HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Correspondence 2020215 NORTH TIOGA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850
www.town.ithacamy.us
CORRESPONDENCE LISTING
March 06, 2020
Please review the following correspondence and indicate, by placing your initials in the right-hand column
adjacent to the correspondence that you wish to receive a copy. We can forward a copy to you via e-mail or
make a hard copy. Please indicate your preference next to your name at the bottom of this form.
Correspondence — Item
Please place your initials here if
you wish to receive a copy
gui
1 Clean Water Infrastructure Act
R
Z
3.
1. 2019 Cass Park - Rink and Pool Statistics
- - - - ------- -
2.
3.
ow C to e;ar.
Ra 7
1. Town of Ithaca Financial Reports for month ended February 29, 2020
2. 2019 Erie Canalway National Heritage Corridor: 2019 Annual Report
CITY OF ITHA CA
108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850-5690
MAYOR'S OFFICE
SVANTE L. MYRICK, MAYOR
Telephone: 607-274-6501
Entail: niayor@cityofithaca.org
Fax: 607-274-6526
To: Rod Howe, Town Supervisor
CC: Dan Cogan, Chief of Staff, Svante Myrick, Mayor
From: Liz Klohmann, Youth Bureau Director
Date: February 25,2020
Re: 2019 Cass Park rink and pool statistics
Enclosed is the statistical information for the 201.9 pool and rink seasons at Cass Park for your review,
as outlined in the MOU. This report shows the total number of town residents, city residents, and
other municipality residents for use of the pool and use of the ice rink and the number of season pass
holders by municipality. Visits of day camps, school groups, user groups, lesson attendance, season
pass visits or birthday parties are included in the grand total but are not shown by municipality.
It is important to note that this represents the measureable number of county -wide residents Who use
the rink and pool at Cass Park facility only. While we currently do not track the residency of the
people who use Stewart Park and Cass Park trails, play grounds, tennis courts and fields, we believe
the usage rates would be very similar.
We appreciate the on -going contribution and partnership we have with the Town of Ithaca. If you
have any questions please don't hesitate to contact me.
Fm
20, 064
..... .
29.8% 268 44.3% 157 26.0% _ 605
.. I
31,210
19.7% 20 32.8% 29 _47.5% _ 61.
y/D -f�, TavY)
z ,� :\.�� \� � � �: .
..;� / ��
Paulette Rosa
From: Paulette Rosa
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2020 12:05 PM
To: Bill Goodman - TB,- Eric Levine Esq. - TB; Pamela Bleiwas; PL17@cot-nell.edu;
rd@richdepaolo,com; Rod Howe (rhowe@town.ithaca,ny.us); Tee -Ann Hunter
Cc: Daniel Thaete; Jim Weber, Judy Drake; Lisa Carrier-Titti; Marty Moseley; Mike Solvig;
Paulette Rosa; Susan Ritter
Subject: FW: Pedestrian struck on Mitchell
Correspondence pertaining to recent accident in Town/Mitchell St.
I 1 11 .
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2020 9:09 AM
Tt:
Subject: FW: Pedestrian struck on Mitchell
Sent: Friday, January 17, 2020 8:09 PM
To: Rod Howe <RHowe i�,t,own.ithaca.n us>
Cc: Rob Gearhart <RGearhart@�Jty(ItL z!,91g>
Subject: Pedestrian struck on Mitchell
Dear Rod,
I regret that my first official email to you is about something unpleasant.
Several of my neighbors have complained about the raised speed bumps and crosswalks on Mitchell Street on or near the
City/Town border. A pedestrian was hit there on Tuesday but I do not know any details.
It is a poorly lit area and the crosswalk doe run at an odd diagonal. Would you please ask someone on the Town staff to
call or write to me about the design of these crosswalks?
I'm copying Rob Gearhart, who also serves the Third Ward in the City of Ithaca.
Thanks,
Donna
Donna Fleming
Alderperson, Third Ward
City of Ithaca Common Council
607.319.00809
From: bp!;@-
_�tha�;4&g.[Qppio [bpca-ithaca@groups.iol on behalf of David Shapiro via Groups.10
[daveshap24=gmaii.com@groups.io]
Sent: Friday, January 17, 2020 2:22 PM
To: Op- Oao.&wQvpaJo
Subject: Re: [bpca-ithaca] Pedestrian struck on Mitchell
I agree and was waiting to hear what occurred (I saw the gentleman on the side of the road when the
ambulances were arriving, he did not look well). Sadly, it was not a surprise to me that this eventually occurred.
In my opinion, both the raised crosswalk that was built by the bike path (in a poorly lit area), and the crosswalk
and new speedbump that were painted and constructed closer to the city/town line, were poorly planned. I have
never understood diagonal crosswalks (why make the distance longer than it needs to be?), and while a diagonal
line by the bike path might have been necessary, I don't understand why the newer crosswalk and speedbunip
were made where they are,, I've often wondered, how these decisions are made and who in the neighborhood is
consulted prior to these decisions being made. Perhaps Rob or Donna can explain this decision -making
process.
Specifically the newer crosswalk and speedburrip closer to the city/town line are problematic to rne. I live there,
and while I support the notion of having both more crosswalks and speed bumps, I can witness throughout the
week the confusion that, occurs both when people are trying to use the crosswalk and when drivers are trying to
see - in another poorly lit area - where the crosswalk begins/ends and where the speedbunip is located. I'm
hoping, but not optimistic, that I won't see other folks hit when trying to cross this street. The diagonal
crosswalk that many from the town use when crossing into the city is not helpful and is more a hazard in my
opinion than a safety mechanism. Likely a raised crosswalk further down Mitchell, closer to the school would
have been a safer and more effective option. To the first commenter, signage could help, but better and more
collaborative planning, in my opinion, would be better. I know from pastt conversations that part of the issue
here is the town is responsible for one side (the crosswalk), and the city on the other side (the speed bump).
Still, why not communicate and collaborate?
Again, to my prior question to Rol) and Donna - how are these decisions made?
Dave on Mitchell.
On Fri, Jan 17, 2020, 1:27 PM Diane Lebo Wallace <dhv8 10 0 n,,.til,cotn> wrote:
I wanted to share this brief' Ithaca Voice account of pedestrian who was struck by a car earlier this week and
severely injured. The accident occurred on the 900 block of` Mitchell St. near the East Recreation Way:
!1141s.J/.Ltbaerr voice.cfare 2C1 .QZP d t r a -is.-airlifted-,afteo-.beinE-,it L-�y-yehicle-in-eastl ac�jt e s i n
This is a worrisome accident and I am hoping we hear more details soon, especially if there should be better
signage or other means to prevent pedestrians being injured. We all use those crossings a lot, and I never trust
that drivers will stop,
Be careful Out there!
Diane
TOWN OF ITHACA
215 NORTH TIOGA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850
www.town. ithaca. ny. us
CORRESPONDENCE LISTING
February 24, 2020
Correspondence — Item Please place your initials here if
you wish to receive a copy
1. Letter from Jasmin Cubero RE: Resignation Letter
2. Article from IC ve.(c db 7 �g2Ln_�:.I_I._edu RE: Unintended Consequences
of commercial/residential growth in booming Town's
1. TCAC Seizure Report
2. Game Farm Rd Speed Limit (Copy of Form & Resolution)
3. NYS Gaming: Hospicare and Palliative Care Services
1. Notice of receipt from NYS DOT re.: Speed Limit Reduction Request —
Christopher Ln
2. 4th Quarter Sales Tax Report from Richard Snyder, Director of
Finance
,1 .. Facing crowded roads As the York County suburbs rcnaun'ochaun&cwttai, 40,, Charlh,,Ytte graduallyspraWled
t�" waagrown, Virtatrr�:insassrttspl;nlThe rns pn after native rnrlr
into South Carolina, sYltn boll-water
Fadrig apuwitl water pipes and long ,C omniates,', typl afly only has two i aaes rtdrpa snca ltt
houses &Iatin14n both
advisories, tttcounty banned tatasa Watlsides Laketln,
hlrh
at' „ straddles the t t�, fhc
bans ltlgl slpgrowth ftdr ��� wunnW t;llml aatw� tllnt�w
>
aaaat smalmuarlas i �>���>�
% ' The main road �t��n but � since, w rr�
BY arms n USis /'c�aitxuan ttn 2c°s'ts %ta ��� � a � boomed,
' la »MNa LAKE m �"6NI kt,nMwifw�diuiir'a �a ����a;,,; ggnu:oC Charlotte is adding �,000 j� in the posh
ay °t alp; r,,, �, a"�w ' e. years.
s
S.C.--This thus o �r lntrrst�atc 77,
five � c�Na,
�tMC, Is Iriin s nnnWl flea tsaa�lelt ��k' ; „� ' �% /, ��s„ , Nw �+ "
x wn wqi � ra�,w ea c t aawacs � lac At r ai tla satne t ut that' N a �
" x strongest �W n H� li� h�f ��✓i/j���x`° � N Carolina � '"r�n%°�a''
naan r � a d for aata hours, rDuring
rush
also ooni � �a e aaan " 1 ail�Nra �� txliiw ��
tw m a gtaatay arrn' a a aara n"a
Sl is aNi lip ��� tattrr tohc' wa N Haley used tax breaks to at-
rarn the strength th of its c it �1 ` �,,,, r� and 'si.�„aslarwxrm tNhsr
sarrhis is lipp population'to r%1 ran /�,,,� t a c luatt han~Nanni is �°lncwW
trt alb in, ra ulna s from
l lircietlit: thousands a tuan alp
1tW pm t to riot shahs lru the f�,�x %'til��:� a »a a , asr,n � �i�� , a i�„dad na�H� ass Etta t.1wr to n rrnaaaa�aa�a, afi ,
'"�raNnl and tedaWhnw satr,
pmat thaw sehrwi are lawn* yap,
�
��
�..
""a- %," ° 4. as alf7P..f aaA
x
.� !� lake �'Wdls', "1"G ia* ali&� mn u'
the frequently
.
,
�x
x :,,,
.. � �
twrw m iwu
�o��
's..w CWt W....... tl„ w,
than household irc iantte as 1
water ststsn t
h � �
.:. ,,,
'a � � �;
,,.. Nu
' 7„ t5t,, out 70 a higher ,
M� increased ,J,m��4. t q ,.3�
fails under
W xiils wN.a'a.&ax Lk,A'a'nd.MR'Il�n,d.R,k
xp
��y.� ry, ��yj I` q�^.�
Wylie M9P'0.AlA �Nu. S'a
,,,µ
"
/
a° r,
than the staaf average,. i
w
.
and A
V y p. Y� ry °q q:.PM� tl �b.y,.. w,�, qqwk
stretching tci� w"A0 aianunnte s NaM
Y*
,' s
°aiJ {�Ir P. au4UCAm i&, Yt PYd41P`fI�M1,na-gXr%i,Nt,ok, of hG.40.1,u sdll`C,q!9tf.,
,.. W ,�
w.. _1 a,ib
a kwaAaWN aaa
q l
I p id X�gwq'm� Xry �,µX let
� kra �V� naa M1WN"L' � � wN k¢n"
�q
tawwYr:N i"nt amath to im, nrsa
Now, the town tlns.t grew
�i�"F1� Illtu'JI"apMN4'lY4
a�a�uauaw¢,aaaa�'wasrmf1EWan LSTRrcr.aa;wwioawnian.
wkYN7
�° 3 w""M
,,,� ,,,r'
9wii n
Wn 14tMW ;
cluwntnaalpnnpu" y,Uix raatuphly, in
too fast, wants do strop growth,
half, making data c,anst cat...liwwdnwa
In, December, the, York
She said lAke Wylie has
The I(x:W school district is
taaaaanannaaaaanat to cater tip.
even more appealingy.
County "nnaana itw Which is led
been Allhig up with a s st;aam
seeking to 'Pay for at least
Sara McCauley fears at t'
war "aaaarptt tataanaaaan� Manna,. ;
'lay Rep cans, pant an Ita-
tlinwns and laaai•shlan snnlaill rl.
thrwnnu new sc,hiaanls with a
trees late, Shesaid her ;taiinnily
aager Diane 'Dil said onnu= tonal
nnnntli Moratorium on c,a riv,
siaans with no plan for' haatr,
151000 impact fen applied 4n
fincl "aa life annn as n tent" in an
during the rrwratoriunt ori
irrsrrlaal and residential rnisasinn
type of ulernlop niv,, nt is
the cost of as iiairrl,y^ built
situNah rental house in, Sari jumsn,
fir a^wsth is to figure, out what
I ng r(aultuests and consideration
needed. " 1weraa are seven car-
house. I lie Cover School l is-
C al,nt,N in 2011 for as ttwaan,tarnwt..
goes where, in the remaining,
of any new apartimnennt rcin"ri-
washes and six self -storage tat-
trict, which includes tMa ke
ranor n house as stonels, throw
undeveloped areas. Another
plaices or subdivisions, It is the
cilitnes along the towrann's main
Wylie, modeled itsprraposaal on
fronra the hake. Sincethen, her
goal is tcrambig,, yip with aa. roads
most crw,inpreherisiwae bare so
artery, but few restaurants
the neighboring Fort Iutlll
husban d's commute tune nlcnuam
plan, to cwaaaarn�c't ;aaan� lataaarltanwa s
than in s wa'taatin where faas't at,ow ,-
and doctors' offices.
School District, Which saw as
bled, laawam child's class size has
antowns to eats aanother
ing cities are, temporarily
Dooming towns across the
s1c)wdown, in construction aaf
lgrua to till,, from 20" aan d the
It Wilt cleat, whether at
blocking everything t`rnran wlnl-
Sunbelt are str"uu llnttt to sera-
ter r'aalsl'g tt Baia two years
water sttst n�t has faded, tics t"ria-
aunintaataarluuuau will have the lla-
laar store ti) ,ftdtnt housing,
wind the uurtarntea ded ccaannse-
ago to t 1p,tltltl from l ,tltlt''tx
uluneintly that shim stuaclnpalcws
tended effect, There are mare
the Municipal Association of
i'gyenres ofpruawsf i, After yers
The Home llauilclers .ssanactn..
r aallons of storeWlinun ht water,
than 3,„000 homes and apart -,South
Carolina said.
of fa*,mn as lum4s-off aal,tprctaach,
titnrt o Ca
rolina anrolinaa aarncl as
"We are suck of the trartd'nca
arasnats approved tc.w,r Lathe
a egpl sa % "You're as burin-
they now findtfumelves with-
coalition of inther builders are
auiacd iaormtairnt iaii'r-burnation,aaa"ncd
Wylie that are in waaanwariw.ns
rtess owsaner, 'Why, doyou want,
out the Imes structures cir Jong-
rl°uillen to the Fort Mitt
water mir nin breaalis,a" said M&
steal c i of construction, "
to stop ltrnwytla w atl saulul Waarlu
ttNi ran ntnfaaistriirtair pdruns
sehnial fine in as lawsuit, saying,
t c Caiuila N as 4 -yeaar xnlcd
Ms.McCauley, who moved
t,N uunutW tltwuatutlluiiennhei° dtldlsia'wn
nm_dnrl to deW, wslthtlV prt+s Tit
it is four timnncws thew national
mother, of die e, "Everything
fiere trwn'm San,Jose, is leaning,
Lov*,aa" lteptndihuaann Who owns
anacd lnnlp staaap thiilr �utttr ,
aiwwunraagk of,al,°rtttlz The median
is h lnwn d.1�
this rrraiitthn Ilse ;haush<awail dincnlc ;
as jewalrW store, N°ount we've
'l or thaani so" cast" take
hst price ""fir as home int Lake
,Must
For tliicaa h%, LaketWlrhur
p Job in, Boston andwrtll teluw®
pa:00, the poinnt;, of ulimimanish,-
WWyliels putpuulstnpta nt 'tnprni ni
Wtahe as a344,000, according
was as sleepyhnrne to at hussar„
rnunannuute frana the, laver stihuaaahs
hr ptcarns"
another start and, alto sad nth
to Itm�niknrrinrmm.
iaaer camp sward familytnshlma
cat ritnwsl ,Dews ltaazmipslmra.e
'L)vcrr roll etxerl t,hcnwn-
households have srh°iatl-atlle
"d"hcw LAIM WOW Chaniinhrr of
cc4b.i ws fix1ovested conies hAe d
"New ltaatinpsdaar chaos that
sarials f si niaittures in, support
children, according tin the M&
Conirute ,00 sntppi its the irauian.
by gravel roantd$.
iquuxiant leaver fluttLake Wylie used
c as sln>astlntrn,
tN t�stis.
hair s sta< 40'se" for local
Over the years, the rity of
'to hauw e," slnaa watt,
mys"a . . .... TOWN OF ITHACA
215 NORTH TIOGA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850
•
CORRESPONDENCE LISTING
March 06, 2020
Please review the following correspondence and indicate, by placing your initials in the right-hand column
adjacent to the correspondence that you wish to receive a copy. We can forward a copy to you via e-mail or
make a hard copy. Please indicate your preference next to your name at the bottom of this form.
