Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2016-01-05TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD Shirley A. Raffensperger Board Room, Town Hall 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday. January 5. 2016 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. SEQR Determination: Crown Castle / Verizon Wireless Telecommunication Facility, Mecklenburg Road. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approyal and Special Permit for a new telecommunication facility located on the north side of Mecklenburg Road across from 1335 Mecklenburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27.-1-15.2, Agricultural Zone. The proposal inyoWes the construction of a 105' +/- monopole tower with 12 panel antennas, a 360 +/- square foot equipment shelter, a 60' x 60' +/- chain link fenced area, a 1,250' +/- grayel access road, and landscaping. Rancich Family Limited Partnership, Owner; Crown Castle & Verizon Wireless, Applicants; Jeffrey W. Dayis, Barclay Damon, Agent. 3. Persons to be heard 4. Approyal of Minutes: December 1, 2015 and December 15, 2015 5. Other Business 6. Adjournment Susan Rilter Director of Planning 273-1747 NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY SANDY POLCE AT 273-1747 or SP0LC:E@TOWN.H 1IA( A.NV.US. (A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) Accessing Meeting Materials Online Site Plan and Subdivision applications and associated project materials are accessible electronically on the Town's website under "Planning Board" on the "Meeting Agendas" page (httn://www.t<)wn.ithaca.nv.us/nieeliim-auendas). TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Tuesday. January 5.2016 By direction of the Chairperson of the Planning Board, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca on Tuesday, January 5, 2016, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following time and on the following matter: 7:00 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approyal and Special Permit for a new telecommunication facility located on the north side of Mecklenburg Road across from 1335 Mecklenburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27.-1-15.2, Agricultural Zone. The proposal inyoWes the construction of a 105' +/- monopole tower with 12 panel antennas, a 360 +/- square foot equipment shelter, a 60' x 60' +/- chain link fenced area, a 1,250' +/- grayel access road, and landscaping. Rancich Family Limited Partnership, Owner; Crown Castle & Verizon Wireless, Applicants; Jeffrey W. Dayis, Barclay Damon, Agent. Said Planning Board will at said time and said place hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Indiyiduals with yisual impairments, hearing impairments or other special needs, will be proyided 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. Susan Ritter Director of Planning 273-1747 Dated: Thursday, December 24,2015 Publish: Wednesday, December 30,2015 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 bv the Town of Ithaca Planning Board in the Town of Ithaca Town HalL 215 North Tioga Street. Ithaca. New York, on Tuesday. January 5. 2016 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: December 24, 2015 Date of Publication: December 30, 2015 Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 30'^ day of December 2015 Public Debra DeAugistine Notary Public - State of New York No. 01DE6148035 Oualified in Tompkins County . ^ My Commission Expires June 19,20 / /) THE ITHACA JOURNAL WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 30, 2015 TOWN OF ITHACA BANNING BOARO NOTICE OF PUBUG HEARINGS Tuesday. January 5,20TB By direction of die Chaiiper- 8on of the Planning Board NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that s PuMc Heanng will be by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca on Tues day. January S, 2016, at 215 lyorth Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y,. at ttie following time and on the following nutter 7:00 P.M. Conalderallon of Preliminary and Rna! Site Ran Approval and Special Permit fcir a new telecommu- nlcatlon facility located on the north side of Mecklenburg Road acfosa from 1335 Mecklenburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Panal No, 27,-t- 15,2, Agricultural Zone, The proposal Invohres thp con- sboction of a 105' */- mo- nopole tower with 12 panel antennas, a 360 +/- square foot equpmeni shelter, a 60' X 60' +/- chain Bnk fenced area, a 1.250' >/- grevei ac cess road, and laidscaping, FTancich Farnly Limited Part nership. Owner. Crown Cas tle S Verizon Wireless. AppB- canis: Je^ey W. Davis. Bar clay Damon. AgenL Said Rming Board will at said time and said place heer aB persons m support of such matters or objections there to. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individu als vi^th visual Impairments, heanng Imp^rments or other special ne^, MQ be provid ed widt assistance as neces sary. upon request Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearing. Susan RItter Director of Planning 273-1747 Dated: Thursday. December 24.2015 12/30/2016 Town of Ithaca Planning Board 215 North Tioga Street January 5,2016 7:00 p.m. PLEASE SIGN-IN Please Print Clearly. Thank You Name Address fm/r [<^rz>Miikl i TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD MEETING Tuesday, January 5, 2016 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Town Planning Board Members Present: Fred Wilcox (Chair), Joseph Haefeli, Linda Collins, John Beach, Yvonne Fogarty, Liebe Meier Swain, Jon Bosak Town Staff Present: Chris Balestra, Planner; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Dan Thaete, Town Engineer; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Deb DeAugistine, Deputy Town Clerk Call to Order Mr. Wilcox called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. and accepted the secretary's posting and publication of the public hearing notice. AGENDA ITEM SEQR Determination: Crown Castle / Verizon Wireless Telecommunication Facility, Mecklenburg Road Jeffrey Davis, attorney, Barclay Davis, walked through the site plan and explained the general need for the tower. He said the proposed tower will be located over 1300 feet off Mecklenburg Road, close to the tree line aloiig the neighboring parcel, which is also owned by Rancich. The location was specifically chosen to get as far off the road and as close to the tree line as possible to avoid any visual concerns. The proposal is simple: a 1300-foot long access road that comes in off Mecklenburg