had some questions, but she has already talked with Mr. Johnson about them. Board Member Erb and Board Member Riha commented that the report was very clear. Board Member Bosak asked if Mr. Johnson had a reaction or opinion regarding the information provided on the DPW site. Mr. Johnson replied that Mr. Handley had made some adjustments to the antennas to show what might be possible, although it probably Page 7 of 20 Planning Board Minutes June 16, 2009 Final is not a design that Mr. Handley would like to implement. He was not able to tell the Board whether or not the site was technically better than the proposed site. Board Member Bosak asked if it was a worse site than the one being proposed; Mr. Johnson confirmed that it was a worse site. He explained that the site is not equivalent to the proposed site, but the site does provide some relief to the needs expressed by Verizon. The DPW site would have trouble drawing capacity from the Ithaca Downtown site, but it would provide reasonable coverage along the commercial area of Route 13 and the majority of locations along Five Mile Drive. Board Member Bosak thanked Mr. Johnson for bringing to the forefront that one of the reasons for the tower is to off -load some of the current usage from the downtown tower. Vice - Chairperson Wilcox added that he learned that tower has to have good coverage, but it has to have overlap of the neighboring cell sites so that you get handoffs as someone is walking or driving. Mr. Johnson added that besides being able to handoff calls, the other idea is to draw capacity from the Ithaca Downtown site. The type of overlap that Verizon is looking for is more extensive than what they may have in other installations. He added that a smaller tower near the Ithaca Downtown site could accomplish the draw off of capacity, but the Board has been advised for legal reasons why that may not be a "no- brainer". Attorney Brock asked if a second tower would be needed or if the second site could be provided through colocation. Mr. Johnson said that the building would have to be really tall and it has not been investigated at this point. He added that from a technical point of view, putting in multiple sites can be done. Board Member Conneman commented that it is obvious that'Verizon has not told the Board what their plans are in total. It seemed to him that it was a lack of planning of where towers might be and where there might be colocation. He asked if there should be a plan. Mr. Johnson understood that Verizon keeps records of where their customers are and where the dropped calls are occurring. The record can then be examined later on. Verizon then responds to the areas with problems. Budgeted money is applied to the top priority cells; this particular cell has risen to the top of the list to be approved for budgeting. Board Member Conneman pointed out that the Town does not have a record of the dropped calls; according to the people living in Coy Glen that does not happen. Mr. Johnson said that the Board has received information from the applicant stating that that is their situation. Board Member Riha understood that it is not only the residents who are affected, but anyone driving along Route 13. Mr. Johnson concurred. Board Member Bosak stated that it boils down to whether or not the tower is sited, designed, and constructed in a manner which minimizes visual impact to the extent practical. He said that in Verizon's opinion, having more than one site is not practical because it costs too much money. Mr. Johnson responded that the Telecommunications Act reserves local zoning rights to local boards. The Board has to look at how the site fits into the community, does it Page 8 of 20 Planning Board Minutes June 16, 2009 Final detract from the community standards setup and established by the Town. If the impact goes beyond what is reasonable for a New York State public utility, the Board has some prerogative in that area. Mr. Johnson went on to say that if the Board was making that decision on the basis of hypothetical information or the Board speculates that there could be multiple other sites with coverage, the Board cannot do that at this point because there is no other information on the record to establish that. He said that his report was a preliminary point and if it gets to that point, they can talk about what would be needed to do that. Board Member Riha understood that Mr. Johnson was saying that the Board would have to show that there were other sites available. Board Member Bosak stated that the fact that the applicant has conceded that a technical solution involving multiple sites could be possible is not the same as a thorough examination or identification of those sites. Mr. Johnston responded that it trends in that direction. He added that Verizon. has a strong legal position about what imposing a multiple site would mean. Board Member Conneman asked if proposing an alternate site was different from a multiple site. Mr. Johnson agreed. Board Member Conneman asked if Mr. Johnson had identified alternative sites. Mr. Johnson said that he had. Vice - Chairperson Wilcox thought it was safe to say that the applicant and the Board asked that additional work be done on alternative sites. Board Member Riha understood that there was still some debate as to whether the DPW site would provide the same type of coverage as the Carroll site, but it seemed like the Maguire