TOWN OF ITHACA
215 N Tioga St, Ithaca, NY 14850
Phone: 607-273-1721 #3
www.town.ithaca.ny.us
Supervisor: Rod Howe RHowe@Town.Ithaca.NY.US
Town Clerk: Paulette Rosa P Rosa @Town.Ithaca, NY. US
March 2, 2020
Honorable Carl Heastie
Speaker
New York State Assembly
Legislative Office Building — Room 932
Albany, NY 12248
Dear Speaker Heastie,
Attached is a certified copy, of Town of Ithaca Resolution 2020-036 requesting $1 billion dollars in
new funding for the Clean Water Infrastructure Act in the 2020-2021 State budget.
Like many communities throughout the State, the Town of Ithaca is faced with aging water and
sew,er illfra1StrLJCW1_C. l"Or the past 10 years, the Town has engaged in in intensive effort lo repair and
engaged
upgrade Out- wUtff and sewer systerns. This has included \kater and sewer studies to identify and
prioritize needs, replacement of water Links, repair and replacement of water and sewer lines, and
repairs and upgrades at our intel-1111111iCipal water and sewer plants, Tbese plants take water from and
discharge water into one offlie, state's 12 priority lakes for I IABs.
Over the past 10 years, the T(AVIT has issued S14 million and authorized ain additional $2.35 million
bond borrowing for water and sewer projects.
jeers, This level of spending is anticipated to continue for at
least the next 10 years. The 111',AgnitUde of the costs related to this work necessarily slows our
progress. The availability of increased and accessible funding through the Water and Sewer.
Infrastructure Improvement Act would speed our prowjects as we work to support our econorny,
safeguard otir C01111111,11lity, and protect our source water. As a community that shares the
responsibility for the protection of ayLlga Lake with 45 municipalities, we are asking for increased
funding not only for ourselves, but for all Our watershed communities so they are able to fund their
needed water and sewer improvement projects.
The Ithaca Town Board urges you to support adding a much needed $1 billion in additional funding
for the Clean Water infrastructure Act in the 2020-2021 budget.
Respectfully,
Rod Howe, Sup&visor
Town of Ithaca
cc: I-lonorableThoinas O'Mara, Senate District 58
Honorable Barbara Lifton, Assembly District 125
Honorable Andrea Stewart -Cousins, Temporary President & Majority Leader, NYS Senate
I
Honorable Andrew M. (..'uorno, Governor of New York State
MEETING OF THE ITHACA TOWN BOARD
Monday, Febi-tiary 24, 2020
TB Resolution 2020-036: Resolution of support for the continuance and increased funding for the
Clean Water Infrastructure Act in the SFY 2020-2021 New York State Budget
Whereas, up-to-date drinking water and wastewater infrastructure is vital to preserve clean water
resources and foster thriving communities, and
Whereas, many communities have aging and inadequate water mains, sewer lines, arid treatment plants
that endanger public health and the economy, and
Whereas, investing in infrasil-LICtUre, projects creates good -paying jobs and as solid foundation for
businesses, arid
Whereas, new threats front emerging contaminants and lead service lines have added to the urgency to
invest in our water infrastructUre,and
Whereas, local go\ ernments struggle to make necessary water infrastrtictorre upgrades in the face of high
up -front costs, and
Whereas, key members in the Ne\v York State Senate, and Assembly, along with the Governor,
recogniZed that 10C.11 gOVC111nients need financial SUf)p0rt and passed the Clean Water Infrastructure Act
of 2017, and
Whe.reas, the (Ican Water' nfrastructure Act has been successful ant marding mct-SI.2 billion in grants to
protect clean water across the state, and
Whereas, only a, fraction of the shovel -ready projects have received grants due to as lack of sufficient state
funding to meet New York's more than $80 billion water infrastructure need, now therefore he, it
Resolved that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby authorizes the Town Supervisor to send a
letter with this resolution to the Governor, State Senator Thomas O'Mara, and State Assembly member
Barbara Lifton encouraging them to continue funding water infrastructure projects and requesting that
they include tit least $1 billion in new fUndino., for the Clean Water Infrastructure Act in the SFY 2020-
2021 New York State Budget
Moved: Tee -Ann Hunter Seconded: Eric Levine
Vote: ayes — Hunter, Levine, Howe, Leary, arid Bleiwas
STATE Of'NEW YORK)
COUNTY OFTOMPKINS) SS:
TOWN OF ITHACA:
1, Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk of (fie Town of Ithaca, of(.) hereby cer y, hat the above resolution is all exact
copy of tire same adopted by the Ithaca Town Board at a meeting on the 2 y q ary 2020.
SEAL Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND SUSTAINABILITY
121 Fast (.ourt Street
Ithaca, New York 14,850
Katherine Borgella, AICP Telephone (607) 274-5560
Commissioner of Planningand Sustairtability
March 4, 2020
Christine Balestra, Planner
Town of Ithaca
215 North Tioga, St.,
Ithaca, NY 14850
Re: Review Pursuant to §239 -1, -in and -n of the New York State General Municipal Law
Action: Town of Ithaca Proposed Local Law Amending Sign Provisions
Dear Ms. Balestra:
This letter acknowledges your referral of the Proposal identified above for review and comment by the
Tompkins County Department of Planning & Sustainability purSU ant to §239 -1, -in and -n of the New
York State Gieneral Municipal Law, The Department has reviewed the proposal, as submitted, and has
determined that it has no negative inter -community, or county -wide impacts.
Please ifif'orm us ol'your decision so that we can make it a part of the rec-ord.
Sincerely,
RECEIVE10
Katherine Borgella, AICP
MAR - 4 2020 Commissioner of Planning and Sustairiability
TOWN OF ITHACA
PLANNING
Inchisi,on through (Dveisity
TOWN OF ITHACA
215 NORTH TIOGA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850
www.town. ithaca. ny. us
CORRESPONDENCE LISTING
March 23, 2020
Please review the following correspondence and indicate, by placing your initials in the right-hand column
adjacent to the correspondence that you wish to receive a copy. We can forward a copy to you via e-mail or
make a hard copy. Please indicate your preference next to your name at the bottom of this form,
. . . . ............ . . . .......... . . .................
Correspondence — Item Please place your
initials here if you wish
to receive a copy
.............
Retention: Permanent
1 Resident complaint about Saunders Park
.............. . . .. ......... . ... . . ... . ..........
2.
3.
. . . ... . ........ . . . . ..... ........... ......... ... . ......... . .......
Retention: Six -Year
..............
1. TCAC dog seizure report
. . . . ......... . .......... .. . ...... .. . . . . .......... .. . . ...... . . . . . ...... . ...........
2.
.. . . ... ........ .... . . ....................... . . .
3.
.... . - --------------
[R'etention: One -Year
. . .............. . . ....... ......
1 Notice of receipt of request for speed limit reduction on Game Farm Rd
. .. . ..... ...........
2. .. . . .......... . ...... ................ ................... . ...........
March 17, 2020
Ithaca Town Council
21.5 N Tioga, St
Dear Council,
I live at 24 Saunders Rd, adjacent to a trail and playground under construction.
This construction is entering its 3 d year. My right to quiet enjoyment of the
premises has been severely damagedConstant loud beeping of bulldozers backing
Lip, banging of dump truck gates every 5-10 mins. My view has been destroyed and
privacy as well. I even saw a car driving on the trail yesterday. That is because
they did not build a, trail, but byallaccounts it is a road. Are there signs "no cars"?
I want an explanation of why it is taking 3 years to build a trail that is less than '/2
mile, and a playground that will have no buildings on it and is essentially on. level
ground. It seems it should take 3-4 months. Furthermore, I would like to know
why they are constantly dumping a mountain of dirt in one place? It makes for
extra bulldozer noise to pile it up, and presumably to spread it around later. Why
isn't the dirt being laid down in place? is this construction site becoming a
dumping ground for all other projects in the area? On the trail, why were unsightly
construction stakes left up all winter?
In, my opinion, this project was poorly designed and over -engineered. Resources
could have been better used elsewhere in year 2 and 3, like finishing the junction
of Coddington and King which instead took 2 years instead of one. Drivers were
forced to go on pothole ridden dirt fill all winter. I am paying a steep price for the
project and will be forced to move. At near age 70 this is expensive and a rnajor
inconvenience, but another year of construction noise is intolerable. I feel I should
be compensated. I believe a town auditor should investigate this project for
efficient use of resources.
When is the exact date this construction is going to end? Thank you.
Sincerely,
Stephen Ferris
24 Saunders Rd
Ithaca, NY 14950
'I
From:
Rod Howe
Sent:
Thursday, April 9, 2020 9:40 Al
To:
Paulette Rosa
Subject:
FW: Hector Street and therefore West Haven
This is in lieu of me trying to find any emails t may have received from residents that I did not forward to you.
Sent: Monday, April 6, 2020 9.:04 Al
To: JUcitra@cityofithaca,org; TLogue@cityofitt)aca.org
Cc: Daniel Thaete < DThaete @town. ithaca.ny. us>
Subject: Hector Street and therefore West Haven
Dear Tini and John,
Over the past lew days there has been a great deal ot'concern and frustration expressed from West 11aven
residents over increased traffic; and speeding on that road. Of" course, it is all related to the Hector Street closing,
I believe [fiat additional detour signs have now, been put tip to guide drivers but it is a little misleading given
that the sign is right beftn-e the West Haven Rd. intersection. We believe that many are interpreting that as
needing to turn onto West Haven rather that driving to where the detour is intended to lead folks,
Might there be additional language on the signage before West Haven that indicates "local traffic only" or
whatever language seems most appropriate? Some will still turn onto West Haven but the goal is to have many
Continue (,)it to the next detour sign,
'rhe'l"own will be putting as sign on West Haven indicating the speed to help address that issue:.
Thanks for your attention to this matter,
Best, Rod
Rod Howe
Supervisor,Town of Ithaca
215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
607-273-172 1, ext. 125
Website:
Facebook: Town of Ithaca NY
Twitter: Town of Ithaca (@ IthacaTown)
Paulette Rosa
From: Rod Howe
Sent: Monday, April 6,,2020 3:58 PM
To: Joshua Peluso; Pam Bleiwas
Cc: Rich DePaolo; TeeAnn Hunter" Pat Leary; Bill Goodman; Eric Levine,, Paulette Rosa; Daniel
Thaete; John Licitra; Tirn Logue
Subject: Re: Issues on Westhaven
ME
'ITT 1`1 K11' L.117,' + • M r.-Tetour is Mearer 5515-W-Valso be placing
an electronic sign on West Haven emphasizing the speed limit.
UMMMEEMM
From: Joshua Peluso <peIusoj@grnaiI.corn>
Sent: Monday, April 6, 2020 3:19 PM
To: Rod Howe < R Howe @town.ithaca . ny, us>; Bill Goodman <BGoodman( town.ithaca.ny,us>; Rich DePaolo
<rdepaolo@towri.itliaca.iiy,us>; Pam Bleiwas <pbIeiwas@town.ithaca,ny.us>; TeeArin Hunter
<thunter@town.ithaca.ny,us>1- Pat Leary <pleary@town.ithaca,ny.Us>,, Eric Levine, <elevine @town. ithaca. ny. us>
Subject: Issues on Westhaven
It was recommended I forward you this video. Since the closing of rt. 79 there has been dangerous traffic or) Westhaven
road, Our children can no longer ride their bikes on the street. Today a very large, and presumably heavy tractor -trailer
rnade its way down the road, which immediately made me think of Simeons on the commons. Here is a video so you
can see the large truck traffic coming down Our road.
Thank you.
Joshua Peluso
c 15a(,,4 �ji 18a6l.8bfdOa29lll8Oe6(��laade564,�yip 4'?fi,)cl�d=lwAROO,p!,..I2l.,!��iJeeL ,.' q
m BLt
5g
I111!11 !I11111milipill! Imell 111! 11,11m I , III � � I III I I � " I I � I I � � i I I III �
M1111101 mirmi'mil
9
Paulette Rosa
From: Jim Weber
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2020 1143 AM
To: Marty Moseley; Paulette RosaR Mike Solvig; Susan Ritter; Daniel Thaete,- Lisa Carrier'-Titti;
`brock@clarityconnect.com'; sriddle@boltonpoint,org; Judy Drake
Subject: Retirement
Good Morning,
I would just like to let YOU know that the Town has presented me an opportunity to leave my position early and I have
accepted the offer. Therefore my last day with the Town is today, I am sorry that There was not an opportunity to say
good bye in person. It has been my pleasure to work with such a dedicated and professional staff.
Best of luck in the future.
Jim
Jrn Weber
Dir, Public Works
TOWN OF ITHACA
106 Seven MHe Drive
Ithaca, NY 14850
p. 607'-273-1656
to 607-272-6076
w: w w.townJthaca,r1yL
TOWN OF ITHACA
215 NORTH TIOGA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850
www.town.ithaca.Irly.us
CORRESPONDENCE LISTING
May 11, 2020
Please review the following correspondence and indicate, by placing your initials in the right-hand column
adjacent to the correspondence that you wish to receive a copy. We can forward a copy to you via e-mail or
make a hard copy. Please indicate your preference next to your name at the bottom of this form.
Correspondence — Item
1. Resident concerns regarding 5G
1. Resolution 2020-45, Emergency Resolution calling upon State and Municipal
Officials to take Immediate Action to Protest Safety along Hayts and
Halseyville Roads
2. Letter to Office of Secretary of Transportation in Support of TCAT receiving
Full Funding under USDOT's Build Grant Program.
3. Letter to Congressman Tom Reed asking for Support in Direct Funding for
Local Governments in the next Stimulus Package.
1. Public Hearing Notice -Final Ag District Review Parcel List and Map
Please place your
initials here if you wish
to receive a copy
Cable Access Oversiolit Cominitice - Chair
0
filiaca ColleoL-e Connnunity, Work Group
1
Sewer Joint Commillce of the Ithaca Area WasteNvatei''Freatnient Facility
Cayuga Lake Watershed Organiz,,,Ition - Alternate
I I ompkins County Joint Youth Commission
Ad 11oc Committees
Economic Development Committee
Short -Term Ikewals Commince
Sidewalks Committee
On May 7,2020, at 4:16 PM, Andrew M <andrewmoInar11 gnjAa!iL1.=com> wrote:
Hi Rich,
As a local town resident, I am concerned that the city is seriously considering allowing 5G installation in
the area. If they pass this, is the town obliged to follow suit? Is there any talk of this on the town
Board?
Thank you for your service.
Andrew Molnar
309 Sunny View Ln, Ithaca, NY 14850
Paulette Rosa
From: Andrew m/andrewno|na,11@gmui|znm,
Sent: Thursday, May 7, 20205oepm
To: nichoepao|o
Cc: Paulette Rosa; Rod Howe; pam0ei°os;TeeAnnHunter; Eric Levine; Pat Leafy
Subject: Re: Question
Thank you for your speedy response, Rich. From last night's city meeting, ndoes sound like there isachallenge for local
municipalities. That said, other municipalities have challenged this (e.g. Santa Barbara CA, Keene NH, etc.) because of its
significant importance and potentially destructive effects. And Ithaca has been known tostand LIP u`national
authorities before, e.g. the sanctuary city debate.
I am a lover and avid user of technology (and loathe extremist conspiracy theories), but the increasing evidence (literally
over athousand studies) is that 5G may have a much more powerful and potentially dangerous negative impact on
human health. This is why countries such as Switzerland and Belgium have put its implementation on hold.
|fthis isrolled out inIthaca, mvwife and | will likely and reluctantly bcleaving the area for amore rural locale.
/ implore you and the Board totake astand against this.
Thank you.
Andrew Molnar
o^Thu, May 7'aoaoa,4o7pMRich oemo|o wrote:
Andrew -
The Town isnot obligated on"follow suit" just because the City takes (or doesn't take) onaction.