Road to a compound in the back of the property. It's a 100' x 100' lease area within which is a 60' x 60' foot fenced area. There will be plantings around the base of the fenced area to provide screening. Inside the fenced area is a 30' x 12' prefab equip shelter on a concrete slab. The proposed tower is 105 feet tall with Verizon antennas at a center line of 100 feet. Not shown on the plans is a 5-foot tall lightning rod on top of the tower. The need for the facility is in Tab 7 of the application packet. Verizon is upgrading to 40 LTE service, which is a requirement of their FCC license. Over 35 percent of households use cell as their primary phone. In upgrading their network, Verizon identified a hole or gap in coverage in the 4G network along Route 79 that the existing three towers serving the west side of the lake cannot fulfill. There's also a capacity issue as more and more people are using their phones. The proposal is that the 105-foot tower would fill that gap. It will also service a difficult area to provide coverage to on the east side of the lake, where the land drops off steeply. In consult with staff and the board, they did a balloon fly to determine the visibility of the tower. It was visible from only one area: the intersection of Rachel Carson and Mecklenburg Road, which is about 100 yards down from where the access road of the proposed tower turns in. Per the code, they're required to accommodate at least three colocators on the tower. From a visibility standpoint, the tower is about as invisible as a 105-foot tower can get in a rural setting. He pointed to Exhibit 6, where there's a discussion of six alternative sites and why they were ruled out, mostly because landlords were not interested in entering into a lease. As a wireless provider, Verizon has the benefit of public utility status, but they do not have the benefit of the power of eminent domain, so they need to enter into a lease with a landlord. Mr. Bosak asked what their plans are for filling in the gaps going up the left side of the lake. Planning Board Minutes 01-05-2016 Page 2 of 16 Mr. Davis responded that it's a really difficult area, and he has no idea if there are plans. It's line-of- site technology, and it drops off so quickly in that area that the coverage is shooting over top of it. White areas on the coverage map are areas where your cell won't work or data won't go through or a call becomes less clear. The proposed tower is for 4G service. Ms. Fogarty asked how many households will be served. Mr. Davis responded that they don't do a household count. The road itself and the travelers are the concern. Of course it will cover the homes along Mecklenburg Road. It will improve coverage getting near the hospital. Wireless technology is extremely low power; it's not like radio and television. As a result, you have many more locations, lower to the ground, as compared to a radio or TV tower. What happens currently in this area on Mecklenburg Road is your phone powers up and tries to connect to a tower, so your phone signal is bouncing off the other three servers and in each one of them, the cell shrinks as a result of trying to cover the low coverage area. Putting a dominant server in that target area addresses the capacity concern and also brings a baseline level of coverage to an area where it currently doesn't exist. It's a capacity concern because there's no dominant server in that area. The tower will not be lit at light; no lighting is required until 200 feet. To a question from Mr. Wilcox, Mr. Davis said that Crown Castle will own the tower. They are a completely separate company from Verizon Wireless. In the wireless industry, there are tower companies and there are carriers. Sometimes the carrier also owns towers, but they're really in the business of broadcasting and not in the business of owning and maintaining towers. Crown will build and own the tower and have a lease agreement with Verizon. Crown has the lease agreement with Mr. Rancich. Verizon is a DBA of Cellco Partnership, which is the legal entity, the name under which Verizon's FCC license is held. Transcend Wireless LLC is a contractor for Crown that has been working on this facility: they do land acquisition. Infinity Solutions is an engineering firm, Mr. Wilcox asked whether, given the proposed height of the tower and given the tree line, there might be a possibility that other cell phone companies could not collocate. Mr. Davis responded that Verizon will put the antennae at the 100-foot center line, and you need a 10-foot separation between antennas, so the next one down would be at 90 feet. So if another carrier came in, they would need to determine whether 90 feet would work for them. That's still above the tree line, which is 70 feet max. You could get two more antennae above the tree line. The absolute minimum of what Verizon needs is 100 feet. Mr. Wilcox asked what would happen if another company wanted to collocate in the future, but couldn't because the tower is too short. Ms. Brock said you would need to know every other provider's current coverage map, where their towers are located, where they have holes, where their capacity issues are. We don't get that. Mr. Davis said that from a carrier perspective, it's much easier to collocate than to build a new tower, so if it's 90 feet, they might have to compromise and take that. Monopole facilities can be extended, so another company might come in with a proposal to build an extension. Planning Board Minutes 01-05-2016 Page 3 of 16 Mr. Bosak said we just said we don't know what some other company might need, but Verizon has presumably made a careful analysis and determined that they couldn't do with less than 100 feet. So the only other variable is their coverage, which is less than Verizon. So if the laws of nature are the same for everybody, and 100 feet is the minimum Verizon could do with their superior coverage, anybody who comes along is going to need 100 feet or more. Mr. Davis said that each carrier operates at a different frequency and different wavelength, so they're not all broadcasting equally. Having represented three wireless carriers, he knows that Carrier A and Carrier B can be at the same site and have different coverage patterns as a result of the fact that one is a PCS provider and the other an old cellular provider. The other factor, which is laid out in every town's code in New York State, is to propose the minimum height necessary to