site would. She summed up that the Board was talking about two other sites. Board Member Riha asked if the Board could hire someone to find an alternate site. Mr. Johnson said that the Board could do that and he could assist them in that. Vice - Chairperson Wilcox added that the Board would have to find another site and the owner of that property must be willing to lease the property to Verizon. Board Member Conneman agreed but felt that Verizon did not look very hard for other sites. Vice - Chairperson Wilcox argued that the Board has been presented with an appendix that lists all the properties that Verizon investigated. Board Member Bosak thought that Verizon had gone over the other properties quite carefully. Mr. Johnson asked the Board if there was another site that they knew of that would meet the coverage area requirements. He said that a 125 foot tower put somewhere between the Carroll site and the Maguire site was needed. The property would have to meet setback requirements and have a willing owner. He explained that Verizon first looks at where the site needs to be and then they start approaching property owners. Board Member Erb expressed appreciation for the explanation in the report regarding lattice and monopoles. Vice - Chairperson Wilcox asked if Ms. Balestra had any questions. Ms. Balestra stated that the Board should express any questions they may have for the consultant or any additional work they would like the consultant to do. Page 9 of 20 Planning Board Minutes June 16, 2009 Final Board Member Erb asked what material was used on the monopole in the Village of Cayuga Heights near Pleasant Grove Road. Ms. Balestra did not know. Mr. Johnson stated that most galvanized steel poles fade pretty fast. Board Member Erb stated she was leaning towards the tower looking like a telephone pole because she has grown up with telephone poles in her landscape. Vice - Chairperson Wilcox asked when a final report would be available. Mr. Johnson responded that it depends upon Board questions. Vice - Chairperson Wilcox asked if Verizon wanted to make a few comments. Mr. Tom Greiner and Mr. Greg Handley appeared before the Board. Mr. Handley apologized for getting the additional material to the Board on such a short notice. He went on to say that the Maguire property is a viable alternative and it works just as well as the Carroll property. He noted that Mr. Johnson explained that the higher ground elevation at the DPW site would not provide as much coverage as the Carroll site. Mr. Handley explained that he adjusted the sectors on the DPW site so that they overlapped. This is not a desired design because when the sectors are put right up against each other there is considerable overlap on the antennas. It is preferable to have "some" overlap in the sectors, but if there is "a lot" of overlap then a caller is talking on multiple sectors at one time which uses capacity of the cell sites. He explained that there should be a brief amount of sound handoff where the caller is talking on both sectors or a sector on one site and another site to transition into the next sector or cell site. Board Member Talty asked how much of the 65% is overlap that is satisfactory for a legitimate handoff. Mr. Handley responded that they try to keep it at no less than 100 degrees off. Their goal is to not have more than 30% secondary usage on a cell site. He explained that on the DPW situation, they would be overlapping almost 50% on the sectors. Mr. Handley directed the Board's attention to the neg -75, neg -85 plot, last twc pages. He explained that the first page was of the Carroll property and the green coverage is what Verizon considers to be solid in- building coverage. The second page represents coverage from the. DPW site and that site will provide coverage for the neg - 85 level, but there will almost no in- building coverage in that area. He explained that this was one of the main reasons that the DPW site was deemed unacceptable to Verizon. He said that if the site is moved half a mile away, the footprint will be moved half a mile. The lost signal would happen when a customer is walking into a box store with concrete blocks on the outside and steel on the inside and the signal fades resulting in a dropped call. The customer could be inside the store and not be able to make the call because the in- building service is not available. Board Member Bosak asked what the difference was between maps one and three. Mr. Handley explained that map three was showing two different signal levels; it shows the in- building design criteria coverage in green and the street level neg -85 coverage in blue. Page 10 of 20 Planning Board Minutes June 16, 2009 Final Attorney Brock clarified that the third map was showing in- building coverage from the DPW site and the other Verizon sites. Mr. Handley added that the Marine Park site in the City of Ithaca is listed on the map as a proposed site. Alternate Board Member Baer asked if the Marine Park site was currently being proposed to the City. Mr. Handley responded that they are currently working through the real estate portions of the site with the City of Ithaca. Attorney Brock asked if Verizon would need. approvals from the City Planning Board. Mr. Greiner responded that Verizon has not done a zoning analysis at this point so they will be working with the City. They are at the beginning of the process. Board Member