As I understand it, municipalities are limited in the degree to which cellular technologies can be regulated. Given the
high -profile nature of the "rollout," I anticipate discussions at the Town Board level relatively soon.
necnnus,
Rich
RimDePaol^
Cvum:Uperson.'Town v[Ithaca
z|5North TiognStreet
Ithaca, NY14450
607273.1721(^Que)
Town Committees
munoio:c^mmu—
/orcuuir
pumiCWorks Committee
Interinunicipal Committees
Paulette Rosa
From:
Patricia Leary <pll7@cornell.edu>
Sent:
Thursday, May 7, 2020 4:24 PM
To:
Andrew M
Cc:
Paulette Rosa
Subject:
Re: Question
Hi, Andrew. We're not obligated to follow anything the city does; we're separate municipalities. However, I don't think
local governments can prevent the installation of 5G -- we are preempted by federal law. The only thing we can do is
regulate the appearance and location (within limits) of the facilities. We are working on such regulations now.
Sent from my iPad
> On May 7, 2020, at 4:15 PM, Andrew M <andrewmolnarll@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Pat,
> As a local town resident, I am concerned that the city is seriously considering allowing 5G installation in the area. If
they pass this, is the town obliged to follow suit? Is there any talk of this on the town Board?
> Thank you.
> Andrew Molnar
> 309 Sunny View Ln, Ithaca, NY 14850
OnThu, May 7,2O2Oat4:24PK8Patricia Leary wrote:
Hi, Andrew. We're not obligated hofVUovvonyth|ngthec|tydmes;vve're separate
municipalities. However, I don't think local governments can prevent the installation
of 5G -- we are preempted by federal law, The only thing we can do is regulate the
appearance and location (within limits) of the facilities. We are working on such
regulations now.
Sent from my iPad
> On May 7, 2020, at4:15 PM, Andrew K4 wrote:
>HiPat,
> As a local Umvvn resident, | enn concerned that the city is seriously considering
allowing 5G installation in the area. if they pass this, is the town obliged to follow
suit? bthere any talk ofthis mnthe town Board?
> Thank you.
> Andrew Molnar
> 3O9Sunny View Ln,Ithaca, NYl4Q5O
Paulette Rosa
From:
Patricia Leary <pl17@comel.edu"
Sent:
Friday, May 8,z02oa:31pm
To:
Andrew
Cc:
Paulette Rom
Subject:
Re: Question
Thanks, Andrew. It's possible tomake public comment via zoom, | think —you'd want mcontact the Town Clerk, who I'm
copying here. She could also get you intouch with the other board members.
Sent from mvipad
onMay 8, 20u0,ats:mPM, Andrew M wrote:
Thank you for Your thoughtful response, Pat. There are many resources on this issue, one of the best
being
Two specific items that may uerelevant are attached.
And here are some news items from towns that are fighting this:
Lcc�S872621
There ismuch more, and / myself and still getting uptospeed. Two questions:
z.What are the best ways ,ntry and speak mother Town Board members onthis issue?
2. Will this be an time on Monday's agenda, and if so, how can the public comment?
Thank you!
Andrew
onThu, May r'aozoatsu4pIVIPatricia Leary <`wmte:
I totally share your concern, and have been worried about the health effects of
microwave/electromagnetic radiation since the first rollout of cell towers. Has the increase in brain
cancer been related to the ubiquitous presence of these signals? But we were preempted years ago by
federal policy, which protects the industry by specifically disallowing health concerns as a reason to
reject a citing application. If you know of any successful challenges to that rule, I'd love to pursue it.
Thank you for reaching out!
Sent from mvipau
o^May 7'uozo'ats:oyPM, Andrew M wrote:
Thanks for the speedy response, Pat. See myother email.
Andrew
TOWN OF ITHACA
215 NORTH TIOGA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850
www.town.ithaca.ny.us
CORRESPONDENCE LISTING
June 8, 2020
Please review the following correspondence and indicate, by placing your initials in the right-hand column
adjacent to the correspondence that you wish to receive a copy. We can forward a copy to you via e-mail or
make a hard copy. Please indicate your preference next to your name at the bottom of this form.
Correspondence — Item
1. Letter from Neighborhood of West Buttermilk Falls
2. Letter from Lesky Re: Towerview Road
3. Letter to Smetanina Re: Community Garden
4. Letter to Dokuchayeva Re: Community Garden
1. Letter from Mahr Re: Youth Corps Proposal
2.
1.
2.
Please place your
initials here if you wish
to receive a copy
Susan Ritter
From: John Darwin Powers <jdp3@cornell.edu>
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2020 4:06 PM
To: Susan Ritter; Rich DePaolo
Cc: CJ Beeman
Subject: continuing discussion - flooding of West Buttermilk Falls Rd
Dear Susan and Rich,
We received your email indicating that you are now considering two 36" pipes a reasonable solution to drainage issues as
related to flooding of the West Buttermilk Falls Rd. neighborhood.
We are assuming that this change has occurred because you now feel that the Fisher report is in error and did not take into
consideration the actual flooding conditions experienced here. We find your new solution to the drainage issues during
flooding incidents here to be totally inadequate, and that this solution was not made with respect to due regard.
We would like to see the calculations that the TOI Engineer performed to arrive at the indicated solution of two 36" pipes.
Did the TOI Engineer indicate to the TOI Board that there are differences in flow characteristics between circular sections
and rectangular sections? That as the water rises the circular sections of the pipes behaves in a non -linear manner when
compared to the rectangular section of the existing underpass? It is a historical fact that all municipalities in the area have had
to deal with issues of drain pipes of this size and even larger clogging during instances of heavy rainfall rendering them useless
and this even causing damage to structures such as roadways. We would like to hear from the TOI Engineer regarding the
expected clogging of these pipes. We have included a more detailed discussion of the flooding here as it relates to the
underpass and the actual area of the underpass utilized during flooding. Our discussion does not include the consideration of
your new proposal, but it is easy to see that your solution is still inadequate.
We are very concerned with the lack of due regard being afforded the neighborhood of Nest Buttermilk Falls Rd. by the
Town of Ithaca concerning the extremely important issue of flooding and others such as the issues of privacy and security that
will affect us after the trail is complete. Please comment on these matters.
On Monday (5111120), approved the installation of two 36-inch diameter piper to replace the etirting culvert/underpass. The Town En
,gineerr
reviewed the historical photosyou provided, and the analysis propided by Fisher: lssociates, and determined that two 36-inch piper will facilitate the
same flow rate (73 c)&) as the etisting conditions. The Board felt this plan was a reasonable alternative to mitigating firtrrre drainage irserer.
To the Town of Ithaca,
We appreciate the fact that Rich DePaolo and Tee Ann Hunter explored the site of the proposed construction. It shows a
level of concern not anticipated. Thank you for that.
Rich, you indicate that you are not satisfied with the "snow line" pictures as evidence of the flood levels this area
experiences. I am a witness to these level as are the current and past owners of "112". The levels are no less
than "scary".
The underpass is the focus of the flooding issue as we believe that the flow capacity of the underpass prevents more
serious; destructive flooding conditions by the successful "bleeding off' of rapidly accumulating flood water.
Water height follows gravity, and water does approach the property from the west following elevation contours. This
water level is initially determined by the water rising water level in the lake. This is more of a slow "back-up" of water
and it is reasonable to not call this dynamic water movement where there is forceful flow.
In this email we will discuss:
The factual physical aspects of the Inlet leading up to the "112" property.
Your concerns regarding the "snow -line"
Water levels at different parts of the "1 12" property and how they relate to the snow -line elevation and possible flow areas
in the underpass.
A picture showing significant flood -waters flowing onto the "112" property from the south.
Some of our concerns regarding the Fisher report.
The Facts:
Here are the flow conditions found in the Inlet described an a manner opposite the actual flow, described in terms of what
one would see walking south from the fish -ladder, the water flow is south to north.
Comments are within parentheses ().
The inlet itself, that is the ability of the inlet to accommodate water flow has been compromised over the years by
sediment buildup (documented).
The "fish ladder" is, by definition, a "weir", a low -head dam with lateral constraining walls, with a straight flow
section preceding it.
The inlet is now a meandering, variable section channel.
The old "Black -Iron" bridge abutments act to constrain the width of the channel; potentially restricting flow. (The Inlet
does not overflow the east side of the inlet channel to the same significant degree (hardly at all) as the west side
experiences.)
The abandoned railroad ROW berm; the proposed site of the Gateway Trail ends at the Black -Iron bridge abutments, the
most western part of the trail.
(The section of ROW extending maybe 300' has been reinforced by rip -rap; the reinforcement not appearing to be original
to the railroad bed, and suggests that maybe flood waters related to the 1935 flood washed-out this section of railroad and
was subsequently reinforced and rebuilt afterwards.)
The ROW berm acts a a dike to contain water to the south of the dike starting at the Black -Iron bridge abutments and
continuing to the Buttermilk Falls Park.
There are three openings in this dike: the underpass at "1 12", the Rt 13 Gateway Trail abutments, and abandoned ROW
abutments associated with "1 10 Buttermilk Falls Rd East".
(The "110 East" opening has historically accommodated flood waters from the Owl Creek .... Historical Ithaca Journal
photographs substantiate this as fact)
The inlet south of the Black —iron bridge abutments is now a meandering, variable section channel.
This meandering section of the Inlet is bounded on the west side by and overgrown field, NYSDPR as owner, the field
border to the east being the "1 12" property line.
There is significant, continuing erosion caused by the meandering Inlet into the area of the field mentioned above.
Just south of this erosion, the flow encounters a width constraint created by the remains of the old bridge abutments at the
most westerly, abandoned section of West Buttermilk Falls Rd., located just beyond a gate near the driveway of "112".
The channel appearance directly to the west of this abutment, the east side of the inlet, is a steep soil sidewall, the old
abutments on this side have deteriorated and fell into the inlet over 60 years ago.
West Buttermilk Falls Rd. from Rt 13 forms a west -east oriented dike that ends at the abutments discussed above.
(At this part of the inlet across from the remaining abutment at the end of West Buttermilk Falls Rd. the soil wall has been
stable over the years and the top has an elevation high enough where this does not flood over.)
Just to the south of this west soil wall is a curved section of channel with rip -rap placed to protect the area where the
Bolton Point 12" water main crosses the inlet.
The confluence of the Buttermilk Creek and the Inlet is immediately preceding the rip -rap reinforced section.
The confluent flow of the east -flowing Buttermilk Creek and north -flowing Inlet takes a right-hand turn at the point where
the rip -rap reinforced area is and enters the channel constraint at the end of West Buttermilk Falls Rd., this Flow
continuing north.
(during flooding the flow velocity of the Buttermilk Creek is observed to be significantly higher than the Inlet)
(I have not included all observations regarding how the Inlet and 11.1ttermilk Creek overflow their normal channel
sections.)
Based on the above descriptions of the different parts of the Inlet that we have now seen during our "walking"
tour, we are now at the location in the Inlet where all of the above -listed physical aspects of the
Inlet "dynamically" combine to affect the "112" property in a way that is much more complicated than the Fisher
report considers.
Discussion of your concerns regarding the "snow -line" and flow height as relates to the tree on the left as shown in
the picture below:
As stated perviously, you are not convinced that the snow/cinder line on the berm represents flood water levels at "112".
One question to you is what are the flood conditions that "112" experiences during flooding that you understand
them to be?
This is a reasonable question to ask of you so we can focus on "bringing to light" the issues that are unknown to you.
The delineation of "snow" and "cinders" is undeniable in the picture, and it is reasonable, that given the physical
conditions as evident in the picture and conditions observed during the niglit, that the line is indicative of the flood water
level. If you want to consider the level to be lower by several inches due to "splashing" and "wicking" then this is also
reasonable, but the corresponding level -line in the underpass still con-esponds to an area over three times the area of the
planned culvert, and the reduction of vertical height due to the consideration of splashing and wicking as applied to the
area measurements results in a small reduction of calculated flow area.
Note: as a specific observation, one we want to reiterate and make clear regarding the flow through the underpass
is that at no time during any flooding has there ever been a reverse of flow; water moving from the north to the
south through the underpass.
Applying image analysis to the enclosed picture we can establish a reasonable corresponding measurement of the
elevation of the water -line on the cinder embankment to the ceiling of the underpass using the measured width of the
opening of the underpass as a scale reference. From here we can use a polygon method to determine the equivalent area
in the underpass that relates to the in -question snow line. This was also done in a previous email, just the point used for
the elevation in the underpass was obtained differently.
Elevations of the snow -line referenced to the ceiling of the underpass.
The above measurement conveyed to to a more recent picture using the 36" rule seen in the picture as a reference to scale.
tf)
The reference zero elevation reading was made in the depression located just before the rod position seen in the picture
above.
This zero elevation was eventually referenced to the inside walls of the underpass and the base of the large tree. So, the
zero reference, the water level elevation where the flooding starts to surround the house in now indicated by the chalk line
that can be seen in the next picture.
I also established a referenced inside the underpass to the elevation of the "crown" of the West Buttermilk Falls Rd.
See chalk line to the left and very faint orange "dot" to the left where I am approximating the high-water mark from a
previouS picture.
This line elevation was copied over to the opposite wall using a laser level and main marked with chalk.
I referenced the reference zero elevation to the base of the large tree. This mark is above the level determined at the
beginning of the email. I could make the assumption that the water does not reach this elevation as the flow the Underpass
is "doing its job".
The area by polygon method is 6058i12. I reduced this area by 25% to compensate for gross errors made during the
elevation sightings, and in doing this, the area is now 4543in'-.
The 36" planned culvert is 1018i112 area. The above calculated area, compensated for gross errors, is still 4.46 times
Qreater than the 36" planned culvert.
My previously calculated area based on the water level mark (this calculated value averaged polygon and trace area
measurement and compensated to reduce this measurement by %25) yielded an area of 3473 in'-. 1 am not suggesting that
the entire area section was utilized during this flooding incident, but potentially it could be in the worst -case historical
flooding of 1972, and it is reasonable to assume that the water level could easily reach and exceed the elevation of the
Upper marking if the planned culvert becomes useless due to clogging by storm debris. The new measurements as
indicated were higher than the snow -line mark. I would expect this as the underpass was "doing its job" in reducing the
overall water level at "1 12". If this area were smaller, made so by design or debris clogging this area, I would expect that
the water level would be even higher than my measurements indicate.
This is between the two previous calculations of 4543in2 and 3473 in'- is still over 300% more than the area of the
proposed culvert of 1018in2.
Orange tape (with respect to horizontal level) at the bottom of the tee -trunk indicating an elevation corresponding to the
snow/water line picture referenced earlier.
The reason why there is the appearance of a difference in apparent flow levels between the left and right side of the
underpass is due to the dynamic flow pattern of the water entering the underpass. At maximum flow, and also at low
flows as seen in the first picture, there is dynamic, vectored flow through the Underpass. You can see in the picture the
"hydraulic jump" on the left as the large tree trunk acts to channel the flow. Examining the invert of the underpass you
can see pronounced "scouring" at the bottom of the right opening. This type of scouring is only be produced by intense
flow with velocities that suggest something beyond simple gravity at work.
Elevations of the "crowd' or the road of West Buttermilk Palls Rd.
We also "shot" elevations using as a reference the "crown", the very top of the road of West Buttermilk Falls Rd. at the
intersection of the "1 12" driveway. The "1 12" driveway forms an almost straight line into the underpass. In the picture
below the water is clearly seen to be flowing over the crown of the road. So, in fact, the water level to the south is at least
10
equal to the elevation of the crown of the road. In translating the reference elevation to the wall of the underpass it was
seen to be higher than the translated mark representing the "snow -line"
In summary ...
The Snow -line height minus a few inches would represent water levels encountered in this part of the property, and the
included picture shows significant water flow through the underpass well after the time that the maximum flow had
passed.
2.
There is evidence of significant "scouring" type erosion to the invert of the underpass that could have only been caused by
significant fast-moving water flow; the most pronounced erosion seen to the side of the snow -line.
3.
Water level elevations seen in the east part of the property when water starts to surround the property are higher than the
snow -line mark demonstrating that the snow -line mark represents a reasonable flood -water height.
4.
The elevation of the crown of the road where water is seen flowing over the top of the road is also higher than the snow -
line mark.
Based on water levels that the property actually encounters it becomes reasonable to assume that the snow -line elevation
minus a few inches becomes a measurement that can be used to calculate the area needed through the underpass
to accommodate actual flow. This direct measurement based on actual flow observations and physical evidence shows, in
a reasonable manner, that the planned culvert will not perform as planned, and it is also becomes reasonable that the
failure of the culvert to handle adequate water flow will cause much greater damage to the "112" property. The water
height at the underpass is lower than the water levels approaching this area of the property because, in fact, the underpass
is "doing it's job". (remember the Gateway Trail "dike" and the Black -Iron bridge abutments; the channel constriction
identified above?)