achieve the applicant's goal. In this case, the applicant is Crown and Verizon, and we can't make a determination whether it's in any other carrier's build plan to need something at this location. Mr. Haefeli assumes Verizon's position is that 100 feet is what they need to achieve their goals. Subsequent carriers being 10 to 20 feet down the tower will not mean a 50-percent reduction in quality for their coverage. Let's say it's 10 percent less, but it still might be tolerable. Mr. Wilcox was thinking back to the relocation of the cellular facilities from the Cornell water tank. Each of the three companies that collocated on the tower has a different array, they each face a different direction, they have a different angle, they're different sizes in order to achieve different coverage areas based upon where their other towers are located. Ms. Balestra pointed out that they also have different licenses for different bandwidths. Ms. Collins stated that Mr. Davis's business is vertical real estate. She asked whether they have any inkling of any other carriers interested in collocating. Wes Weber, Crown Castle, said he has never heard the question: Are you building tall enough? Crown has some of the best RF engineers in the country. They do drive test data; they don't use a third party. His other customers have other sites in this area. One thing that has been missed in this discussion is the differences in technology. Each carrier operates in a different band on the spectrum. The general theme to take away is the lower the frequency, the wider it propagates. Other customers have other adjacent sites not listed on this map. In a perfect world, he could put up a 300-foot tower and everyone would collocate on it. Realistically, if a future carrier needs additional height, the adjacent landowner is the same and Crown has a contingency plan with him to go for a variance for a higher tower. They would need the adjacent land for the fall zone. There is a circumstance where if you build too high a tower, you will not be able to meet your objective. He said the lightning rod will probably be two feet tall. Ms. Balestra said we don't generally count the lightning rod in the tower height. We did not on the Five Mile Drive tower. Ms. Brock said there's a generic provision in our code that says all the different requirements don't apply to chimneys, antennas, and other similar protuberances. Planning Board Minutes 01-05-2016 Page 4 of 16 Ms, Fogarty asked about the need for this service. Time Warner just came in and put service all the way to the end of Bundy Road, Hughes Net covers Sheffield out to Enfield, and Clarity Connect also serves that area. The area that will get new service is very small, except for the area across the lake. Mr. Davis said that's true for most areas covered by cell towers. It's not just for homes; there are people driving down the road and future homes that will be built. It's also for the overall network design. This gap with the number of travelers going down Route 79 is presenting an issue for their other sites on the periphery that are trying to provide coverage. This causes capacity issues, for example, for the site in downtown Ithaca that is trying to serve that gap. It's now provided by a non- dominant server. It's an overall quality-of-service issue. Mr. Haefeli added that it would be an overall quality-of-service issue for Verizon even if nobody lived there; it's a question of being able to provide the service through there. Mr. Wilcox pointed out George Voss's property on West King Road: there's a telecommunications antenna on the top of his silo. Nobody lives there; it's to cover Route 96B. He's convinced there's a need for this tower. Ms. Meier Swain pointed out that now that Cayuga Medical Center helps serve Schuyler Hospital, there are physicians, ambulances, and other providers that are routinely on Route 79 and don't have service. Mr. Haefeli said he thinks the hospital itself has its own cell - that's how small a cell can be. He also pointed out that this is a different type of service than Clarity Connect or Hughes is providing. Mr. Wilcox asked members of the audience whether they had any environmental concerns. Mr. Suwinski, 451 Sheffield Road, said he was not sure if his comments were SEQR or general. Mr. Wilcox asked him to proceed. Following is Mr. Suwinski's statement verbatim: I am Jan Suwinski here with my wife, Susan. We own a large horse farm on Sheffield Road, with significant frontage on both Mecklenburg and Bundy Roads. We have lived there and been residents of the Town of Ithaca for more than 45 years. The eastern border of our prop erty is less than half a mile from the proposed 105 foot cell tower under consideration. As you might expect, as adjacent neighbors, we are opposed to this project because when we look east from our property our open space view will now include a 105 foot cell tower less than half a mile away. But, setting aside our unique circumstances, and thinking broadly as town residents, we are not in favor of the proposed cell tower because it is in conflict with the several of the princi ples stated in the Town's Comprehensive Plan which was adopted in September, 2014. Let me explain our concerns in more detail. In 2009, a Quality of Life survey was done with Town residents as input to the Comprehen sive Plan: • 96% of respondents said natural areas were important or very important • 91% said scenic views were important or very important Planning Board Minutes 01-05-2016 Page 5 of 16 The Town's Comprehensive Plan was years in the making, with inputs from hundreds of people, including us as members of the town's agriculture committee. We think the Plan is well done, reflecting very strong priorities of town residents, and should be followed. In the Plan, The Community Vision Statement says "we want to encourage preservation of natural areas and natural resources" The Goals and Recommendations section of the Plan says "the plan is intended to shape the town in a way that will result in open space vistas and preserve natural and agricultural areas". And, in the Land Use and Development section, the plan says "the town is committed to protecting and preserving open space and agricultural lands from additional development". The Comprehensive Plan also identifies "Important Scenic Views" — one of which is Meck lenburg Road looking east — describing it as "one of the many eye catching views from West Hill's Route 79; as farm fields give way to city sights as one begins descending toward the valley floor". Sheffield Road between Mecklenburg Road and Hayts Road — where our farm is — was identi fied as having important scenic views — "the road features a wide variety of farms which open the area up to provide clear views to the east for miles around". A Scenic Resource Inventory Analysis is also part of the Town Plan. 3 sites on upper and lower Mecklenburg Road are listed there as well as sites on Sheffield and Bundy Roads. Finally, the Comprehensive Plan identified Gateway Overlay Zones which were "aimed to preserve a community's unique character". 