Bosak asked if all plots assume the Marine Park site. Mr. Handley responded that all plots have shown the Marine Park site and it is usually shown in orange. Attorney Brock asked how tall the proposed tower was. Mr. Handley said that it was proposed to be 125 feet. Attorney Brock followed up by asking where the other proposed towers are located. Mr. Handley replied that there are no other proposed sites in the area that would be close in proximity to the Coy Glen site that would potentially handoff to it. Verizon has other proposed sites in Ithaca. The tower between Cornell and Downtown has been approved and is under construction. They are also working with Cornell for a'site on their campus. Attorney Brock asked if the Collegetown and Cornell sites could draw capacity from the Ithaca Downtown site. Mr. Handley explained that they could draw some capacity from the Ithaca Downtown site, but it is capacity that is serving Cornell. The sites were designed to off -load the Cornell site and will offload the one sector of the Ithaca Downtown site that is pointing towards Cornell. It will not offload the sectors pointing towards Coy Glen. Attorney Brock asked if Verizon was proposing the tower in Dryden near Sapsucker Woods and if that tower would provide any coverage to the Coy Glen area. Mr. Handley responded that Verizon was the applicant and explained that the tower was not on the map. The tower would not provide any coverage to the Coy Glen or relief to any site that serves the Coy Glen area. Board Member Conneman asked if the microwave dishes would be on the tower. Mr. Handley explained that the microwave dishes carry the signals, or phone calls, from the field to the switching office in Syracuse and route the call through to the landline switch (if calling a landline). Verizon uses them extensively on their network because it is the most reliable transportation means. He said that they see a lot of outages using T -1 networks (landlines). Board Member Conneman asked if land lines were needed on the Carroll property because he recalled that if the system did not work the way Verizon wanted it to, they may ask to add T -1 to the tower. Mr. Handley responded that in the future if Verizon decides to go to a microwave system, they would like to be able to do that. Board Member Conneman concluded that the aesthetics on the Carroll site may become worse over time. Mr. Handley said that Verizon would have to come back before the Board for approvals. Board Member Conneman asked if Verizon would then Page 11 of 20 Planning Board Minutes June 16, 2009 Final pull the same idea that the Federal Act says Verizon can put them there regardless of what the Planning Board says. Mr. Greiner did not think that Verizon had ever said that about any of the facilities. He said that if Verizon thought that they would not have spent all these months before the Board. Mr. Greiner went on to say that each case is on its own merits. Board Member Conneman was thinking about the aesthetics and commented that 125 feet in the air did not look very good. Vice - Chairperson Wilcox believed that Verizon had agreed to remove them. Board Member Conneman expressed concern about Verizon making another application for them. Vice - Chairperson Wilcox responded that the Board will deal with it if it comes back before them. Board Member Riha stated that there is going to be a tower put in somewhere along the road. Board Member Conneman agreed, but stated that the question is, "where "? Alternate Board Member Baer asked if the Marine. Park site would draw capacity from Ithaca Downtown. Mr. Handley explained that it will draw from the alpha -face of the Ithaca Downtown site. He said that the Ithaca Downtown site is a very busy site and they are putting in PCS sites to offload that site and the site has three faces — north, east, and west. Verizon is building three new sites north, east, and southwest of that site offload traffic from the site. The Marine Park site will offload traffic from the northern face of the sector. Board Member Talty stated that what Mr. Handley just said was a great explanation. Vice - Chairperson Wilcox asked if the Board had heard from the County that they were not interested in leasing any of .their sites. Attorney Brock responded no, the recycling center on Route 13 was not interested. She did not recall having heard if the County was interested in leasing the DPW site or not. Board Member Riha asked if it would be more aesthetically pleasing. She presumed that the Board would pursue the site if the tower would be more aesthetically pleasing on that site. Attorney Brock agreed and thought that Vice - Chairperson Wilcox was just wondering if the site was even available. The Board asked Verizon to look at the DPW site and Verizon came back to the Board and said that the coverage was not adequate. At that point, the Board was in the process of hiring a consultant. She thought that was put on hold until the Board heard what the consultant said about the site. If the site is available, the Board would have to think about whether or not it is a better site from an aesthetic or other standpoint. Vice - Chairperson Wilcox asked Verizon if they were done with their presentation and Mr. Greiner said that he had a couple of comments he'd like to make. Mr. Greiner wanted the record to be clear from Mr. Handley's point of view in that the multiple site design is an