If you have questions regarding my ability to use a surveying level to acquire these measurements I can use Larry
Fabbroni P.E., past TOI and COI engineer, now in private practice, as a reference.
Please feel free to contact him with any questions. fbbroni@aol.com
If you have questions about the history of the water surrounding the "112" house during flooding I or Carol can provide
you with contact information for the Reunings and the Kadars as pervious owners of the property; .
I now revisit the following picture.
11
I consider this Picture as vital to demonstrate the type of flooding that "1 12" endures. The truck is located at the park
gate; just in front ofthe " 112" driveway. The Fischer report concentrates on water levels determined by Take level and
assumes that gravity alone extends this level as the water rises and follows the contour elevations onto "1 12". The
comPuter program used can model flooding of this type, but is more-or-ICSS a static Program as used, and did not take into
account the dynamic aspects of channel flow that can alter the local flood water elevation values. There is no known data
that references dimensional values for channel cross -sections throughout the inlet that are south of the known constructs
of the channel section approaching the low -head dam and fish -ladder. This is a "meandering" waterway; changing its
dynamic "personality" yearly. Data of this type would be necessary to model the dynamic flooding characteristics of this
area.
As mentioned earlier, I would not have been able to stand where I am standing in the Pictw'e during maxinuun flooding. A
truck could have driven through the flowing water, but a car would have probably been washed to the side.
Picture elements:
... The area to my right, the south, maybe 150 ft away is the confluence of BUttel-Milk Creek and the Inlet.
... Directly in back of me about 100 ft is the remains of the old bridge abutments; the east side of the inlet. The channel
appearance directly to the west of this abutment is a steep soil sidewall. The old abutments deteriorated and fell into the
inlet over 60 years ago. In this part of the inlet the soil wall has been stable over the years and the top has an elevation
high enough where this does not flood over..lust to the south of this soil wall is a curved section of channel with rip -rap
placed to protect the area where the Bolton Point 12" water main crosses the inlet.
... The area to my left, the north, is an overgrown field, NYSOPR, with the inlet to the west and "1 12" bordering this field
to the east (the house is just visible on the left).
Please note that the water on the south side of the road; my right, is several feet higher than the water level on the
north side of the road; my left. I am standing on a high spot; a small island maybe a quarter -acre in size and
surrounded by water.
12
Based on the Fisher report you would expect that the water levels would be equal on both sides of the road due to the
effects of gravity determining uniform water elevation but this is not what is happening. This proves that the water level
elevation in the inlet does not always follow the rules of gravity as it would be applied to slow moving water.
As you have walked the area to get the "lay -of -the -land" you are no doubt familiar with the area.
I would like to know if you can offer an alternative explanation to me why the water on the south side of the road
is "feet" higher than the north side; why there is water flowing onto "112" from the south.
Was the Fisher engineer aware of this "other" source of flood water (not originating from the west) when he wrote his
report? His report basically deals with water coming to "112" following the elevation contours from the west. As he is a
licensed engineer I would not expect him to make such a general characterization of the flooding being purely static-
gravity/contour driven having seen the pictures illustrating dynamic flow onto the property.
Conclusion
From our perspective people are making wrong assumptions about what flooding in our neighborhood is
like. We understand that people want to believe the Fisher report because it is easy and convenient to do so. But the
report is inaccurate, and does not take into account the actual, factual dynamic flood water conditions that exist here.
There is more water entering "112" than the Fisher engineer is aware of, and the picture above proves this.
Thank you for your interest in this issue. We are hoping to come to some agreement with the Board about the need for a
solution that accommodates the water flows that we have actually experience here. Based on the above observations and
calculations we cannot agree that a 36 inch conduit will prevent flood damage to the house at 112.
Please share this with the rest of the Town of Ithaca Board.
Regards,
John, Carol, and Don
The neighborhood of West Buttermilk Falls
13
Paulette Rosa
From: Iva Lesky <ilesky@lightlink.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2020 5:59 PM
To: Paulette Rosa
Subject: request to Town Board
Kindly forward this letter to the Town Board. Thank you Paulette and stay well!
Dear Town Board:
I think the time has come to make Towerview Road alternate side of the street parking in order to avoid an accident.
Now that the weather is hot, many people are parking on both sides of Towerview Rd. It would be difficult or
impossible for a firetruck to get through. An ambulance could be forced to back up since there is only room for one car.
There is no room for pedestrians to walk safely. Alternate side of the street parking is more than adequate for any
normal regular parking. Infact, most of the time there are no cars on either side of the street. I think it is important for
the safety of all to make Towerview alternate side of the street parking.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Iva Lesky
127 Westview Lane (also on Towerview Rd)
OF ep TOWN OF ITHACA
0 0 215 N Tioga St, Ithaca, NY 14850
1arziPhone: 607-273-1721 #3 •• (C:���
,n www.town.ithaca.ny.us
Rr ytr
Supervisor: Rod Howe RHowe@Town.ithaca.NY.US f
Town Clerk: Paulette Rosa PRosa @Town. Ithaca,NY.US
Date: June 2, 2020
Yevgeniya Smetanina
106 Conifer Cir., Apt 2
Ithaca, NY 14850
Dear Yevgeniya Smetanina:
As a condition of receiving a garden plot, all members of the West Hill Community Garden
agree to follow the general Rules and Regulations as well as the 2020 COVID-19 Safety
Measures. This letter is to notify you of a complaint that you have violated one or more of the
Rules and Regulations.
Specifically, in one incident on or about April 26"', you became verbally abusive toward a
volunteer when told that you could not share tools. Your behavior included yelling, accusing
others of theft, and offensive gestures. You also were not wearing a face mask and failed to
maintain a 6-foot distance between yourself and a third gardener even when asked to do so.
On May 20, you brought a dog into the fenced garden area. When a volunteer asked you not to
bring the dog in the future, you yelled at her and made offensive gestures.
I have found these reports to be credible and substantiated, and the facts are not in dispute.
This behavior is in violation of the following rule(s):
• Pets are not allowed at the Garden.
•. Practice social distancing and wear a mask when within 6 feet of others
• No harassment of other gardeners or staffIvolunteers will be tolerated. If a harassment complaint
is filed and found substantiated, the Perpetrator will be barred from the Community Garden
effectiVe immediately.
It is important for the safety and well-being of the conununity that all members behave in
accordance with community standards and agreements. Although the harassment of other
gardeners typically results in an immediate ban, it was decided to grant you a warning before
taking that extreme step.
Please be aware that if you are found in the future to violate any of the Garden Rules and
Regulations, you will lose your plot in the Garden immediately and will be barred from entering
the Garden for the duration of the year. In that event, you will receive no refund of any funds
paid to the Town.
You may contact me with any questions.
Regard ,
au ette Rosa, Town Clerk
Sent via certified mail return receipt/regular mail and email
-14-95,10 9qo,a. H5n 7k *29.(Ol 51
TOWN OF ITHACA
215 N Tioga St, Ithaca, NY 14850
Phone:607-273-1721 #3
Supervisor: Rod Howe RHowe@Town.Ithaca.NY.US
Town Clerk: Paulette Rosa PRosa @Town. Ithaca.NY.US
June 2, 2020
Tatyana Dokuchayeva
101 Uptown Rd., #39
Ithaca, NY 14850
Dear Tatyana Dokuchayeva:
As a condition of receiving a garden plot, all members of the West Hill Community Garden agree to
follow the general Rules and Regulations as well as the 2020 COVID-19 Safety Measures. This letter is
to notify you of a complaint that you have violated one or more of the Rules and Regulations.
Specifically, in one incident on or about April 26"', you became verbally abusive toward a volunteer
when told that you could not share tools. Your behavior included yelling and accusing others of theft.
On May 20, you accompanied another gardener who had brought a dog into the fenced area in violation
of rules. When a volunteer asked the other gardener not to bring the dog in again, you joined in yelling
and verbal abuse aimed at the volunteer.
I have found these reports to be credible and substantiated, and the facts are not in dispute.
This behavior is in violation of the following rule(s):
• No hal"assment of other" gal"deners or staf fIvollmteers will be toleratecl. If a harassment
complaint is filet! and found substantiated, the pel-I)etrator will be barred from the Community
Gal"clen elfective immediately.
It is important for the safety and well-being of the community that all members behave in accordance
With community standards and agreements. Although the harassment of other gardeners typically results
in an immediate ban, it was decided to grant you a warning before taking that extreme step.
Please be aware that if you.are found in the future to violate any of the Garden Rules and Regulations,
You will lose your plot in the Garden immediately and will be barred from entering the Garden for the
duration of the year. In that event, you will receive no refund of any funds paid to the Town.
You may contact me with any questions.
Regarc .
Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk
Sent via Certified Mail return receipt/ reg mail and email
55�0 �Ho2 33 -7+9b u3?y a g
TOWN OF ITHACA
215 NORTH TIOGA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850
www.town.ithaca.ny.us
CORRESPONDENCE LISTING
June 22, 2020
Please review the following correspondence and indicate, by placing your initials in the right-hand column
adjacent to the correspondence that you wish to receive a copy. We can forward a copy to you via e-mail or
make a hard copy. Please indicate your preference next to your name at the bottom of this form.
Correspondence — Item
1. Email from Resident re: Ending Police Violence and response(s)
2. Email from Resident re: Towerview side street parking and response(s)
3. Email from Resident re: 5G
4. Email from Resident re: Bridge on Forest Home Drive
1.
2.
n
1.
2.
Please place your
initials here if you wish
to receive a copy
Paulette Rosa
From: Rod Howe
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2020 5:39 PM
To: Paulette Rosa
Subject: Fw: End police violence and reimagine public safety
For the correspondence file.
From: Rehana Huq <rh24@cornell.edu>
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2020 5:12 PM
To: Rod Howe <RHowe@town.ithaca.ny.us>
Subject: End police violence and reimagine public safety
Dear Supervisor Howe,
As a person of faith, I believe police violence and brutality against black men and women must end now, particularly in
light of the tragic and senseless recent killing of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and so many others. Police violence and
systemic racial injustice is tied to America's original sin of racism and the abhorrent legacy of white supremacy. The time
for bold reforms that ensure equal justice under the law extends to everyone is now.
As your constituent and a person of faith, I am asking you to do away with policies that lead to the unequal treatment of
and violence against black, Indigenous, and people of color and adopt reforms drawn from evidence -based
recommendations in the Task Force on 2111 Century f o,licir?,h_Rc Zort, C;q,rn raid ,rt,Zr=ro, and more.
Specifically, we call on mayors, local officials, and local police precincts to:
• Ban chokeholds and neck restraints in all cases
• Require officers to de-escalate situations when possible, eliminating or reducing the need to use force
• Require officers to give a verbal warning before shooting
• Require officers to exhaust all other alternatives, including non -force and less -lethal force options prior to
resorting to deadly force
• Ban shooting at moving vehicles
• Require officers to intervene and stop the use of excessive force by other officers
• Establish a use of force continuum that restricts the most severe types of force
• Require officers to report each time they use force or threaten to use force against civilians.
Every city should adopt these policies immediately. Furthermore, we call on you to begin the process now to reimagine
public safety by reinvesting city budgets in programs that expand and enhance restorative justice programs, provide
alternatives to incarceration, demilitarize the police, provide crisis intervention and de-escalation training, increase
community engagement, and expand holistic collaborative services.
The time is now to finally fix this broken system, locally and nationally.
Sincerely,
Rehana Huq
200 Comstock Rd
Ithaca, NY 148502206
rh24@cornell.edu
Paulette Rosa
From: panelaoleiwa Town "fIthaca x mail.com`
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 202010:36Am
To: Paulette Rosa
Subject: pwdEnd police violence and reimaginepublic safety
My letter from Ms. Hurl and m,response.
Pamela Bleiwas - Ithaca Town Board
Begin forwarded message
From: Pamela Bleiwa Town of Ithaca
Subject: Re: End police violence and reimagine public safety
Date: June 15, 2020 at 6:27:35 PM EDT
To: RehanaHuq
Dear Ms. *un.
Thank you for reaching out to me about this very important issue. I agree with all of the goals you listed and I intend to
do anything I can to make these long overdue changes in law enforcement policy and practice.
As I member of the Ithaca Town Board (which is different from the City of Ithaca's Common Council), it is not clear that I
am in a position to directly affect change in this area beyond that of an ordinary citizen. The Town of Ithaca, which is a
distinct municipality surrounding the City of Ithaca, does not maintain a police force. The IPD does not have jurisdiction
in our Town, although the NYS Police and the Tompkins County Sheriff do. Unfortunately the Ithaca Town Board does
not have the ability oodirect the policies of either of these agencies and we do not control their funding. The Sheriff's
Department is funded by the Tompkins County Legislature and the NYS Police is funded in the NYS budget through the
Governor's office and the NYS Legislature. I assume you have been reaching out to NYS and County representatives
about this issue, as well as the members of the City of Ithaca's Common Council. I think you will find people there who
are inaposition ,vdirectly affect change.
suU ifyou can thing ofany way that | can use mvposition u`advocate for these desperately need reforms please let me
know.
Best regards and thank you for your work. we need to make our country safe for everyone.
pam
Pamela Bleiwas - Ithaca Town Board
Paulette Rosa
From: Rod Howe
Sent: Thursday, June 18,zozn1l:2smw
To: ree^nnHunter; renka*:Joe Slater
Cc: Paulette Rosa
Subject: pvv:,equest toTown Board
-
pn
From: Iva u,wv<i|eskv@|ig»dink.mm,
Sent: Thursday, June 18,zozozoxwxm
To: Rod Howe °xnvwe@town.imaca.nvu,>
Subject: Re: request mTown Board
Hi Rod,
In the past there were all sorts of discussions about no parking, nothing about alternate side of the street parking on one
street. Since /amonly suggesting alternate side orthe street parking vnTowemiew | imagine myneighbors would sign
apeuuon. However, |amathigh risk for covivand will not hcgoing anywhere near mvneighbors. | can get some
electronic signatures ifthat will do.
Towerview is a serious problem ondays when the kids fill up both sides of the street. Towerview is unique
because there are no driveways that someone could safely pull into if two vehicles were coming from two different
directions. I would think that simply going with alternate side of the street parking on one road without a driveway for
safety issomething the Town can just do. But ifyou need some electronic signatures, I'll get them.
Best,
Iva
OnJun »6,zozO at1:23PM, Rod Howe wrote:
Dear Iva,
This isnot anew issue and the Town and the City have had many conversations over the years about the
situation, especially on hot days when a number of people are going to the reservoir.
There are now no parking signs but a limited number as sonne of your neighbors still wanted the ability
mpark unthe roads inthat area.
If you want to explore this further, a next step would be for you to bring a petition to the Town Board
with signatures ufasignificant number vfresidents.
We are concerned with the mention of a firetruck not getting through. I have copied Chief Tom Parsons
of the Ithaca Fire Department and Sherriff Osborne on this email to make them aware of the situation
(or itmay uereminding them ofthe ismc).
Best, Rod
Rod Howe
Supervisor, Town vfIthaca
215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
607-273-1721, ext. 125
rho�Le�(ja.town.itha .ajc �Ius
Website: www. town. ithaca.i)y. Lis
..........
Facebook: Town of Ithaca NY
Twitter: Town of Ithaca (@IthacaTown)
-----Original Message -----
From: Iva Lesky <iIesky(ZqtEhtIin1k.cc)m>
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2020 5:59 PM
To: Paulette Rosa <P Rosa @town.i h c ji s>
Subject: request to Town Board
Kindly forward this letter to the Town Board, Thank you Paulette and stay well!
Dear Town Board:
I think the time has come to make Towerview Road alternate side of the street parking in order to avoid
an accident.
Now that the weather is hot, many people are parking on both sides of Towerview Rd. It would be
difficult or impossible for a firetruck to get through. An ambulance could be forced to back up since
there is only room for one car. There is no room for pedestrians to walk safely. Alternate side of the
street parking is more than adequate for any normal regular parking. Infact, most of the time there are
no cars on either side of the street. I think it is important for the safety of all to make Towerview
alternate side of the street parking.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Iva Lesky
127 Westview Lane (also on Towerview Rd)
Paulette Rosa
From: marieandrew93@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2020 12:32 PM
To: Paulette Rosa; Bill Goodman; Rich DePaolo; Pam Bleiwas; TeeAnn Hunter; Eric Levine; Pat
Leary; Nick Goldsmith; Rod Howe; Susan Ritter; Chris Balestra;
brock@clarityconnect.com
Subject: The false promise of SG ... and the better alternative
Hello,
From the many conversations we've had with local officials and community members, it sounds like
there is some confusion around what 5G is and will actually deliver in Ithaca. The bottom line: it
seems there will be few - if any - benefits of 5G in Ithaca over current technology, and 5G is NOT a
replacement for broadband internet in Ithaca.