3 Gateway Overlook Zones are listed on "Mecklenburg Road's view of Cayuga Lake Valley, looking east". 3 Gateway Overlay Zones were also listed on Bundy Road. The proposed 105 foot cell tower will negatively impact these Gateway Overlook Zones. Late yesterday, Ms. Ritter kindly sent me the application and associated town materials for this project. Unfortunately, I have only had time to look at them briefly, but note that the application acknowledges that "one of the eye catching views from West Hill's route 79" will now include the proposed cell tower. Thousands of people coming to Ithaca from the west, including us, will see this tower every day. The application also says trees will block the view from the east and north, but less so in win ter when the leaves are gone. It also says the tower will be only slightly taller than the trees. We have over 100 acres of woods, and 1 estimate few, if any of our trees are close to 105 feet tall. It's hard to tell from the application, but in the balloon test picture from Rachel Carson way, the balloon looked to be more than slightly above the tree tops. 1 suggest the town measure the tree heights at the proposed location to know precisely what "slightly above the tree tops" means. A final point — one of the stipulations in the Town Code 270-219, covering telecommunica tions towers, is that the town must "ensure new towers impose minimal visual impact". In response to the town's request, the applicants conducted balloon tests to determine visibil ity of the tower. The application shows a picture from Rachel Carson Way, but no pictures from the Gateway Overlook Zones on Mecklenburg Road and Bundy Road. As noted in the Planning Board Minutes 01-05-2016 Page 6 of 16 application, the tower would be visible from Mecklenburg Road coming east. My feeling is, depending on the height versus the trees, it would be visible from Bundy Road as well. If you haven't done so already, I suggest you drive up and down Mecklenburg Road and make your own assessment of the visual impact of the proposed 105 foot cell tower. Also, go over to east hill — to the top of libe slope and make a similar determination. In summary, we feel the proposed 105 foot cell tower will negatively impact the natural beauty and scenic views on West Hill that make Ithaca special, and is in direct conflict with the prin ciples stated in the Town's Plan. Our second concern is that the tower will be sited on land that is zoned agricultural. In the Town's Plan, agricultural zones are described as follows: "agricultural and other uses con sistent with a rural setting will be the defining features of the landscape". Agricultural zoning "permits an assortment of agrarian land uses, including farms, nurseries, equestrian facilities, kennels and timber harvesting". When you drive up Mecklenburg Road, once you pass Linderman Creek and Hub's place the remaining land on the right, where the proposed tower would be sited, is largely open farm land for more than a mile. Most of it has been actively farmed in recent years, including the land on which the proposed tower would be sited. In the Town's Quality of Life survey I mentioned earlier, 82% of respondents said it was im portant or very important to protect farmland from development. The Future Land Use Map in the Town's plan was constructed on Smart Growth Principles, #7 of which is "to preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty, and environmental areas". In addition. Town Code 270 — 219 lists priorities for siting towers. Priorities 1—5 include co- location and industrial or commercial zones, not agricultural zones. As part of your delibera tions, I would ask the town what other options exist in industrial or commercial zones? And were these options investigated? In summary, putting a commercial installation on land designated for agriculture is in conflict with the principles in the Town Plan, and is the second reason we object to you approving this project. Our third concern goes back to the Town Code 270 — 219, which covers telecommunications towers. The code requires "the need for towers to be demonstrated". The application says that there are gaps in service, hence the need for the tower. We live less than two miles from the proposed tower site, and are currently customers of Veri zon wireless — both for our smartphones and our home phone. I can say from personal expe rience that we have always had wireless service — usually 2 — 3 bars, so it's not clear to me there is a need for an additional tower. 1 would ask if the town has had complaints from residents about gaps in service? If not, have you verified Verizon's claim that these gaps really exist? As I said earlier, being neighbors to the west, we will be looking directly at the proposed tow er, and as such are not in favor of this project. But thinking more broadly as town residents, we are concerned that the proposed cell tower is in conflict with several of the principles in the town's Comprehensive plan. Specifically, Planning Board Minutes 01-05-2016 Page 7 of 16 • It will negatively impact the open space, scenic views and natural beauty of West Hill • It will be sited on land zoned for agriculture • And finally, based on being a current customer of Verizon wireless with excellent service, it's not clear the need exists The Comprehensive Plan represents thousands of hours of hard work by hundreds of dedi cated people, and much debate over several years. It's an excellent plan and we don't think compromising on it less than 18 months after it was adopted is justified. We wonder and worry that if the town compromises on its plan for this project, what's next? Thank you for allowing me to give you our inputs." Mr. Wilcox posed the question: if there are no industrial zones on West Hill, where should the cell tower be located? Mr. Suwinski