economic issue. He said that Mr. Handley's position is that there is a technical problem. Mr. Greiner explained that it is much better from a technical point of view to have one site if it can do a better job than to have multiple sites. Page 12 of 20 Planning Board Minutes June 16, 2009 Final Attorney Brock commented that there could be one site, a capacity problem occurs, and Verizon has to split the cell. She went on to say that Mr. Greiner was stating that one site is always better than two sites, but as soon as Verizon needs to split the cell, the cell is split. Mr. Greiner responded that when he first started doing this they would build 400 foot towers because there were no capacity issues. He stated that at any given level of any given time, one site is going to be better. He said that that can be seen by looking at the growth of the system. Mr. Handley explained that multiple sites means multiple resources —two shelters, two towers, 2 antennas, etc., but the real expense is at the switching center in East Syracuse and they have to accommodate for having two cell sites, which requires more equipment and a switch. Attorney Brock asked how many bay- stations are served by the switching center. Mr. Handley replied that approximately 400 bay- stations are served from the switching center; he added that the switching center has doubled in size over the last 10 years. Attorney Brock wondered about the fixed cost of the switching center with the variable costs of the bay- stations. Board Member Riha summarized that Verizon could put up very tall towers and get great coverage; they would not have to build a lot of towers, but they would not have good capacity. Mr. Handley agreed. Board Member Riha went on to say that as more capacity is needed, more towers are needed, but at the same time as more towers go in they become shorter and shorter. Board Member Talty added that line of sight and topography are also important. Board Member Riha thought Verizon was saying that they could build additional shorter towers, but that they would have capacity that would not be used. Attorney Brock responded that if there is an unacceptable aesthetic impact and the Board wants to look at serving their needs from multiple sites instead of one site, Verizon has said that it was economically not feasible because of incremental costs. Board Member Riha stated that the Board would have to know what unacceptable costs are. Attorney Brock pointed out that the Board could decide that aesthetics are not an issue, but if the Board decides that they are, then they can think about the economics in a different way than how Verizon is presenting it to the Board. Board Member Riha commented that if Verizon had conceded that, then their business model would have to address the costs. Board Member Bosak added that it is an economic issue. Board Member Talty stated that each satellite or node is its own profit center and if in the end they cannot get beyond the aesthetics, then they do spread the cost out over the 400 bay- stations. Board Member Erb concluded that there are multiple different ways to discuss the economics. Board Member Riha asked if the Board would have to commission an economic study. Attorney Brock thought that it was necessary for the Board to identify where they want the multiple sites. Board Member Riha stated that the Board is fine with the Carroll location if the tower was 80 feet. Mr. Greiner continued his presentation and commented that Mr. Johnson is a great consultant and that Mr. Handley is one of the best RF engineers he has worked with. He pointed out that Mr. Johnson does his work and moves on whereas Mr. Handley has a long -term commitment. Mr. Greiner pointed out that Mr. Handley constantly receives Page 13 of 20 Planning Board Minutes June 16, 2009 Final positive and negative feedback on the work he has done over the years. Board Member Erb pointed out that that is true for the sites that have been approved, not the rejected sites. Board Member Conneman argued that a consultant does the best job that s /he can by examining the information and reporting on it. It is up to the Board to decide whether or not the consultant is good. He pointed out that Mr. Johnson pointed out in his report-that there are alternative sites. Mr. Greiner agreed and commented that Mr. Johnson was the best consultant available. Mr. Handley responded that Verizon agrees that there are alternative sites, but as stated in their application, the DPW site will not provide acceptable coverage to customers along the Route 13 corridor; they will not have the required in- building coverage required. Vice - Chairperson Wilcox invited Mr. Johnson to respond to Verizon's statements. He cautioned that he would not permit a back and forth between Mr. Johnson and Verizon. Mr. Johnson re- emphasized that multiple sites may not be viable for economic reasons and it may not be the best use of resources that Verizon has. He re- iterated that multiple sites in this scenario and the type of multiple sites being discussed are technically feasible. Mr. Johnson went on to say that many of his clients are repeat clients. He said that if he recommends that a site should be located in one location and then the applicant is forced to go into that location he has to have good reason and technical background to support why that might be the case. Mr. Johnson stated that he did not have an