5G is the 5th Generation of mobile phone technology, which includes all previous generations (2G,
3G, 4G) and adds new spectrum use and infrastructure. The two biggest additions from 4G to 5G
are:
1) the previously unused millimeter part of the spectrum, and
2) the new types and ubiquity of antennas that are necessary to support the mm part of the
spectrum transmission
Both of these are layers on top of (not replacing) the existing spectrum use and the existing antennas.
So, the radiation from these new antennas will be in addition to the existing levels of radiation from
existing antennas. However, the FCC exposure limits (which are already some of the highest in the
world - even higher than Russia and China) are based on the radiation from one transmitting
antenna, not from a multitude of antennas.
So, what would be getting in exchange for these problematic antennas?
Superfast mobile phone downloads?
The superfast speeds that are being marketed are only from the millimeter part of the 5g spectrum,
which Verizon calls "5G Ultra Wideband" or "5G UWB". (The rest of "5G" - confusingly - is from the
same spectrum we already currently use with 4G.) The millimeter part can pack a lot of data, but
travels extremely poorly through obstacles - walls, trees, rain, heat, snow, etc. So, while promising
exciting possible future uses, Verizon admits that 5G is currently really only viable for limited -uses -
mostly outdoors, densely -populated urban areas (or specific applications like cruise ships or
stadiums). We will likely not even get that part (the 5G UWB) of the spectrum here in Ithaca,
according to Verizon. But even if we eventually did, it still has extremely limited utility (outdoors,
only for people who buy a 5G compatible phone, only within unobstructed line of sight to an antenna,
etc).
Home internet?
Even in the few large urban areas that are getting 5G UWB (not Ithaca) and where Verizon is trying
out its so-called "5G Home Internet" (which is fixed wireless), it is expensive for the speed, and is not
a viable alternative to existing home broadband internet.
Here's Verizon's own reply to community comments on the Verizon web page regarding the poor "5G
home internet" service:
"We understand that this is a difficult time for our customers, and we want to make sure you
have the services you need during this time. However, our network is not built for primary
usage like it would be for a cable or home internet provider. If you are in an area that
supports our home FiOS (fiber opticl services or if there's a home internet service
provider that you can use, that would be a better alternative to use. At this time, we have to
sustain our network for the users accessing our cellular network. Lifting the data caps would
harm our network and slow services down for all of our customers. Verizon wireless is best for
use when you travel away from home and need internet access. At home, Vou are much
better off to use cable or DSL if it's available."
The truth is that Verizon underestimated the real -world challenges of millimeter technology,
and they have overpromised (check out what happened in Sacramento) because they invested
heavily in the millimeter spectrum (unlike other carriers who have more mid -band spectrum - a sweet
spot between speed and distance). The rest of "5G" comes from mid -band (and some low -band)
spectrum that we already use, essentially the 4G part of 5G. Even according to Verizon's own
Consumer Group CEO Ronan Dunne, 5G on the mid -spectrum bands will be like "good 4G"...
which we already have in Ithaca.
So, if you are, in fact, wanting to expand internet coverage, address the "digital divide", improve
broadband connectivity or speed, or even just have an alternative to Spectrum (which, we agree,
would be great), fiber optics is the way to go. Fiber optics can deliver faster, safer, less visible,
more secure, better coverage, no lag, greener, has more device compatibility and more service
flexibility. If, like Dryden, Ithaca created this as a public utility, it would give us local control
over our own internet (and pricing), give us a great alternative to Spectrum, create local jobs,
and boost the local economy.
So, the question that still begs to be answered is: if we're not getting Verizon's 5G UWB here,
and we're not getting a competitive alternative to Spectrum's broadband internet, the question
is - why install all these new antennas when we already have 4G LTE?
From: Paulette Rosa
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2020 9:21 AM
To: Rod Howe (rhowe@town.ithaca. ny.us) <rhowe@town.ithaca.ny.us>; Rich Tenkate
<rtenkate@town.ithaca.ny.us>; Joe Slater <islater@town.ithaca.ny.us>
Cc: Judy Drake <JDrake@town.ithaca.ny.us>
Subject: FW: Forest home bridge incident
MW
See below. She called Friday and wondered what if anything could be done etc. etc. She initially said
Varna, so I thought it was that bridge.
She wanted to know how to get on record that this is a dangerous situation.
Paulette
From: lira h <raven rising56@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, June 5, 2020 6:48 PM
To: Paulette Rosa <PRosa @town.ithaca.ny.us>
Subject: Re: Forest home bridge incident
1 may have said varna, still a little rattled from it all .... but I will be fine! Thanks for looking into this for
others. 1 will NEVER go thru there again, too bad I love the little park in town and took my grandson
there. Oh well, not worth getting hurt over.
Lisa
On IRrHay, .June 5, 2020, 4-4 7 II��' II , II��'ILsllette II'7osa <, PRosa @town.ith aca. ny.us> irote
Ah. 1 thought you said Varna. The one lane bridge there.
Paulette Rosa
Town Clerk
> On Jun 5, 2020, at 4:01 PM, lisa h <raven rising56@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Paulette, tag your it! I called town of Dryden and we both looked up the town on google. According to
Wikipedia.... forest home is in the town of Ithaca.
> So, as you mentioned, 1 am writing a complaint and a notice of defect.
> Here is the situation. Today, June 5th at approximately 1230pm I approached the one lane bridge from
Cornell towards forest home. Next to the plantations. Never have I ever had a situation like this on
either bridge in all my 25 years living in the area.
> Normally, it is common courtesy to alternate the coming and going over the bridge. There was a car
ahead of me that stopped and went ahead. Then I stopped, Looked to see if there were any on coming
cars and proceeded across the bridge. As I had reached near the middle of the bridge a black car with
two men came charging for me with their vehicle from the stop sign on the other side. I could not
believe my eyes! What in gods name was happening. We sat face to face staring in each other's eyes. I
of course threw my hands up like what the heck is going on. The other driver stood his ground and
became very apparent to me he was not moving and I was in a pickle! What was I going to do? He held
his ground, I had no choice but to back up off the bridge that 1 was almost over. The fear in me was
great! I backed up my pickup slowly and was full of fear. 1 never got the make or model or license plate.
When there was enough room for him to get by me he charged at me again and missed hitting me. I was
enraged! And shaken up.
> 1 could have called the police and stayed parked on the bridge till they arrived. With today's current
events I feared things could have gone very badly. Me one woman and them two very angry men in a
car a potential weapon to harm me, and I knew I had no choice but to completely back away from this
angry driver.
> This could happen again! I did not see any cars waiting to cross. So 1 proceeded. As you may know,
once you cross that bridge you have to drive about 5 to 10 miles an hour to navigate the narrowness
and make the very sharp turn to the right. I don't believe there is enough visibility for each driver coming
from opposite directions tomsee each other at each stop sign. Can this be looked at again by the
professionals? If visibility is an issue, there could be more problems to come. 1 for one will avoid this
area as a result. I wish someone had filmed this it was so unreal!! I was on my way to triphammer mall
for the pharmacy, this is my short cut to there.
> Thank you for your time in this matter!
> Lisa hoyte
TOWN OF ITHACA
215 NORTH TIOGA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850
0 www.town.ithamny.us
CORRESPONDENCE LISTING
July 13, 2020
Please review the following correspondence and indicate, by placing your initials in the right-hand column
adjacent to the correspondence that you wish to receive a copy. We can forward a copy to you via e-mail or
make a hard copy. Please indicate your preference next to your name at the bottom of this form.
- .... . . - ------ . . . . . . . . .............. ... . .. . ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . ................. ... . ................
Correspondence - Item Please place your
initials here if you wish
to receive a copy
Retention: Permanent
1. Town of Dryden Proposed Local Law - Amendment to Zoning
- ......... . . ... . ............ _ ............... - ............. . ......... ..................... . ...
2. Letter from Health Professionals re: 5G
— - ----------------------- ------- ---- . . . . .. . ....... -- ---- - ------------- . . . . .........
3. Letter frorn Resident re: 5G
. . ........... . . . ....... ... ...... . . ....... ........... . . .. .. ................. . .... . . .......
4. Letter from Resident re: End Police Violence
._ . ...... . . ........ . ........ . . — - - - ------------------------------ - ---- .-- . . . . . ....... ............................ . . - — -- - - - - . . ................. .
5. Letter from Resident re: Code Change recommendation re stream setback
. . . .. . .... . ...... . ..........
Retention: Six -Year
..... . . ....... . ------ . . .......... ........ . . . .............
1.
----
2.
. . . . . . ..... ..... ..... .
Retention: One -Year
. . ................................... . . ....................... . ... .............
2.
.... . ...... . . . .... __ . . . . . ........ . ...... ..
Planning Department
T 607 844-8888 ext. 216
F 607 844-8008
AIDioy@dryden,nY,US
http://dryden.ny.us/planning-
department
July 1, 2020
Paulette Rosa
TowliC
leedkc L -y 4Q-\y!1-J ha .tj
Town of Ithaca
215 NTioga St
Ithaca, NY 14850
Re: proposed Local Law of 2020 — Amendment to Zoning Law Articles III, IV, VII and IX
Dear Paulette,
Pursuant IoTown Law 264(2) and NYS General Municipal Law 239-nn, please be advised that the Town
Board of the Town of Dryden shall conduct a public hearing Oil July 16, 2020 at 6:05 PM, Regarding the
adoption of at Local Law ofthe Town ofryden For the year 2020 which would amend Articles III, IV, VI
all(] IX of the Dryden Zoning Law, adopted by Local Law No. I ol'2015 to add definitions, amend district
descriptions and reduce density of allowable (level opin en t in the I fainlet of Varna. The Town Board is also
considering adoption of revised map for the I larnlet of'Varna which map is on file with the Town Clerk.
Due to COVID19 public health res(rictiOnS on public meetings, there shall be no in -person
attendance by the public. Instead this meeting will be held electronically via webinar. Members of the
public rnayjoin the Board meeting by connecting via Internet or phone. Details on how to connect to tile
hearing will be posted July 15 to the'I'mvii website at: wwvv.dryden.ny.us You call also submit comments
prior to the meeting or request nieeting details by email to: 11taliji.li i
A copy of the board resolution and the text of the proposed law is enclosed. The proposed Local Law can
also be viewed on theTown's website at ww Ar yd !ujytq_
Please provide your municipal board with the enclosed information for their review.
Thank you,
David W. Sproul
Code fniorcerrient Officer
Storniwater Management. Officer
93 East Main Street
Dryden, NY 13053
607 844-8888 x215
TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF DRYDEN, NEW YORK
RESOLUTION NUMBER _ OF 2020
ADOPTION OF DRAFT LOCAL LAW LANGUAGE FOR PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE
DRYDEN ZONING LAW REGARDING VARNA AND SCHEDULING OF
PUBLIC HEARING.
WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Dryden, by Resolution Number 26 of 2019
proposed to the Town Board for its consideration, certain revisions to the Dryden Zoning Law;
and
WHEREAS, the Dryden Town Board, in consultation with Counsel for the Town and Planning
Department staff has considered, reviewed and revised the proposed zoning amendments; and
WHEREAS, Municipal Home Rule Law §20(5) requires that a public hearing be held before a
local law is adopted by the Town Board, which public hearing must be held upon the publication
of at least ten days' notice in the Town's official newspaper; and
WHEREAS, Town Law §264(4) also requires that a public hearing be held prior to adopting (or
amending) zoning regulations, and
WHEREAS, Town Law §265(2) requires that amendments made to any zoning law(excluding
any map incorporated therein) shall be entered in the minutes of the town board; such minutes
shall describe and refer to any map adopted in connection with such change, amendment or
supplement and a copy, summary or abstract thereof (exclusive of any map incorporated therein)
shall be published once in a newspaper published in the town, if any, or in such newspaper
published in the county in which such town may be located having a circulation in such town, as
the town board may designate, and affidavits of the publication thereof shall be filed with the
town clerk, and
WHEREAS, due to the Corona Virus/COVID-19 pandemic, the Governor of the State of New
York has authorized municipalities to conduct certain public hearings and meetings by virtual
means in order to ensure the public health and safety,
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the attached draft local law, the full text of which
the Town Clerk is hereby directed to reproduce in the full in the minutes hereof, is adopted as the
draft upon which a public hearing shall be held to consider whether or not to adopt the proposed
amendments, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby schedules a public hearing for July at 6:05 PM
via Zoom. Access details for the Zoom meeting shall be posted on the Town of Dryden website
at www.dryden.ny.us 24 hours prior to the date of the hearing. The purpose of the public hearing
is for all persons wishing to comment in favor or against the proposed amendments to have an
opportunity to provide their comments thereon, and be it further
RESOLVED, that in addition to participation in the public hearing via Zoom, all members of the
public wishing to submit written comments on the proposed local law may do so in writing
addressed to the Town Clerk at 93 East Main Street, Ithaca, NY 13053 or by email to
tovv-nclerk((r drydcn.n�'.Lls, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk is directed to publish notice of said hearing in the Ithaca
Journal as required by law, to mail notices to all persons and agencies entitled to notice, to file
in the office of the Town Clerk affidavits of publication, and the Town Board authorizes
payment of expenses associated with said publications and mailings.
Zoning Local Law
LOCAL LAW No. of202O
A LOCAL LAW AMEND] NGTOWN OF DRYDEN ZONING LAW ARTICLE III
(DEFINITIONS); ARTICLE IV (ZONING DISTRICTS), ARTICLE Vill AND ARTICLE
IX (SECTION 909(B) REGARDING THE VARNA HAMLET
SECTION 1. AUTHORITY. This Local Law is enacted pursuant to the statutory authority
conferred on the 'town of Dryden by N4unicipal Home Rule Law Section 10, and New York Town
Law Section 264.
SECTION 2. Article 111, Article IV and Article VII of the Town of Dryden Zoning Law are
hereby amended as follows:
"ARTICLE III: DEFINITIONS.
Dwelling -Condominium — The term condominium refers to a system of ownership and
administration of property with three main features. A portion of the property is divided into
individually owned units, the balance of the property is owned in common by all the individual
owners and a vehicle for managing the property, known as the conclorninium corporation, is
established.
Dwelling — Townhouse or townhorne -- A single-family dwelling that shares one or more walls
but no ceiling -floor connection with other dwelling unit or units.
Green Space -- Areas of vegetated and permeable surfaces of a development not Occupied by
Structures or Paved areas for vehicles and including formal storinwater management facilities (no
more than 20% oftotal Lot Area) as well as green infrastructure storrnwater facilities (Open Space
set aside, swales and 60% of the area ot'a green roof if not accessible by or visible to the Public),
and including parks, dedicated open space, landscaped areas, plantings, lawns, parking lot islands,
green rools, and sidewalks or trails used exclusively to access these areas, including Accessory
Structures (c.-. gazebos or similar structures) accessible to the public and intended to enhance the
Green Space.
Lot Consolidation — A Lot Consolidation is used to combine two or more existing parcels. Lot
Consolidations erase parcel lines so that fewer parcels remain.
Lot Line Adjustment —The adjustment of one or more Lot Lines between two or more existing
and adjoining Lots which does not result in the creation of one or more new Lots.
Story — Any story having its finished floor surface entirely above grade plane, or in which the
finished surface of the next floor above is
1. more than 6 feet above grade plane, or
2. more than 12 feet above the finished ground level at any point.
VHMUD — Varna Ilarn let Mixed Use District
Zoning Local Law
The purpose of the Varna Hamlet Mixed Use District (VHMUD) is to foster new and
redevelopment of existing properties while retaining the traditional character of buildings, as well
as the hamlet character found in Varna and described in the Varna Community Development Plan.
The purpose includes Traditional Neighborhood Design as defined in Article III of the Dryden
Zoning Law, and commercial development of vacant lots, including the combining of lots and
rehabilitation of existing buildings.
VHRD — Varna Hamlet Residential District.
The purpose of the Varna Hamlet Residential District (VHRD) is to foster development of new
residential neighborhoods including a variety of dwelling units as outlined in the density table at
Section 704.
VHTD — Varna Hamlet Traditional District
The purpose of the Varna Hamlet Traditional District (VHTD) is to foster development that is
deeply attentive to the environmentally sensitive areas of the district, and is intended to have lot
sizes and a limited amount of development that is sensitive to these resources. The purpose of this
district is aimed at achieving a traditional neighborhood with lower density and including a
conservation buffer from the banks of Fall Creek (see Article VII, Section 706(B).