responded that the board should verify that the need is demonstrated. Ms. Meier Swain asked about the peninsula area near where the tower is supposed to be located. Ms. Balestra said it's a meadow. Mr. Davis added that it's currently overgrowth brush and is not farmed. Mr. Bosak said he was highly sympathetic with the Suwinskis. One of many reasons is that, as a Verizon landline customer, he's aware of the fact that they are deliberately letting land line system slide into non-use to force more people onto the wireless network, thus creating the demand they're claiming. We went through this with Coy Glen. His non-lawyer take is that because of the decision from the New York State Court of Appeals, that wireless companies are public utilities, combined with the Telecommunications Act of 1996, there's not much we can do about actually building the thing. As long as they demonstrate that it's needed to fill a hole in the service that their customers want, we can't say they can't build it and that they need to build it any shorter. We can say they need to paint it gray. We can say we know another site that would serve the same purpose and be less ugly, so they should go talk to those people. But the issues around the Comprehensive Plan don't give us much leverage. Ms. Brock added that under the ag zone, a public utility is a principal permitted use, and our highest courts have ruled that these telecommunications companies are public utilities. Ms. Suwinski asked what would happen if Mr. Rancich did not allow Verizon to locate there. Ms. Brock responded that they would then not have the right to locate there. Even though the courts have ruled that they're public utilities, they do not have the right of eminent domain. We can't say we think there's a better site, and even though that landlord is not willing to lease it to you, go force them to lease it you. We have some leeway in granting approval. We can use SEQR to determine if there's the potential for a significant environmental impact. If so, we could require an environmental impact statement. We have some input over appearance and location on the property. If the company has proven need of a facility and shown that they've explored a number of sites within the area that Planning Board Minutes 01-05-2016 Page 8 of 16 would suit their needs, and that they are constrained because the other landowners weren't willing, then they can come to us with only one proposal. If there were another tower nearby, we could ask them to collocate on that tower or show us why it wouldn't work. We can't design their system. Ms. Suwinski asked about it not being in compliance with the new Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Brock responded that public utilities have the right to be located within a community, so we can regulate how they look, but we can't zone them out completely. We can say it can't be lit. We can say it can't be painted certain colors. We can try to ensure the height is at its minimum. We could ask for a lattice tower with guide wires because it would have less visual impact, but guide wires take up more land and can often be a problem with migrating birds. Ms. Collins stated that she hates cell towers, and if someone were putting one next to her, she'd be in front of the board herself. However, Mr. Suwinski said they have an iPad and cell phones. This is the world we live in today. She's convinced that this tower is necessary because of the overall system that has been described. The coverage gap diminishes the use of cell phones in the City of Ithaca and other places. We need that capacity to run this office, for example. As a planning board member, she feels it's a good proposal, and it looks to her like they've done everything possible to hide this. She pointed out that the board takes scenic views very carefully and, as such, insisted on a balloon fly and to specifically look at the viewsheds identified in the Comprehensive Plan. There was only one site from which the tower could he seen. She said she personally voted against the monopole at Cornell because she thought it was inappropriate to put it in that beautiful area. In terms of visual impacts, she finds the proposal acceptable. Mr. Bosak pointed out that the Coy Glen monopole took at least five months and a lot of our time. The reason we have the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 is that people have made up their minds that they like this stuff so much that it's okay with them if a few individuals have to suffer. Mr. Wilcox said that being Ithaca, because of the students, because of the multiple devices, because of the hills, the number of cell towers required is greater. Mr. Suwinski said he understood what the board said. As current, happy Verizon customers, they are in the white area and 4G service works in their area. He challenged the board to be sure that this is really needed before approving it. Mr. Bosak responded that if he read the dense explanation they've provided, he'd see that it isn't just that an individual customer doesn't have service; he's drawing on the service of another tower and reducing the level of responsiveness for everyone. And apparently, there is no hole in 3G service; this is purely about the fancy 4G service. Mr. Haefeli warned against using one's own personal observation as an indication of adequate coverage. It's a system-wide issue. Brent Katzmann, 1335 Mecklenburg Road, said he came into the meeting fully prepared to under stand that there are limitations in the town's authority in addressing the application and was pleased that the town asked for the scenic survey. He did notice that in the balloon test, he is not certain whether there were visuals taken at the start of the Gateway viewshed, which is 1362 Mecklenburg Planning Board Minutes 01-05-2016 Page 9 of 16 Road. The tower will be very visible from the Gateway viewshed as defined in the town's scenic resource inventory. Ms. Balestra said that the applicant did the balloon fly based on a letter staff sent with 10 or so specific intersections and areas from which they wanted the pictures taken. Two of those areas just say along Mecklenburg Road/near 1335, one looking toward the city of Ithaca, one away from the city of Ithaca. They chose the locations along Mecklenbury Road. We also referenced the Scenic Resources Inventory for them to look at and consider the viewsheds. We didn't specifically ask them to take pictures from the viewpoint Mr. Katzman is referring to. Mr. Wilcox pointed out the NYSEG transmission lines on the photo and asked how tall they are. Mr. Davis responded that they're probably 80 feet tall. It is not by accident that this location came about. From a visual standpoint, it is a consolidation of visual debris. PB Resolution No. 2016-001: SEQR, Verizon Wireless Telecommunications Facility, Mecklenburg Road, Tax Parcel No. 27.