interest in having Verizon install a tower that is 80 feet tall that will not work because they will be back before the Board; the Board will remember that he said an 80 foot tower was okay. Mr. Johnson stated that the plots the Board received show in- building coverage at neg - 78 and he thought that this was the first time the Board had heard about neg -78 coverage. The Board has heard that coverage needed to be based on the propagation plots of at least neg -85 dbm, which is a weaker signal than neg -78 dbm. He said that he may need to go back and revisit the conclusions in the preliminary report. Attorney Brock questioned why neg -78 was now the standard in certain areas when previously the standard was neg -85. Board Member Riha thought that Verizon was trying to illustrate why the DPW site is not a preferred site. Mr. Johnson explained that if neg -78 is needed in certain areas then the applicant needs to define the locations. Attorney Brock commented that the Board would only need to focus on the sites that are adequate at the neg -85 level. She didn't think the Board needed to see additional plot generations, but it might change how the Board looks at the sites. Attorney Brock asked Mr. Johnson if neg -78 is a reasonable standard to use for in- building coverage. Mr. Johnson responded that the plots he has been seeing from Verizon have been the neg -85 dbm; Verizon has not discussed the higher neg -78 standard unless it was in the City of Rochester where higher building penetration requirements are needed. Page 14 of 20 Planning Board Minutes June 16, 2009 Final Attorney Brock asked why neg -85 dbm coverage is not sufficient in- building coverage. Board Member Talty followed up by asking if the neg -78 coverage would attract signals better than the neg -85 dbm coverage from the downtown tower. Mr. Johnson explained that when there are two different bay station sectors serving the same area, presumably the stronger signal will service that particular phone call until the user moves closer to the bay station that it will hand -off to the other sector. Board Member Talty asked if Dryden and the City would have neg -78 coverage as well. Mr. Handley responded that every site that they design they do plots to see where they will get in- building coverage. He wants to be able to cover the densely constructed buildings or where homes are. He explained that people currently are not using their phones while walking outside; phones are being used in homes, cars and stores. Board Member Talty reiterated his question and Mr. Handley explained that the general standard is neg -85 for outside coverage and in- building coverage is neg -78. He went on to say that they are at both neg -85 and neg -78 in this application because they want to improve in- building coverage in certain areas. He commented that he should have amended all his plots for neg -78 and neg -85 coverage. Mr. Handley explained that if there is not coverage at neg -85 there will not be coverage at neg -78 because the footprint is smaller. Vice - Chairperson Wilcox asked what is unique about the Carroll site that brings neg -78 into the discussion. Mr. Handley responded that the tower is being built in an area where there is high usage demand from inside structures. It is being built where there are residences, major traffic corridors, and major shopping areas. Board Member Erb did not agree; the reason towers were not being built in rural communities is because they are being built where the clients are. Mr. Handley explained that the network is being expanded by 100 sites each year. Vice - Chairperson Wilcox commented that he did not have a problem with what was stated because if he thinks about the proposed site in the City of Ithaca, it is mostly residential wood structures whereas the Carroll site has concrete structures, metal rafters, etc. Board Member Talty argued that that was not the only reason because Verizon was also trying to pull capacity off the other tower. Vice - Chairperson Wilcox agreed. Board Member Talty asked if more signals would be pulled off the Ithaca Downtown tower if the proposed tower is at neg -78. Mr. Handley responded absolutely. Alternate Board Member Baer followed up by asking if the Marine Park tower was being proposed at neg -78. Board Member Talty asked if the purpose of the Marine Park tower was to pull capacity from the north of the downtown tower. Mr. Handley agreed and said the tower was designed for neg -78. Attorney Brock commented that Mr. Johnson said that recently in other locations Verizon has always talked about neg -85 being the standard. She assumed that there Page 15 of 20 Planning Board Minutes June 16, 2009 Final were other big box stores in other locations besides Ithaca. She asked why the Board was just hearing that evening that neg -78 is required. Mr. Handley noted that it was included in the application narrative and went on to say that it was his mistake for not providing two separate levels of coverage. Attorney Brock stated that her question has to do with Mr. Johnson's comments and how he noted that when he has reviewed other Verizon applications, the applications have consistently listed neg -85 as the coverage objective. She asked why the proposed coverage was different for Ithaca. Mr. Johnson asked Mr. Handley if it was urban or suburban morphology and Mr. Handley responded that some portions of the clutter are urban