ARTICLE IV: ZONING DISTRICTS
Section 402: Boundary Determinations
H. Special Condition of one Parcel that is situated in Two Zones. Except in the VHMUD,
VHRD, and VHTD, when a parcel is divided by a zoning district boundary, the regulations
and requirements of the least restrictive zone may be extended for a distance of 100 feet
into the more restrictive zone.
ARTICLE VII: VARNA
Section 700: Purpose
The purpose of Article VII of this zoning law is to provide the structure and rules for
development in accordance with the Varna Community Development Plan (VCDP) as adopted.
This Article creates distinct zones and a Traditional Neighborhood Overlay within the hamlet of
Varna in an effort to implement the goals set forth in the Varna Community Development Plan.
Section 701: Applicability
This Article applies only to the three zoning districts that are within the Hamlet of Varna: the
Varna Hamlet Mixed Use District (VHMUD), the Varna Hamlet Residential District (VHRD), and
the Varna Hamlet Traditional District (VHTD). Development within these zones is based on the
descriptions in the Varna Community Development Plan as adopted as an amendment to the Town
Comprehensive Plan. Refer to the purpose and goals listed for each district in Article IV.
Zoning Local Law
Section 702: Design Guidelines and Standards
All development and redevelopment of Lots and property in Varna shall to the maximum extent
practicable comply with the Varna Design Guidelines and Landscape Standards, including:
A. Landscape Design. Any proposed development or redevelopment subject to a building
permit or review under this Law shall include a landscape and planting plan that includes:
1. A map or sketch of existing vegetation to be retained or removed.
2. A detailed landscape plan that includes a list of the number, type and location of
proposed vegetation.
3. A narrative or drawing demonstrating how the development or redevelopment will
preserve open space and existing natural features including mature trees, tree canopies,
land forms, existing topography and vegetation.
B. Streetscape and Sidewalk Design. Any proposed development or redevelopment subject
to a building permit or review under this Law shall include plans for sidewalks or
pedestrian paths that contribute to the goal of a unified pedestrian network in Varna. Any
such proposed development or redevelopment shall include a streetscape and sidewalk plan
that includes:
I. A map or sketch and list of dimensions of proposed pedestrian paths, sidewalks, and
trails.
2. A map and sketch detailing streetscape amenities including lighting, sidewalk furniture
(such as benches and refuse containers), signage, and a maintenance plan for such
amenities, including provisions for snow removal.
3. Any proposed development or redevelopment along Route 366 requires sidewalks.
C. Building and Architectural Detail.
I. No proposed Building shall exceed 40 feet in height.
2. Any proposed development shall be designed to preserve, as much as practicable, the
existing views and line of sight of existing buildings and neighboring properties.
D. Streets and Parking.
1. Any proposed development shall provide a circulation plan in and around the
development for pedestrians, vehicles, and cyclists which includes a detailed map
showing:
Zoning Local Law
a. Proposed roads, trails and cyclist paths.
b. The connection of proposed roads, trails and cyclists paths to existing public
highways.
c. Circulation patterns including points of ingress and egress.
d. The dimensions of any proposed roads, trails and cyclist paths.
e. The location of any proposed curbcuts to Route 366.
f. The location and number of proposed parking spaces.
2. New roads should be designed and located to preserve existing topography, as much as
practicable.
Section 703: Varna Use Regulations
All uses in Varna shall comply, to the maximum extent practicable, with the Varna Design
Guidelines and Landscape Standards.
A. Planning Department Report. No application shall be deemed complete without a written
report by the Planning Department detailing the extent to which the application complies
with the Varna Design Guidelines and Landscape Standards.
1. For applications which require either Town Board approval or Planning Board
approval, such report shall be considered part of the application and subject to review
by the respective Boards.
2. For applications which require only a Building Permit, such report shall be completed
prior to issuance of a Building Permit.
B. No structure or land in Varna shall be used except as provided in the Allowable Use Groups
Chart in subsection D below. Uses which are not explicitly permitted are prohibited, unless
specifically stated elsewhere in this Law.
C. Building Sizes and Exemptions:
1. Building Sizes: In the Varna districts, no use shall include a Structure larger than 5,000
square feet without a Special Use Permit.
2. All exemptions in Section 603 shall also apply in Varna.
D. Allowable Use Groups Chart. In the following Allowable Use Groups Chart:
4
Zoning Local Law
"P" means the use is allowed as of' right, but in many cases requires Site Plan Review;
"SPR" means this use requires Site Plan Review;
"Special Use Permit" or "SUP" means the use requires a Special Use Permit;
"X" means the use is not allowed in that particular district.
Varna
Varna Hamlet
Varna Hamlet
Minimum
Allowed
Hamlet
Residential
Traditional
Lot Size
Principal Uses
Mixed Use
District
District
District
(VHRD)
(VHTD)
Agricultural Use
P
P
P
None
Farmstand
P
P
P
None
Artist Studio/Craft
SPR
X
SPR
1/8 Acre
Workshop
Automotive Repair
SPR
X
X
I Acre
Garage
Bed and Breakfast
SPR
SPR
SPR
None
Establishment
Boarding House
SPR
SPR
SPR
1/4Acre
Day Care Center
SPR
SPR
X
I Acre
Gasoline Station
SPR
X
X
2 Acres
General Office
SPR
SPR
X
I Acre
Building
Hotel/Motel
SPR
X
X
I Acre
Industry, Light
SUP/SPR
SUP/SPR
X
2 Acres
Inn
SPR
SPR
SPR
Y2Acre
Nursery/Greenhouse,
SPR
SPR
X
I Acre
Retail
Professional Office
SPR
SPR
SPR
None
Restaurant
SPR
X
X
None
Retail Business
X
X
None
--SPR
Retail Shopping
SPR
X
X
2 Acres
Center/Plaza
Retreat/Conference
SPR
SPR
X
2 Acres
Center
Service Business
SPR
X
X
None
Allowed
Varna
Varna Hamlet
Varna Hamlet
Minimum
Principal Uses
Hamlet
Residential
Traditional
Lot Size
Mixed Use
District
District
strict
(VHRD)
(VHTD)
(VHMUD)
Theatre
SPR
SPR
X
I Acre
Bed and Breakfast,
SPR
SPR
SPR
None
Home
Zoning Local Law
Congregate Care
SPR
SPR
X
1 Acre
Facility
Daycare Home,
SPR
SPR
SPR
None
Family
Daycare, Family
SPR
SPR
SPR
None
Group
Dwelling, accessory
SPR
SPR
SPR
None
unit See § 1311
Dwelling, multi-
SPR
SUP
SUP
1 Acre
family
Dwelling, single-
P
P
P
None
family
Dwelling, two-
SPR
SPR
SPR
10,000 square
family
feet
Dwelling, upper-
SPR
SPR
SPR
None
floor apartments
Elder Cottages
See Section
See Section 1305
See Section
None
1305
1305
Home Occupation:
P
P
P
None
Level 1
Home Occupation:
P
SPR
SPR
None
Level 2
Manufactured Home
X
X
X
None
Manufactured Home
X
PUD
X
5 Acres
Park
Senior Housing
SPR
SPR
SPR
1 Acre
Senior Care Facility
SPR
SPR
X
2 Acres
Workshop/Garage —
P
P
P
None
Non-commercial
Educational Use
SPR
SPR
X
None
Library
SPR
SPR
X
1 Acre
Lodge or Club
SPR
SPR
SUP
2 Acres
Municipal Use
SPR
SPR
X
None
Public Safety
SPR
SPR
X
'/z Acre
Public Utility
SUP
SUP
SUP
'/2 Acre
Religious Institution
SPR
SPR
SUP
None
Recreation, Active
SPR
SPR
X
1 Acre
Allowed
Varna
Varna Hamlet
Varna Hamlet
Minimum
Principal Uses
Hamlet
Residential
Traditional
Lot Size
Mixed Use
District
District
strict
(VHRD)
(VHTD)
(VHMUD)
Recreation, Passive
SPR
SPR
SPR
None
Recreation Facility,
SPR
SPR
X
2 Acres
Amusement
Zoning Local Law
Recreation Facility,
SPR
SPR
X
2 Acres
Athletic
Section 704: Varna Density Table
All residential uses in Varna are subject to the maximum number of Dwelling Units per acre set
forth in the following Varna Density Table. All numbers are in Dwelling Units per one acre (du/ac)
Dwelling type
Mixed Use
Residential2
Traditiona13
Green
(requires
development
commercial)'
bonus (see
section 707)
Single Family
6
6
4
2
Home
Duplex
6
4
2
X
Townhouse
6
4
X
2
Condominium
6
4
3
2
Apartments
6
4
3
2
Senior Housing
8
6
X
2
Residential over
6
X
X
2
Commercial
Multi Family —
X
X
X
Detached Units
1 —
2 — Multi -family
3 — No bonuses
Developments
units limited to
will be granted in
with > 9 units
covering no
the Traditional
must have 2000
more than 40%
district.
sq. ft. of
of the acreage
commercial for
remaining after
each 10 units.
removing the
These may be
open space land.
Zoning Local Law
phased in over
time.
Section 705: Required Green Space Table
All uses in Varna shall incorporate the amount of the Green Space set forth in the following table.
Varna District
Re uired Green Space
Varna Hamlet Mixed Use District VHMUD
40% of Lot
Varna Hamlet Residential District VHRD
60% of Lot
Varna Hamlet Traditional District HTD
70% of Lot
Section 706: Area and Bulk Table
The following table includes the minimum requirements for a building lot. Unless otherwise
indicated this table does not indicate the number of lots that can be created from a parcel.
VHMUD, VHRD and VHTD
Minimum front yard setback
10 feet
Minimum side yard setback
None or 7.5 feet if buildings are
not attached
I foot
Accessory Building with less than 15 feet Building Height
and 200 square feet or less
Minimum rear yard setback
25 feet
Accessory Building with less than 15 feet Building Height
1 foot
and 200 square feet or less
Minimum Lot Frontage
45 feet
A. Multi -family units in VHRD are limited to covering no more than 40% of the acreage remaining
after removing the open space land from consideration.
B. A conservation zone buffer shall be established of a 100 ft buffer from the normal high-water
bank of Fall Creek in which no landscape alteration or construction shall occur. The width of this
buffer shall be extended to include the current FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency)
Zoning Local Law
designated 100-year flood plain. The importance of a buffer to protect Fall Creek is described in
the Dryden Natural Resource Plan, and the Dryden Open Space Inventory, along with the
importance of protecting the Designated Scenic Recreation River section of Fall Creek which
begins a short distance downstream. Buffers shall be considered to be established for other
environmentally sensitive areas within the hamlet districts.
Section 707: Green Neighborhood Development
In addition to the density permitted in the Varna Density Table in Section 704 a density bonus may
be awarded if a Neighborhood Development Proposal achieves at least basic LEED certification
according to the most current LEED Neighborhood Development (LEED ND) and LEED Building
Design and Construction (LEED BD&C) Protocols. The board shall have the discretion to excuse
non-compliance with LEED prerequisites which cannot be reasonably attained within the Town of
Dryden.
Section 708: Planned Unit Development
A Planned Unit Development (PUD) shall be developed in accordance with the provisions in
Article X."
SECTION 3. Article IX, Section 909(B) is hereby amended to correct a reference to the no -longer
existing "H" (Hamlet) District in Varna and replace it with references to the Varna Districts,
namely, VHMUD, VHRD and VHTD, so that Section 909(B) now reads as follows:
"Section 909: Landscaped Buffer Requirements for Multi -Family and Non -Residential Uses,
B. Multi -Family or non-residential uses abutting or directly across a Highway from any residential
property in a CV, VHMUD, VHRD, VHTD, NR, RA, RR or TNDO District, shall have a Buffer
Strip along or facing any common property lines. Such Buffer Strip shall comply with the
following minimum standards:.
1. It shall be a planting of such type, height, spacing and arrangement as, in the judgment of the
Board, will effectively screen the activity on the Lot from the neighboring residential area. In the
case of industrial uses, plantings shall be at least six (6) feet high at planting and at least 12 feet
high at maturity.
2. It shall be at least 20 feet in width, except in conjunction with industrial uses, in which case the
buffer strip shall be at least 30 feet in width.
3. No site improvements, including parking areas, shall be allowed within 15 feet of the inside
edge of any buffer strip.
4. A wall or fence of location, height, design and materials approved by the Board may be
substituted for part or all of the required planting and buffer area.
5. Where the existing topography and/or landscaping provide adequate screening, the board may
waive or modify the planting and/or buffer area requirements".
Zoning Local Law
SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY. If any part or provision of this Local Law or the application
thereof to any person or circumstance be adjudged invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction,
such judgment shall be confined in its operation to the part or provision or application directly
involved in the controversy in which such judgment shall have been rendered and shall not affect
or impair the validity of the remainder of this Local Law or the application thereof to other persons
or circumstances. Any prior inconsistent Local Law is hereby repealed and superseded.
SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Local Law shall take effect immediately upon filing in
the office of the New York State Secretary of State in accordance with section 27 of the Municipal
Home Rule Law, provided that for any site plan application that is beyond the Sketch Plan stage,
the applicant will have the option to proceed under the version of this law that was in place
immediately prior to the enactment of this law as long as the applicant submits a complete site plan
application within 60 days from the effective date of this law.
10
Paulette Rosa
From: Nancy Malina <nancymalina64@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 5:36 PM
To: Paulette Rosa; Bill Goodman; Rich DePaolo; Pam Bleiwas; TeeAnn Hunter, Eric Levine; Pat
Leary; Nick Goldsmith; Rod Howe; Susan Ritter, Chris Balestra;
Brock@clarityconnect.com
Subject: PLEASE READ THIS LETTER
Letter from Health Professionals
to the Ithaca Town Board
We, the undersigned, are health professionals, who are deeply concerned about the potential health risks associated
with the 5G small -cell infrastructure to be deployed in the City of Ithaca.
The FCC has stated that the deployment of SG will require new small -cell antennas on every city block, directly in front
of homes and schools. 5G will dramatically increase our daily exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-
EMF) in addition to the 2G, 3G, 4G, Wi-Fi, etc. The SG antenna densification plan will lead to a significant increase
of involuntary exposure to wireless radiation everywhere.
Cell phones and wireless communications were never premarket safety tested for long-term exposure to humans when
they first came on the market decades ago. Now the harmful effects of non -ionizing electromagnetic exposure to
humans and the environment are proven. The scientists refer to the fact that "numerous recent scientific publications
have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines". Since
then, hundreds of doctors have signed onto new appeals specifically calling to halt 5G.
A large number of peer -reviewed scientific reports demonstrate harm to human health from EMFs. Effects include
increased cancer risk, increased cellular stress, increased harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and
functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, behavioral problems, neurological
disorders, and headaches. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to
trees, bees, plants, animals, and bacteria.
After the EMF scientists' appeal was initiated in 2015, additional research has associated serious adverse biological
effects of RF-EMF emissions from wireless technologies. The U.S. National Institutes of Health National Toxicology
Program (NTP) published its large-scale, $30 million animal study showing DNA damage and statistically significant
increases in the incidence of brain cancer and heart cancer in animals exposed daily to wireless radiation. These findings
support the results from human epidemiological studies finding associations between wireless radiation and brain tumor
risk.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the cancer agency of the World Health Organization (WHO), in
2011 concluded that EMFs at frequencies 30 KHz to 300 GHz are possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 26). However,
since that date, new studies, including the NTP study mentioned above and several epidemiological and experimental
investigations, have increased the evidence indicating that wireless RF-EMF is carcinogenic. In 2019, the IARC announced
plans to re-evaluate RF-EMF for carcinogenicity as soon as 2022.
The EUROPA EM-EMF Guideline 2016 states that "there is strong evidence that long-term exposure to certain EMFs is a
risk factor for diseases such as certain cancers, Alzheimer's disease, and male infertility.
As the U.S. Dept of the Interior stated, "the electromagnetic radiation standards used by the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) continue to be based on thermal heating, a criterion now nearly 30 years out of date and inapplicable
today." FCC guidelines only protect against heating effects (EPA 2002) and ignore the effects of pulse -modulated signals.
Scientists have repeatedly found adverse biological effects that are caused without heating at radiation levels far below
the limits in FCC guidelines. Replicated research finds memory damage, behavioral problems and tumor promotion from
"low" legally allowed levels of wireless RF-EMF.
There are no federally developed safety limits and there is no health and safety agency in the United States with
authority to review the research and ensure protections regarding the human health and environmental effects from
wireless antennas. Published reviews and studies on the new higher frequencies to be used in 5G call for caution and
warn of future impacts that will not only impact humans but also wildlife and especially bees. We are concerned about
the health and well-being of those who are most vulnerable: children, pregnant women, and persons sensitive to
electromagnetic fields and who have chronic health problems.