-1-15.2 Moved by Linda Collins; seconded by Liebe Meier Swain WHEREAS: 1. This action is Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for a new telecommunications facility located on the north side of Mecklenburg Road across from 1335 Mecklenburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27.-1-15.2, Agricultural Zone. The pro posal involves the construction of a 105' +/- monopole tower with 12 panel antennas, a 360 +/- square foot equipment shelter, a 60' x 60' +/- chain link fenced area, a 1,250' +/' gravel access road, and landscaping. Rancich Family Limited Partnership, Owner; Crown Castle Verizon Wireless, Applicants; Jeffrey W. Davis, Barclay Damon LLP, Agent; and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting in an uncoor dinated environmental review with respect to the Verizon Wireless Telecommunications Facility proposal; and 3. The Planning Board, on September 15, 2015, informally reviewed application materials for the proposal (Tabs 1-12), prepared by Barclay Damon LLP, dated September 4, 2015 and, via letter written by Christine Balestra, Planner, dated September 30, 2015, recommended the submission of additional materials, including a visual analysis, grading and erosion and sedimentation plans, a safety analysis (Tab 9), revised area variance criteria sheet (Tab 1), revised RF and site selection analysis (Tab 7), and corrections to other application materials; and 4. Tlie applicant provided the additional materials and corrections on December 2, 2015; and 5. The Planning Board, on January 5, 2016, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a revised Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted and prepared by the applicant; a Full Envi ronmental Assessment Form Parts 2 and 3, prepared by Town Planning staff, narratives, the ma terials noted in #3 and 4 above, revised site plan drawings entitled "West Haven/Rancich Meek- Planning Board Minutes 01-05-2016 Page 10 of 16 lenburg Road, Enfield, NY, 14850," prepared by Infinigy, Verizon Wireless, Crown Casde, and Transcend Wireless, including sheets C1-C2, C2A-C, C3-C6, C6A-B, 07, 07A, 08-09, 09A, 010-012, El, ElA, E2-E6, all dated 11/20/15, photo simulations prepared by Orown Oastle, date-stamped Dec 2, 2015, and other application materials; and 6. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental signifi cance with respect to the proposed Verizon Wireless Telecommunications Facility project; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYORR Part 617 New York State Environmental Quality Review for the above referenced action as proposed, based on the information in the EAF Part 1 and for the reasons set forth in the EAF Parts 2 and 3, and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Haefeli, Beach, Meier Swain, Bosak Nays: Fogarty AGENDA ITEM Public Hearing: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for a new telecommunication facility located on the north side of Mecklenburg Road across from 1335 Mecklenburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27.-1-15.2, Agricultural Zone. The proposal involves the construction of a 105' +/- monopole tower with 12 panel antennas, a 360 +/- square foot equipment shelter, a 60' x 60' +/' chain link fenced area, a 1,250' +/- gravel access road, and land scaping. Rancich Family Limited Partnership, Owner; Orown Oastle Verizon Wireless, Applicants; Jeffrey W. Davis, Barclay Damon, Agent Mr. Wilcox opened the public hearing at 9:05 p.m. Mr. Wilcox stated that we went a long time with cell towers on water tanks, on silos, on telephone poles, then the ones at Cornell and Five Mile Drive, and now this one. There will be more. Mr. Bosak said it could be worse. One of the things that finally reconciled him to the outcome at Coy Glen was the conviction that if you were to poll everyone in that area on whether they would trade off the view of the tower for their LTE service, the vote would be overwhelmingly in favor of it. Ms. Meier Swain asked whether the shrubs to be planted on the perimeter of the site would be deer- resistant cedar. Ms. Balestra said they would. Ms. Brock stated that the record should show that the Suwinskis meant for their statement to be submitted as part of the public hearing. Planning Board Minutes 01-05-2016 Page 11 of 16 Mr. Katmann said that since the tower will impact the Gateway viewshed, he wondered whether it could be moved back further on the property and out of the viewshed. Mr. Davis responded that this site was chosen after considerable deliberation as to where the landlord would allow them to put the tower. Removal of trees was a huge issue, not only for the landlord, but also to be in compliance with some of the town code requirements. The location was chosen also to minimize the impacts to the existing farming operation. So they've kept the access road as tight to the existing property line as possible, while meeting the code requirements, and have located the tower back as close to the trees as they could. He also pointed out that there was a photo taken further west on Mecklenburg Road looking east, and the balloon fly was not visible from that location. Mr. Wilcox said it is his understanding that Mr. Rancich acquired these parcels with the intention of building a large residential community: 400 units and a clubhouse. Ms. Balestra said the planning board pos dec'd that project, so it is undergoing an environmental impact statement process. The part of the process that's hung up is that Mr. Rancich needs to provide us with some of the traffic studies and the rest of the EIS. The last time she spoke with him, which was about six months ago, he said he fully intends to go through with the Carrowmoor project. Mr. Suwinski asked, since the broadcasting antenna would be 35 feet above the row of the trees, why could the tower not be put back in the woods. Mr. Davis responded that the landlord specifically said they could not put it in the woods. This is the location on his property he specified. Also the town prefers that trees be left undisturbed, if possible. Ms. Balestra said that there's a stream that crosses the northeastern part of the property, and from the town's perspective, we would want to avoid any impacts to the stream. Mr. Wilcox closed the public hearing at 9:24 p.m. PB Resolution No. 2016-002: Preliminary and Final Site Plan &. Special Permit, Verizon Wireless Telecommunications Facility, Mecklenburg Road Tax Parcel No. 27.