and other clutter is suburban. Mr. Johnson explained that there are some areas of a cell that are urban and contain structures that are seen in urban settings; other areas of the cell are more suburban and contain wood structures and not dense construction. He said that this particular cell is a multi - purpose cell and parts of it are urban, which require a stronger signal to penetrate the buildings and other parts of the cell can tolerate less strong signals such as the neg - 85. Board Member Talty asked 'if there are similar cells with a mixture of urban and suburban. Mr. Handley explained that if they are in a dense urban area, such as downtown Rochester, they have a neg -78 signal. Board Member Talty commented that Henrietta is both suburban and urban; he asked if mixed cells were located in that area. Mr. Handley responded absolutely. Vice - Chairperson Wilcox asked Mr. Johnson if he would prepare a revised report to the Board. Mr. Johnson responded that he would. Board and staff then briefly discussed the budget for the consultant. Board Member Riha asked Mr. Johnson if it is typical for other cell phone providers to have shorter towers. Mr. Johnson responded that the physics are the same for all providers and are fighting the budget issues for expansion. Board Member Erb asked if different sets of specifications are required on the tower for neg -85 and neg -78. Mr. Handley responded no, it is the same equipment. Mr. Johnson explained that it is the loss from the tower to where the user is. Board Member Erb confirmed that it is distance, geometry and clutter that make the difference as the signal falls off. Board Member Bosak pointed out that it is not the power of the transmitter that is the problem; it is the cell phone signal going back to the tower. Mr. Greiner commented that Verizon wants to make sure that it has hand -off and that hand -off really only occurs when the user is mobile. He said that the neg -85 propagations are used because that is the signal strength needed for hand -offs. Board Member Talty asked what the least amount of signal is before it is lost. Mr. Handley responded that in a really rural area a call can be carried at neg -103. Page 16 of 20 Plann.ing Board Minutes June 16, 2009 Final Mr. Kanter asked what happens if the proposed Marine Park site is not approved or does not work out in the City; he wondered how that would affect the RF modeling the Town has been looking at. Mr. Handley directed the Board's attention to the propagations and explained that the first one would have almost no impact on the proposed Coy Glen site ,because the two colors do not touch. He said that the proposed Marine Park site would not be in existence for at least one year. Board Member Conneman thanked Professor Johnson for his report and comments. Vice - Chairperson Wilcox asked the Board if they wanted to continue their discussion. Board Member Bosak said that he would and thought that it was appropriate for the Board to get their logical ducks in a row. He described the decision tree as follows: Does the Board accept Verizon's position that multiple sites are not practical for economic reasons? If the Board does not accept the position: • then the Board will have to research the multiple design and develop a counter proposal; • the Board has to accept the prospect that the decision will go to court because of the amount of money involved. If the Board does accept the position: • the Board will discuss the available sites. Board Member Bosak did not want to keep mixing up the.two issues. Board Member Riha thought that the Board needed to decide whether or not the proposed site was aesthetically not acceptable; the Board can move on from there. Board Member Bosak did not think that was the question proposed in Town Code; it is whether the visual impact has been mitigated to the extent practical. Mr. Kanter reminded the Board that they also have to consider SEAR and make a determination of significant impact. Board Member Riha commented that the Board would have to make the determination that the tower has an unusual visual impact relative to other cell phone towers. Attorney Brock explained that under SEQR the Board needs to look at whether there is a potential for a significant adverse environmental impact. She said that the Board needs to make the determination whether this tower in this location. has the potential for a significant adverse environmental impact. She did not think the Board should be looking at what other municipalities should be looking at; the Board has to look at this site and this tower. Vice - Chairperson Wilcox cautioned the Board because they have not received all of the information. He said that what is a significant environmental impact in one locality may not be considered a significant environmental impact in another locality. Page 17 of 20 Planning Board Minutes June 16, 2009 Final Board Member Bosak asked what the next step was in process. Attorney Brock. responded that the Board is going to receive the addendum to the report, make its SEAR determination, close the public hearing, and then make a decision on the application following the criteria in Town Code. Board Member Erb asked if that was specifically the Carroll property site. Attorney Brock replied yes. She then walked the Board through the requirements in Town Code (Section 270- 219(C) of Town Code). Attorney Brock explained that the