We join with the thousands of doctors and health care providers worldwide who have issued appeals for urgent action
on 5G to protect public health. The rapidly growing list includes the International EMF Scientist Appeal, Appeal to the
European Union, Belgium Doctors Appeal, Canadian Doctors, Cyprus Medical Association, Physicians of Turin, Italy, the
German Doctors Appeal, International Appeal to Stop 5G on Earth and Space and the International Society of Doctors for
the Environment.
We ask that the City of Ithaca Common Council take the conservative approach to safeguarding our community by
voting to suspend any further wireless antenna densification until potential hazards for human health and the
environment have been fully investigated by scientists independent from the wireless industry.
Health professionals' signatures:
Nancy Corwin Malina, MS, CNS, works in city of Ithaca
Elizabeth Dissin, LMHC, lives and works in city of Ithaca
Dawn Eller, ND, lives and works in city of Ithaca
Tim Foley, L.Ac., works in city of Ithaca
Coleen Foley, L.Ac., works in city of Ithaca
Erin Harner, MS, RDN, CHC, city of Ithaca resident
Jane Kennedy, MSA, L.Ac., works in city of Ithaca
Molly Kornblum, NP, city of Ithaca resident
Marilee Murphy, RN, L.Ac., works in city of Ithaca
Dr. Rebecca Von Bergen, DC, works in city of Ithaca
Dr. Ammitai Worob, DC, city of Ithaca resident
Laurie Cecere, Functional Medicine
Paula Fitzsimmons, PA
Dr. Melissa Walters, MS, OD
Nathan Walz, Health Coach
Please let us know that you have received this letter and thank you for your time and consideration.
Paulette Rosa
From: mai-ieaiidr-ew93@gi-naiI.coni
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 11:00 AM
To: Paulette Rosa; Bill Goodman; Rich DePaolo; Pam Bleiwas; TeeAnn Hunter, Eric Levine; Pat
Leary; Nick Goldsmith; Rod Howe; Susan Ritter; Chris Balestra;
brock@claritycoiiiiect.coni
Subject: From FCC COMMISSIONER Jessica Rosenworcel
Hello,
We are passing along an important piece of information about the FCC and 5G issue. What the following note conveys is
that even one of the FCC Commissioners foresaw the current outrage over federal overreach concerning 5G (she was
ultimately outvoted). This is part of what dozens of cities (including NYC) have sued the FCC about and will be
decided at Federal Circuit Court level next month.
Marie and Andrew Molnar
FCC COMMISSIONER JESSICA ROSENWORCEL (from the FCC website)
Re: Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment WTDocket
No. 17-79; Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, WC Docket
No. 17-84
"Instead of working with our state and local partners to speed the way to SG deployment, we cut them out. We tell them
that going forward Washington will make choices for them —about which fees are permissible and which are not, about
what aesthetic choices are viable and which are not, with complete disregard for the fact that these infrastructure
decisions do not work the same in New York, New York and New York, Iowa. So it comes down to this: three unelected
officials on this dais are telling state and local leaders all across the country what they can and cannot do in their
own backyards. This is extraordinary federal overreach. I do not believe the law permits Washington to run
future. For starters, the Tenth Amendment reserves powers to the states that are not expressly granted to the federal
government. In other words, the constitution sets up a system of dual sovereignty that informs all of our laws. To this end,
Section 253 balances the interests of state and local authorities with this agency's responsibility to expand the reach of
communications service, While Section 253(a) is concerned with state and local requirements that may prohibit or
effectively prohibit service, Section 253(d) permits preemption only on a case -by -case basis after notice and comment.
We do not do that here. Moreover, the assertion that fees above cost or local aesthetic requirements in a single
city are tantamount to a service prohibition elsewhere stretches the statute beyond what Congress intended and
legal precedent affords.
In addition, this decision irresponsibly interferes with existing agreements and ongoing deployment across the country.
There are thousands of cities and towns with agreements for infrastructure deployment —including 5G wireless
facilities —that were negotiated in good faith. So many of them could be torn apart by our actions here. If we want
to encourage investment, upending commitments made in binding contracts is a curious way to go.
This declaratory ruling has the power to undermine these agreements —and countless more just like them. In fact, too
many municipalities to count —from Omaha to Overland Park, Cincinnati to Chicago and Los Angeles to
Louisville —have called on the FCC to halt this federal invasion of local authority, The National Governors
Association and National Conference of State Legislatures have asked us to stop before doing this damage. This
sentiment is shared by the United States Conference of Mayors, National League of Cities, National Association
of Counties, and Government Finance Officers Association, In other words, every major state and municipal
process.
Yet cities and states are told to not worry because with these national policies wireless providers will save as much as $2
billion in costs which will spur deployment in rural areas. But comb through the text of this decision. You will not find a
rural areas. As Ronald Reagan famously said,"trust but verify." You can try to find it here, but there is no verification
That's because the hard economics of rural deployment do not change with this decision, Moreover, the asserted $2
billion in cost savings represents no more than 1 percent of investment needed for next -generation networks."
From: Lucille Pohv
Sent: Thursday, June as'zoxoa:aupm
To: Rod Howe
Subject: End police violence and mimaome public safety
Dear Supervisor Howe,
As a person of faith, I believe police violence and brutality against Black men and women Must end now,
particularly inlight vfthe tragic andsense|eoreccn/kiUinsofmeomeRoyd'ereonnaTuvur,andsu
many others. Police violence and systemic racial injustice is tied to America's original sin — racism —
and white suprernacy's abhorrent legacy. The time for bold reforms to ensure equal justice under the
law extends »oeveryone isnow.
uuYour constituent and aperson offaith, |amasking you oodoaway with policies that lead mthe
unequal treatment of — and violence against — Black people, Indigenous people, and other people of
color, and adopt reforms drawn onmevidence-based recommendations inthe Task Force on 21st
lqaj&oand more.
robegin this change, wecall onmayors and local police precincts to:
~ Reinvest city budgets to expand restorative justice programs, provide alternatives to
incarceration, demilitarize the police, provide crisis intervention and de-escalation training, and
invest funds i^education, housing, and mental health services.
, Require officers »nde-escalate situations when possible, estaWishau,c'vf-foueconunuummat
restricts the most severe types of force, and report each time they use force or threaten to use
force against civilians.
° Ban chvkehv|dsand neck restraints mall cases.
° Require officers togive averbal warning before shooting and ban shooting a/moving vehicles.
° Require officers mintervene and stop the use ufexcessive force bvother officers.
The time isnow u,finally fix this broken system, locally and nationally.
Sincerely,
Lucmeruley
105 Bella Vista Dr
Ithaca, w,1*nsosrrz
Paulette Rosa
From
Paulette Rosa
Sent:
Tuesday, June a0, 202011o*xM
To:
Bill Goodman TB; Eric Levine Esq. TB; pame|ae|eiwa^;pu7@comeoedu;
rd@hchdepao|o.mm;Rod Howe (rhowe@mw^dhpca,nyvs); Tee'AnnHume/
Cc:
Marty Moseley; Susan Ritter
Subject:
nmRecommend Code Change
Please see below as TB Correspondence
Marty has sent mSue already, but |have cc'dthem mcase nfreply(s)
Address iszmTexas Lane uminthe Northeast
Paulette,
Please see the below email Suggesting code changes to our local stream setback section of the Zoning Code (270-219.5. 1
believe that this individual i,specifically referring msection z7*u19ss1s>�
From: Brandon Fomsberry
Sent: Monday, June 29,zozng:asAM
To: Lori xofoid
Subject: Recommend Code Change
Hello Marty,
Thank you for speaking wuxvrineo nbmthestre msetbackbw |amwriting myou mrequest consideration ofa
change in the code for the Town of Ithaca as it pertains to streams in residential neighborhoods.
I would like for the Town to consider adapting this law when it adversely impacts homeowners who have a stream on
their property, and specifically when the setback law impacts such a significant percentage of their property. In the case
of the stream on my property, the setback law ultimately impacts approximately 50% of my lot and Over 80% of my
backyard property.
uwould bemv^emrnme,matmnmsignificantly educrtheoIoyuackrenvi,ememsu,oIfo,homeuwneod`at the
sureamsetback impacts greater than as%oftheir property, and reduced s'if the aforemcnnvncdz0'setback would still
result in still impacting greater than 25% of their property.
maddition *, the setback mnpacnnsanuomumgxmmeommeoam|xvmueaulemvu|uemepmpenvamunutxe
stream, I have also experienced adverse impact to rny property as a result of strearn overflow. The stream setback limits
ahomeowners ability u,correct stream depth mprevent overflow into their property. Speaking from mvexperience,
the stream significantly overflows into my yard during rain storms (evidence was presented to the Town of Ithaca via
video sent bvr-mai0
It Would be my recommendation that one of the following options be included in the code for when a homeowner can
provide documented evidence of adverse impact on their property as a result of stream overflow
" Allow homeowner »odopreventative maintenance ofstream depth and bank
° Require Public works to respond to do preventative maintenance of stream depth and bank
Thank you in advance for your time and consideration of the proposed changes to the Stream Setback law as it pertains
to residential neighborhoods in which streams are part of their property.
Sincerely,
Brandon Fortenberry
(607) 327-0193 mobile
TOWN OF ITHACA
215 NORTH TIOGA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850
www.town.ithaca.Irly.us
CORRESPONDENCE LISTING
July 27, 2020
Please review the following correspondence and indicate, by placing your initials in the right-hand column
adjacent to the correspondence that you wish to receive a copy. We can forward a copy to you via e-mail or
make a hard copy. Please indicate your preference next to your name at the bottom of this form.
Correspondence — Item
1. Application & Approval for on Premise Liquor License -Serendipity Backlot
2. Letter from Resident re: Ithaca Gorges misuse
3. Letter from Residents re: 5G
4. Letter from Resident re: Request for Speed Bumps on Kendall Ave
1. Request for continued funding by the Tompkins County Public Library
1. Proposed Zoning Amendment -Town of Ulysses
2.
Please place your
initials here if you wish
to receive a copy
OF I'D 4 *1 0
TOWN OF ITHACA
215 N Tioga St, Ithaca, NY 14850
Ph: 607-273-1721 m A7w\v.towfi,itliaC.,,t,1,1,)L,IS.
o
Y y
0 Rod Howe, Town Supervisor Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk
July 28, 2020
New York State Liquor Authority
Division of Alcohol Beverage Control
535 Washington Street
Buffalo, NY 14203
Re: Temporary permits — over lour (4)
Dear Sir/Madam:
At its meeting on Monday, July 27, 2020, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca, New York,
waived the 30 clay waiting period for a liquor license for Serendipity's Backlot (Backlot) located
at 950 Danby Rd., South Lawn, Ithaca, NY' 14850.
The Board also discussed the fact that Backlot has applied for temporary permits for the Friday
and Saturday dates in August 2020 and they are in full Support of the issuance of additional
temporary licenses above the usual four permits per calendar year per location usually allowed.
Should you have any questions or need anything further from the municipality, please feel free to
contact me.
cc. Serendipity Backlot
.. .................... .. Robert Heil ill f0 @,� SlaSOIL11 ion X0111
. . ..................
TOWN OF ITHACA
21.5 N Tioga St, Ithaca, NY 14850%v Ph: 607-273-1721 m www,(()n.ith,,tct,iiy.AIs
0 Rod Howe, Town Supervisor - Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk
OF 'D 0
July 28, 2020
.New York State Liquor Authority
Division of Alcohol Beverage Control
535 Washington Street
Buffalo, NY 14203
Re: Thirty (30) Day Notification Waiver
Deal- Sir/Madam:
The Town of Ithaca, New York has been notified and a request made, by Serendipity's Backlot
located at 950 Danby Rd., South Lawn, Ithaca, NY 14850 of its intention to file all application
for an on premise license to sell liquor, beer, wine and cider at retail, in a seasonal tavern under
the Alcoholic Beverage Control law and to waive the 30-day Municipality Notification.
The Town Board of the Town of Ithaca, New York discussed the request at its July 27"' meeting
and has no objection to the application, and hereby waives the 30-day notification requirement.
Sincer
Rosa
Town Clerk
Town of Ithaca
cc. Serendipity Backlot ste)lianie(r scre qi ) tye, zta.t i L) i z
Robert Heil info( ShISOILItion.0011-1
7
611111-111ATL6141 LIN Kyj N 00 L610 1.101110111
HAMBURG, NY 14075
716-512-5018 info@slasolutions.com www.slasolutions.com
REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF THE 30 OAY MUNICIPALITY NOTIFICATION
Date: 07/13/2020
To the Municipality of: TOWN OF ITHACA
Please be advised that a waiver of the 30 day notification is being requested by SERENDIPITY CATERING,
LLC, dba SERENDIPITY'S BACKLOT located at 950 DANBY RD., SOUTH LAWN, ITHACA, NY 14850 is
applying for an ON PREMISE LIQUOR LICENSE serving LIQUOR, WINE, BEEP., & CIDER in a SEASONAL
TAVERN. This request is made to expedite the licensing process,
Thank You,
Robert Heil
If such waiver is granted, please write a letter to that effect, signed by an Official, on OFFICIAL municipality
stationary and either fox, e-mail or forward it to:
Robert Heil, Liquor License Consultant
5008 Mount Vernon Blvd,
Hamburg, NY 14075
FAX : 866-910-5025 E-MAIL ; info@slasolutions.com
opla-fev03292018
QFFICE USE ONLY
Original Amended Date
49
Standardized NOTICE FORM for Providing 30-Day Advance Notice
to a Local Municipality or Community Board
1, Date Notice was Sent: 107/13/2020 1a, Delivered by: lCertified Mail Return Receipt Requested
2, Select the type of Application that will be filed with the Authority for, an On -Premises Alcoholic Beverage License:
E) New Application 0 Renewal 0 Alteration 0 Corporate Change 0 Removal 0 Class Change 0 Method of Operation Change
For New applicants, answer each question below rising all information known to date
For Renewal applicants, answer all questions
For Alteration applicants, attach a complete written description and diagrarns depicting the proposed alteration($)
For Corporate Change applicants, attach a list Of the current and proposed corporate Principals
For Removal applicants, attach a statement of your Current and proposed addresses with the reason(s) for the relocation
For Class Change applicants, attach a statement detailing your current license type and your proposed license type
For Method of Operation Change applicants, although not required, if you choose to submit, attach in explanation detailing those changes
This 30-Day Advance Notice is Being Provided to the Clerk of the Following Local Municipality or Community Board:
3. Name Of Municipality or, Community Board: ITOWN OF ITHACA 7771
Applicant/Licensee Information:
4. Licensee Serial Number (if applicable): Expiration Date (if applicable): IV
5,Applicant orLicensee Name: ISERENDIPITY CATERING LLC
6.Trade Name (if any); ISERENDIPITY'SBACKLOT
7. Street Address of Establishment: 1950 DANBY RD., SOUTI-I LAWN
8. City, Town or Village: I ITHACA NY zip Code: 114850
9. Business Telephone Number of Applicant/Licensee: (607) 273-2145
IO.Business E-rTi,ii[ofApplic,itit/t.icetisee: Fstephan ie@se, e rid ipitycatering. biz
11, Type(s) of alcohol sold or to be sold: 0 Beer & Cider 0 Wine, Beer & Cider (1) Liquor, Wine, Beer & Cider
12. Extent of Food Service:
0 Full food menu; full kitchen run by a chef or cook (D Menu meets legal ruioinu.un food availability requirements; food prep area it rninimUrn
11 Type of Establishment: I Bar/Tavern
14. Method of Operation: ❑ Seasonal Establishment [:] Joke Box [] Disc Jockey M Recorded Music D Karaoke
(check all that apply) ❑ Live Music (give details i.e., rock hands, acoustic, jazz, etc,): IM IXED
Patron Dancing 0 Employee Dancing [—] Exotic Dancing [:] Topless Entertainment
❑ Video/Arcade Games ❑ Third Party Promoters M Security Personnel
Other (specify):
15. Licensed Outdoor Area: E] None. [] Patio or Deck [:] Rooftop E] Garden/Grounds M Freestanding Covered Structure
(check all that apply)
El Sidewalk Cafe E] Other (specify): ISTORAGE
Page 2 of 24
opla.rev03292018
OFFICE USE ONLY
Q Original Q Amended Date
49
16. List the Roor(sl of the building that the establishment is located on: 11 ST
17. List the room numbers) the establishment is located in within the building if appropriate: 1-bar,dinin ,food prep,restroOm,office,
19, Is the premises located within 500 feet of three or more on•prenttses liquor establishments? O Yes Q No
19. Will the license holder or a manager be physically present within the establishment during all hours of operation? C)Yes 0 No
20. If this is a transfer application (an existing licensed businessis being purchaseu) provide the name and serial number of the licensee:
N/A
Name Serial Number
21. Does the applicant or licensee own the bundmg in which the establishment is located? 0 yes lif YES, SKIP 23-261 Q No
Owner of the Building in Which the Licensed Establishment is Located
22. Building Owner's Full Name: ISOUTH HILL BUSINESS CAMPUS
23.Building Owner's Street Address: 1950 DANBY RD., SUITE 104
24. City, Town or Village: 11THACA state: NY Zip Cade: 14850
25. Business Telephone Number of Building Dwner: 607 256-2025
Representative or Attorney Representing the Applicant in Connection with the
Application for a License to Traffic In Alcohol at the Establishment identified in this Notice
26.Representative/Attorney'sFull Name: I ROBERTHEIL
27.Representative/Attorneys street Address: 5008 MOUNT VERNON BLVD
28.City, TownorVillage: JHAMBURG state: INY 2ipCode: 14075
29. Business Telephone Number of Represenlative/Atturney: 716) 512-5018
30. Business Email Addressof Representativo/Attorney: linfo@slasolutions.com
I am the applicant or licensee holder or a principal of the legal entity that holds or is applying for the license.