-1T5.2 Moved by Fred Wilcox; seconded by Linda Collins WHEREAS: 1. This action is Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for a new telecommunications facility located on the north side of Mecklenburg Road across from 1335 Mecklenburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27.-1-15.2, Agricultural Zone. The pro posal involves the construction of a 105' +/- monopole tower with 12 panel antennas, a 360 +/- square foot equipment shelter, a 60' x 60' +/- chain link fenced area, a 1,250' +/' gravel access road, and landscaping. Rancich Family Limited Partnership, Owner; Crown Castle Verizon Wireless, Applicants; Jeffrey W. Davis, Barclay Damon LLP, Agent; and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting in an uncoordi nated environmental review with respect to the Verizon Wireless Telecommunications Facility Planning Board Minutes 01-05-2016 Page 12 of 16 proposal, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted and prepared by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3 prepared by staff; and 3. The Planning Board, on September 15, 2015, informally reviewed application materials for the proposal (Tabs 1-12), prepared by Barclay Damon LLP, dated September 4, 2015 and, via letter written by Christine Balestra, Planner, dated September 30, 2015, recommended the submission of additional materials, including a visual analysis, grading and erosion and sedimentation plans, a safety analysis (Tab 9), revised area variance criteria sheet (Tab 1), revised RF and site selection analysis (Tab 7), and corrections to other application materials; and 4. The applicant provided the additional materials and corrections on December 2, 2015; and 5. The Planning Board, at a public hearing on January 5, 2016, has reviewed and accepted as adequate narratives, the materials noted in #3 and 4 above, revised site plan drawings entitled "West Haven/Rancich Mecklenburg Road, Enfield, NY, 14850," prepared by Infinigy, Verizon Wireless, Crown Castle, and Transcend Wireless, including sheets C1-C2, C2A-C, C3-C6, C6A- B, C7, C7A, C8-C9, C9A, C10-C12, El, ElA, E2'E6, all dated 11/20/15, photo simulations prepared by Crown Castle, date-stamped Dec 2, 2015, and other application materials; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED; 1. That the Planning Board hereby grants Special Permit for the construction of the Verizon Wireless Telecommunications Facility and the placement of related telecommunications facilities and access drive, finding that the standards of Article XXIV Section 270-200, Subsections A - L, of the Town of Ithaca Code, have been met, specifically that: a. the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community, in harmony with the general purpose of Town Code Chapter 270, Zoning, will be promoted, because the proposed tele communication facility meets all of the federal safety requirements and guidelines required by the Federal Communications Commission, the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, and the American National Standards Institute, the facility will be partial ly screened, and it will be located a considerable distance from any road or residence; b. the premises are reasonably adapted to the proposed use, as the land is flat, the location is partially surrounded by trees to screen the tower but the proposal doesn't involve cutting any trees, and the proposed facility will be located far away from dense residential development; such use will fill a neighborhood or community need because the proposed telecommunica tions facility will provide coverage and capacity services in an area where there are currently gaps in such service; c. the proposed use and the location and design of any structures are consistent with the charac ter of the district in which they are located, as the proposed telecommunications facility is considered a public utility and there are other substantial public utility elements on the prop erty, e.g., telephone poles, NYSEG lines that look similarly utilitarian as the proposed facility, etc., and the impact of the facility's height and appearance on the character of the community is mitigated by its partially screened location approximately 1300 feet from Mecklenburg Road and approximately 1600 feet from the nearest residence; Planning Board Minutes 01-05-2016 Page 13 of 16 d. the proposed use will not be detrimental to the general amenity or neighborhood character in amounts sufficient to devalue the neighborhood property or seriously inconvenience the neighboring inhabitants because the facility will be sufficiently screened by vegetation so as to not create significant changes in the landscape and the character of the neighborhood; e. operations in connection with the proposed use will not be more objectionable to nearby properties by reasons of noise, fumes, vibrations, illumination or other potential nuisance than the operation of any permitted use in the particular zone, as the proposed facility will not create noise, fumes, vibration, or other nuisance and will not be lit (with the exception of a small safety light located on the equipment shelter, which will be compliant with the Town's Outdoor Lighting Law); f. community infrastructure and services, including but not limited to, protective services, road ways, garbage collection, schools and water and sewer facilities, are currently, or will be, of ad equate capacity to accommodate the proposed use, as the use will not require protective ser vices, garbage collection, school services, or water or sewer facilities, and the maintenance of the proposed facility will only require occasional use of the area roadways; g. if the Zoning Board of Appeals grants an area variance for height, the proposed use, building, design and site layout will comply with all provisions of Chapter 270, Zoning, and, to the ex tent considered by the Planning Board, with other regulations and ordinances of the Town, with the Building Code and all other state and federal laws, rules and regulations, and with the Town Comprehensive Plan; h. the proposed access