Federal Telecommunications Act also applies. She said that the Board cannot discriminate amongst telecommunications providers; the Board cannot prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting personal wireless services; the application decision must be made within a reasonable period of time; decisions to deny requests must be in writing and supported by substantial evidence in the record; and cannot regulate on the basis of the environmental affects of RF emissions. The Courts have determined that Boards can consider aesthetics and impacts on property values. Board Member Bosak asked if all aspects of public utilities applies to telecommunications companies since the courts have determined them to be public utilities. Attorney Brock was not sure, but knew that the vocabulary and the ways of thinking about it are different. Board Member Erb commented on alternatives sites. She said that it was one thing to consider an alternative site within their own municipality, but thought it was very different to talk about an alternative site in another municipality. Attorney Brock said that she was thinking the same thing and when reviewing other cases, she did not know if that specific issue was addressed. She explained that the Board could not force Verizon to go anywhere;. the Board can only act on the request before them. Attorney Brock explained that if the Town knew from the start that under the City's telecommunications law the site would not be allowed for whatever reason that would tell the Board one thing, but if it is within the perameters of what is allowed and the Board feels the impacts at the proposed Carroll site are so terrible that it cannot be allowed to be cited there and the Board prefers to have Verizon take their chances with the City, then the Board might say no, the site is unacceptable because of "x, y, z" and offer an alternative site. Vice - Chairperson Wilcox commented that a site must be available to Verizon. Board Member Talty asked where eminent domain would come into play if Verizon is considered a public utility, if the Planning Board determined that the Carroll site was unacceptable and Verizon was not able to locate on another site for whatever reason. Attorney Brock said the Verizon does not have eminent domain power. The Board would not be able to turn down the Carroll site and say that there is another site that would serve the purposes better unless there is evidence in the record that the site is available to them. Page 18 of 20 Planning Board Minutes June 16, 2009 Final Board Member Bosak thought that the issue of the Carroll site versus the Maguire site is logically subsequent to deciding the other issues. It seemed to Board Member Bosak a few minutes ago that every time they discuss the Verizon application, it.turns into a discussion of Carroll versus Maguire or City versus Town. He thought the Board needed to first consider whether it is economically practical to do something with multiple sites. Board Member Riha responded that she had not agreed to have two 80- foot towers instead of one 125 -foot tower. Attorney Brock suggested that the Board first address the multiple site issue as it looks at the public necessity issue. Board Member Bosak stated that the Board needs to be clear on what the decision order is otherwise they will be going in circles. Board members agreed. Mr. Kanter thought that the Board may be losing track of what the first step in the process is. The Board needs to decide whether it is going to make a negative determination of environmental significance or a positive determination meaning that there could be some significant adverse environmental impacts. If the Board determines that there is a significant negative visual impact from the proposed tower on the proposed site, he asked if that meant the Board was issuing a pos -dec and requiring an environmental impact statement where many of the issues being brought up would have to be looked at. He said that the Board cannot get to that list of questions until that determination is made. Attorney Brock agreed and said that if a pos -dec is made, then an EIS will be done and it will look at alternatives to the proposed action. Mr. Kanter asked if that determination was relevant to some of the follow -up questions in the criteria list. He thought the Board would have to seriously consider how it would approach criteria number 4 if it made a negative determination on the visual impact. Attorney Brock responded that many times the Board has made a negative determination on a project and yet still considered impacts of the project. Board Member, Erb thought that the Board could make a neg -dec if they anticipate mitigations. Board Member Bosak asked why the Board would be discussing mitigations if it decides that there is no significant environmental impact. Attorney Brock gave vegetative buffering as a mitigation example. Mr. Kanter then asked how the Board would get to the point of looking at multiple sites if they have made a neg -dec on the visual impact on this site. Board Member Bosak did not think it would close the door to someone proposing multiple sites as a way to mitigate the significant impact found. Attorney Brock responded that Board Member Bosak was talking about a conditioned neg -dec. Mr. Kanter added that the Board could have a conditioned neg -dec in this case because it is an unlisted action. Vice - Chairperson Wilcox summarized that the Board would hate to say that there is no significant environmental impact and then turn - around and say that it does not want the tower on the proposed site because of a visual impact. Board Member Bosak thought that the next step would be to get an addendum to the consultant's report. Page 19 of 20 Planning Board Minutes June 16, 2009 Final Vice - Chairperson Wilcox thanked the consultant and the applicant for coming to the meeting. He asked the Board if they had any additional questions. Board Member Riha asked Attorney Brock to think through how the Board should proceed on some of the issues. Board Member Bosak thought SEQR was the first step. The Board and staff discussed the addendum to the consultant's report and continuing the public hearing; they were comfortable having both on an upcoming agenda together. AGENDA ITEM Adjournment With no further business, Vice - Chairperson Wilcox adjourned the June 23, 2009 Planning Board meeting at 9:28 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Carrie Coates Whitmore First Deputy Town Clerk Page 20 of 20 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, June 16, 2009 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). 7:05 P.M. SEQR Determination: Tomlinson 2 -Lot Subdivision, 175 Culver Road. 7:05 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision located at 175 Culver Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 31 -6 -1.24, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing the +/- 8.667 acre parcel into 2 lots consisting of one +/- 3.162 acre parcel, containing the existing house, and a +/- 5.505 acre vacant parcel. Ephriam M. Tomlinson, Owner /Applicant; Tamme Steenhuis, Agent. 7:15 P.M. SEQR Determination: Westview Tree Preservation, Schickel Rd and Larisa Ln. 7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a modification to the December 7, 2004 Subdivision Approval for. the 33 -Lot Westview Subdivision located on Schickel Road and Larisa Lane in the Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves changing the tree preservation (vegetative buffer) requirements for lots 6 — 9, 20 — 22, 26, 28 and 29. The same size area will be protected on each lot, but in a slightly different arrangement. Site drainage issues will also be discussed. Westview Partners, LLC, Owner /Applicant; Boris Simkin, Agent. 7:30 P.M. Update and preliminary report regarding the Town of Ithaca consultant's review of the Verizon cell tower application material. This relates to the Verizon proposal at 651 Five Mile Drive. 7. Approval of Minutes: June 2, 2009. Other Business: Adjournment. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY SANDY POLCE AT 273 -1747. (A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Tuesday, June 16, 2009 By direction of the Chairperson of the Planning Board, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca on Tuesday, June 16, 2009, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters: 7:05 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision located at 175 Culver Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 31 -6 -1.24, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing the +/- 8.667 acre parcel into 2 lots consisting of one +/- 3.162 acre parcel, containing the existing house, and a +/- 5.505 acre vacant parcel. Ephriam M. Tomlinson, Owner /Applicant; Tamme Steenhuis, Agent. 7:15 P.M. Consideration of a modification to the December 7, 2004 Subdivision Approval for the 33 -Lot Westview Subdivision located on Schickel Road and Larisa Lane in the Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves changing the tree preservation (vegetative buffer) requirements for lots- 6 — 9, 20 — 22, 26, 28 and 29. The same size area will be protected on each lot, but in a slightly different arrangement. Site drainage issues will also be discussed. Westview Partners, LLC, Owner /Applicant; Boris Simkin, Agent. Said Planning Board will at said times and said place hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual impairments, hearing impairments or other special needs, will be provided with assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearing. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 Dated: Monday, June 8, 2009 Publish: Wednesday; June 10, 2009 �Wedesday4�June10 2009THE�ITHACAJOURNAL P` _ � Town of Ithaca Planning Board Sign -in Sheet Date: June 16, 2009 Print Name Address P_-Mail IoMIAso � C� vv_ 4, 0 TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Sandra Polce, being duly sworn, depose and say that I am a Senior Typist for the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York; that the following Notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town of Ithaca and that said Notice has been duly published in the local newspaper, The Ithaca Journal. Notice of Public Hearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board in the Town of Ithaca Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York on Tuesday June 16 2009 commencing at 7:00 P.M., as per attached. Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tioga Street. Date of Posting: June 8, 2009 Date of Publication: June 10, 2009 Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 101h day of June 2009. a"", -'�- om'� Notary Public CONNIE F. CLARK Notary Public, State of New York No. Ot CL6052878 Qualified in Tompkins County Commission Expires December 26, 20 0