and egress for all structures and uses are safely designed and the site lay out provides adequate access for emergency vehicles, as the proposed layout was designed for safety in mind, and any pull-off the Ithaca Fire Department may require along the proposed access road, due to the length of the access road must be built as a condition of Site Plan ap proval; i. the general effect of the proposed use upon the community as a whole, including such items as traffic load upon public streets and load upon water and sewer systems, is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community, for the reasons noted in "a" through "h" above; j. the lot area, access, parking, and loading facilities are sufficient for the proposed use and ac cess, parking, and loading facilities are adequately buffered to minimize their visual impact, as there are no significant parking or loading facilities related to the proposal and the access drive will be gravel and located along the property line near a line of existing trees; k. natural surface water drainage will be adequately managed in accordance with good engineer ing practices and in accordance with any applicable Town local law or ordinance, and existing drainage ways will not be altered in a manner that adversely affects other properties, because the proposal will result in minimal site disturbance, which will be mitigated with an erosion and sedimentation control plan approved by the Town Public Works Department; and I. the proposed use or structures comply with all the criteria applicable to site plan review set forth in Town Code Chapter 270 and 271, Zoning; 2. That the Planning Board further finds that the requirements of Section 270-219.C have been met, specifically, the proposed telecommunications facility: Planning Board Minutes 01-05-2016 Page 14 of 16 (1) Is necessary to meet current or reasonably expected demands for services, as shown in the propagation studies provided by the carrier; (2) Conforms with all federal and state laws and all applicable rules or regulations promulgated by the Federal Communications Commission, Federal Aviation Administration, and any other fed eral agencies having jurisdiction, as reflected in the application; (3) Is considered a public utility in the State of New York, based on New York case law; (4) Is sited, designed, and constructed in a manner which minimizes visual impact to the extent practical and adverse impacts upon migratory and other birds and other wildlife, as shown in the application materials; (5) Complies with all other requirements of Chapter 270 of the Town of Ithaca Code, unless expressly superseded in Section 270-219, as demonstrated by the application materials, as long as the condition below for a receipt for a height variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals is met; (6) Tlie proposed location is the most appropriate site among those available within the technical ly feasible area for the location of the telecommunications facility, as shown by the application materials; and (7) The tower is designed to accommodate shared use by at least three more telecommunication service providers; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Verizon Wireless Telecommunications Facility, located on the north side of Mecklenburg Road across from 1335 Mecklenburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27.-1- 15.2, as shown on the above-referenced plans and materials (Whereas #'s 3-5), subject to the fol lowing conditions: a. Before applying for a building permit, receipt of any necessary variances from the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals; b. Before applying for a building permit, submission to the Town of Ithaca Public Works De partment of a Simple Erosion and Sedimentation Control plan, for their review and approval; c. Before the issuance of any building permits, submission to the Town of Ithaca Public Works Department of a letter or email from the Ithaca Fire Department, indicating whether a pull-off will be required off of the proposed access drive, due to the length of the access drive, and if a pull-off is required, submission to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department of a revised site plan showing the 30-wide access easement and pull-off; d. Before the issuance of any building permits, submission to the Town of Ithaca Public Works Department of a copy of the permit from the NYS DOT for the driveway location and pipe size of the proposed new culvert; Planning Board Minutes 01-05-2016 Page 15 of 16 e. Before the issuance of any building permits, submission of a financial security bond for the removal of the telecommunications facilities and property restoration, with the Town of Itha ca as the assignee and subject to the approval of the Attorney for the Town, in the amount of $50,000; and f. Before the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, submission to the Planning Department of record of application for and proof of receipt of all necessary permits from county, state, and/or federal agencies; and g. Any cedar trees to be planted around the perimeter of the fenced-in compound that Planning Staff determine in writing are dead and dying during an inspection to occur at least 24 months and not more than 36 months after issuance of the first building permit for the facili ty shall be replaced by cedar trees that are at least six feet high within twelve months of the date of such determination. Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Haefeli, Beach, Fogarty, Meier Swain, Bosak AGENDA ITEM Persons to be heard - Nobody came forward to address the board. AGENDA ITEM PB Resolution No. 2016-003: Minutes of December 1, 2015 Moved by Fred Wilcox; seconded by Yvonne Fogarty RESOLVED, the Planning Board approves the minutes of December 1, 2015, as submitted. Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Haefeli, Beach, Fogarty, Bosak Abstentions: Meier Swain PB Resolution No. 2016-004: Minutes of December 15, 2015 Moved by Fred Wilcox; seconded by Yvonne Fogarty RESOLVED, the Planning Board approves the minutes of December 15, 2015, as amended. Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Haefeli, Beach, Fogarty, Meier Swain, Bosak Abstentions: Collins AGENDA ITEM Adjournment Planning Board Minutes 01-05-2016 Page 16 of 16 Upon a motion by Yvonne Fogarty, the meeting adjourned at 9:53 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Djebra DcAugi^ne, Deput^To^ Clerk