Representations in this form are in conformity with representations made In submitted documents relied upon by
the Authority when granting the license. I understand that representations made in this form will also be relied
upon, and that false representations may result in disapproval of the application or revocation of the license.
By my signature, I affirm - under Penalty of Perjury - that the representations made in this form are true.
31. Printed Principal Name: STEPHANIE HOLZBAUR Title: LLC MEMBER
Principal Signature: -71,3 x
iiiiii
Page 3 of 24
Paulette Rosa
From: Anita Bellucci weiss <abellucci@twcny.rr.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 12:56 PM
To: Paulette Rosa
Subject: Ithaca Gorges
Ithaca Gorges are not gorgeous anymore. They are being trashed. I live on Slaterville Rd. I often take my grandkids
hiking behind our house into the woods to hike and to look at the falls at 30 foot dam.
Over the years young people have gone there to swim, etc. However, this year things are out of control. Young people,
many of them under age, go there to swim, drink and leave trash. The gorge is full of beer cans, bottles, underwear,
blankets, towels, etc.
A few weeks ago, my grandkids and I went down there to hang up a poster they made. It said, "This is our park
too. Please pick up after yourselves." They added save the earth pictures, etc. We brought trash bags to pick up trash.
The next week we went down again. There was trash everywhere; too much to pick up. The sign had been spray
painted. My grandkids would not go any further. They were freaked out. I will not be taking them there anymore.
I cannot believe there isn't something that can be done to keep our gorges clean and free of underage partiers who
want to get drunk and take over the area. Please let me know how I can help to facilitate this endeavor.
Thank you,
Citizen of Ithaca,
Anita Bellucci Weiss
1411 Slaterville rd.
Phone: 607/277-377
Paulette Rosa
From: marieandrew93@gmail.com
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2020 4:42 PM
To: Paulette Rosa; Bill Goodman; Rich DePaolo; Pam Bleiwas; TeeAnn Hunter; Eric Levine; Pat
Leary; Nick Goldsmith; Rod Howe; Susan Ritter; Chris Balestra;
brock@clarityconnect.com
Subject: Retaining local control, and other key takeaways from the "5G" forum
Hello,
This week's "5G" legislator forum reiterated some vital information about the installation of
4G/5G/small cell antennas, including:
• Perhaps most importantly, Attorney Andrew Campanelli reaffirmed that the
Telecommunications Act gave local governments the control over these facilities, not
the FCC, as long as there is no gap in cell service coverage. (minutes 45-51) He states
that "most of the [telecom] applicants wouldn't be able to show that these facilities are actually
necessary to provide personal wireless services". The companies have to "prove that they
suffer from a significant gap in personal wireless service", but as he notes "they can't
meet that test for the 5G rollout". Thus, "local governments have the power to stop
this."
• The FCC radiation guidelines have not been updated in the 24 years since the
Telecommunications Act was passed, and there is an open question about whether or not that
level is a safe one (it is one of the highest in the world). (minute 68)
• The FCC does not test wireless facilities - no one does, nor are the radiation limits
enforced. (minute 69)
• 4G/5G/small cell deployment is widely known as unnecessary and "redundant infrastructure,
one of the three main goals that Smart Planning tries to prevent." (minute 78)
• The multiple antennas inherent to small cell deployment will, in total, "easily exceed the
FCC limits". In fact, "for the vast majority of the 5G rollout the FCC has no idea where
these facilities are and no idea what level of radiation they're exposing members of the
general public to." (minutes 80-82)
• The risk of litigation against any municipality who resist the FCC/telecoms is "extremely
limited", a "hollow threat". (minute 71) In fact, no telecom company has won damages
from any city. (minute 88)
• The evidence is mounting of the adverse health impacts of cell radiation. Andrew
Campanelli himself knows this "because I receive twenty to thirty phone calls every day with
people providing me with evidence of adverse health impacts." (minute 95)
• 4G/5G/small cell deployment would not provide broadband home internet, especially because
it won't go through walls. (minute 55)
• 4G/5G/small cell deployment would increase Ithaca's carbon footprint. (minute 68)
We urge you to retake control and power in this issue, follow the example of countless places in the
US and around the world, and stop the installation of 4G/5G/small cells in Ithaca.
Marie and Andrew Molnar
07/17/2020
To Whom It May Concern:
My name is Jerame Hawkins. I live and own my home located at 126 Kendall Ave, Ithaca NY 14850. 1
have lived at this location over 10 years. The reason I am writing is to request much needed "SPEED
BUMPS" on Kendall Ave, Ithaca NY 14850. And or change the speed limit. As you know the majority of
resident on Kendall Ave are College students. But we have several residential homes on Kendall Ave. In
which me and my neighbors consider Kendall Ave to be our neighborhood/community. I have major
concerns with the traffic on Kendall Ave. Since I have lived on Kendall Ave. The safety concerns for my
children and my neighbor children has increased dramatically. Due to the unsafe traffic and driving
practices on Kendall Ave. The College student "SPEED" up and down the street, daily. I observe daily
college students being distracted while driving, due to them being on their cell phones. They race their
cars side by side up in down the street and have no respect for the speed limit. I have seen student
speeding excessively and have experienced them passing my car at excessive speed while I was driving
the speed limit. Since I have lived on Kendall, I have witness multi accident, one which resulted in death
right in front of my home on Kendall Ave. I have witness multiply student running into deer on the
street. Student race their motor bike and scooter up in down the street. I have seen my neighbor's car
get totaled as he pulled out his driveway on Kendall Ave. I have small children that play on our street, in
our community. My neighbors have small children and grandchildren that play in front on their home
and walk the street. Kendall Ave has become very unsafe due to the traffic concerns. As a resident we
have the right to feel safe in our home and community. The unsafe traffic on Kendall Ave, has put our
youth and families in jeopardy of being hurt. I eagerly request that you investigate this matter and
please consider speed bumps on Kendall Ave. We hope that you honor our request. We are taxpayers
that are trying to build stronger and safer community.
Please please feel free to contact me to talk about this concern.
I look forward to a favorable
Sincerely.
Jerame Hawkins, Resident 126 Kendall Ave.
Contact:
Jerame Hawkins, 126 Kendall Ave, Ithaca NY 14850
607-220-8643:::::: 1hawkins@ya pinc.or�
July 16, 2020
Rod Howe
Town Supervisor
215 N. Tioga Stre0l
Ithaca, NY 14850
Closing on March 13, 2020 due to the Covid-19 pandemic, left the library
unable to offer the community Town -supported Sunday hours. Safe
reopening procedures and the challenging financial impact the library is facing
make Sunday hours an impossibility for the near future.
Therefore, we reallocated that funding for additional book drops which are
essential for quarantining materials as required by our Library System and
based on American Library Association recommendations. These book drops
also make possible a partnership with the Ithaca City School District for
textbook return. Students were unable to return textbooks, laptops,
calculators, and more, to the schools due to those closures.
We are grateful for the Town's support and happy to be part of a community
that comes together in crisis.
As we look forward to renewing services, we would like to request the same
level funding support that we received in 2020 - $15,000 to help meet the
needs of our library community.
Thank you for your understanding and ongoing support.
Sincerely,
Annette Birdsall, Director
101 East Green Street, Ithaca, New York 14850-.5613 * Phone 607 272 4557 0 Fax 607 272 8111 0 WWWJ"CPL,ORG
TOWN OF ULYSSES
10 Elm Street, Trumansburg, NY 1480 OVA
ulyssesmy.us
Town Supervisor (607387-5767, E 'x3superviso@Ussil
Town Clerk (607) 387)-5767, Ext 221t 22 r
clerk@ulysses.nyymsmy �- '(
1. Town of Ulysses Planning Board
2. Town of Ulysses Board of Zoning Appeals
3. Town of Ulysses Building & Code
Inspector
4. Tompkins County Planning Dept.
5. Clerk of the Tompkins County Legislature
6. Seneca County
7. Schuyler County
8. Town of Covert
9. Town of Hector
10. Town of Enfield
11. Town of Lansing
12. Town of Ithaca
13. Village of Trumansburg
14. NYS Commissioner of Environmental
Conservation
15. NYS Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic
Preservation
16. NYS Commissioner of Ag & Markets
RE: NOTICE OF PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENT TO BE ADOPTED BY THE TOWN BOARD OF THE
TOWN OF ULYSSES
Ifelfty M0*1kT111§` 1�9"
This serves as notice pursuant to Section 264 of New York Town Law of the proposed adoption of a
Zoning Law Amendment by the Town of Ulysses. The purpose of the amendment is to define and
adjust footprint limits and to add environmental protections for buildings in the Town's Lakeshore
and Conservation zones. In connection with the said proposed enactment please find enclosed by
way of service, the following:
1. Certified copies of two resolutions: Declaration of Town of Ulysses as Lead Agency and
Setting a Public Hearing on the proposed Local Law
2. Notice of Public Hearing on the proposed Local Law
3. A copy of the proposed Local Law and a copy highlights proposed changes are also available
on our website at Ulysses.ny.us
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Carissa Parlato
Ulysses Town Clerk
�cLe�rkul �sses.�n.us
(607)387-5767 ext. 2
TOWN OF ULYSSES
10 t:'Ilm Street, `FrUiiiansburg, NY 14886
ulysses. yl us
T,)%vsr Sup rvisor (607) 387-5767, I'm 232 ulrcrvisr„�rVu eely a5c^s.i�y.w�
Town Clerk (607) 357-5767, Exk. 221 de°rk(i}),ulysses.ny.ws
RESOLUTIONDECLARATION OF THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF ULYSSES AS LEAD AGENCT Ift CONRY—r-Z M-%-
WITH PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENTS REGARDING THE LAKESHORE AND CONSERVATION ZONES
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Ulysses ("Town Board") is in the process of reviewing zoning
amendments regarding the Lakeshore and Conservation Zones, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (the "SEQRA") and the regulations
adopted pursuant thereto by the Department of Environmental Conservation of the State of New York, being 6
NYCRR Part 617, as amended (the "Regulations"), all discretionary actions by the Town are subject to environmental
review in accordance with SEQRA, and
WHEREAS, 6 NYCRR Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and its regulations require that
a Lead Agency be established for conducting environmental review of all discretionary actions in accordance with
local and state environmental law; and
WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to comply with the SEAR Act and its Regulations with respect to the proposed
zoning amendments, and
WHEREAS, SEQRA and its accompanying regulations specifies that for actions governed by local environmental
review, the Lead Agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and carrying out
the action; and
WHEREAS, the adoption of these zoning amendments is legislative action,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF ULYSSES, NEW YORK that as the local
agency with primary responsibility for approving the legislative action, it hereby declares itself Lead Agency for
purposes of conducting the environmental review required by SEQRA and its accompanying regulations in 6 NYCRR
Part 617, as amended (the "Regulations").
Vote: 5-0
Date Adopted:6/23/2020
CLERK'S CERTIFICATION:
STATE OF NEW YORK}
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS} SS:
TOWN OF ULYSSES:
1, the undersigned Clerk of the Town of Ulysses, County of Tompkins, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the
above resolution is an exact copy of the same adopted by the Ulysses Town Board at a meeting on the 14th
day of July, 2020.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and offixed the seal of the Town of Ulysses,
New York, on this 20`h day of July, 2020.
Corisso Porloto, Ulysses Pawn Clerk
{SEAL}
7r ��l� ����
���vv�� ��� v���������v
10PdrDStreet,.[rnzDxOSbVqy, N^/[4886
uky"sscSAuMoa
To%vn uau32
RESOLUTION 2020-144:
WHEREAS, Resolution # 2020-138 was tabled on June 23, 2020 to allow time for the Town Board to develop a
definition of "building footprint" and to adjust allowable housing provisions of the existing Lakeshore and
Conservation zones 10conform with other zones inthe Town and
WHEREAS, those proposed changes have been incorporated into the revised Zoning Amendment #1of2O20,now
therefore be it
RESOLVED that Resolution #2020-138 be removed from the table and replaced by the following:
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Ulysses (Town Board) enacted Local Law No. 3of2O19onDecember lO
2019, which law was filed with the New York State Secretary of State on December 16, 2019, which local law
repealed in its entirety the Town ofUlysses Zoning Law adopted bvLocal Law No. 3of2O13,amended from time bz
tirne, and codified as Chapter 212 of the Laws of theTown of Ulysses, and in its place adopted a new zoning law, and
WHEREAS, when adopting the Zoning Law on December 1.0, 2019 by Resolution 2019-211 several members of the
TovvnBVardvvantedtore+visi1the|avvin2O2ObasedonfeedbackfnzmthePub|icHeahnghe|dNovennberI8,2DI9
and
WHEREAS, the Town Board wished to consider alternative strategies that balance our environmental stewardship
responsibilities with the property rights oflandowners when protecting steep slopes and Unique Natural Areas in
the Lakeshore and Conservation zone rather than a zone -wide limit of 2000sq ft footprint and
WHEREAS, the UlyssesTown Planning Board reconsidered relevant sections of the law related to the lot limits and
site plan review requirements of the Lakeshore and Conservation Zones and transmitted their recommendations
including proposed changes to the current zoning along with their rationale to the Town Board on April 28, 2020
through Planning Board Resolution Numbers 1ofZO2Oand Zof2OZO,and
WHEREAS, the Ulysses Town Board accepted the Planning Board recornmenclations and held a Public Information
Session for all interested residents on Tuesday, June 16, 2020 to explain the proposal and invite questions and
comments and received written and verbal comments before and after the session and,
WHEREAS, the Ulysses Town Board has discussed the COrnments received from residents in Support of and opposed
tothe proposed Local Law #1of2O2DAMENDING TOWN OFULYSSES ZONING LAW REGARDING LAKESHOREAND
CONSERVATION ZONES introduced on May 26, 2020, and
WHEREAS, Municipal Home Rule Law §20(5) requires that a public hearing be held before a local law is adopted by
the Town Board, which public hearing must be held upon the publication of at least ten days' notice in the Town's
official newspaper; and
WHEREAS, Town Law §264(4) also requires that a public hearing be field prior to adopting (or amending) zoning
regulations, arid
WHEREAS, Town Law §265(2) requires that amendments made to any zoning law (excluding any rnap incorporated
therein) shall beentered in the minutes of the town board; Such rninUtes shall describe and refer, to any map
adopted in connection with such change, amendment or supplement and a copy, summary or abstract thereof
(exclusive of any map incorporated therein) shall be published once in a newspaper published in the town, if any, or
in such newspaper published in the county in which such town may be located having a circulation in such town, as
the town board may designate, and affidavits of the publication thereof shall be filed with the town clerk, and
WHEREAS, due to the Corona Virus/COVID-19 pandemic, the Governor of the State of New York has authorized
municipalities to conduct certain public hearings and meetings by virtual means in order to ensure the public health
and safety,
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the attached draft local law, the full text of which the Town Clerk is hereby
directed to reproduce in the minutes hereof, is adopted as the draft upon which a public hearing shall be held to
consider whether or not to adopt the proposed amendments, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby schedules a public hearing for August 11 at 6:30 PM. The details for
accessing the public hearing shall be published on the Town's website. The purpose of the public hearing is for all
persons wishing to comment in favor or against the proposed zoning amendments to have an opportunity to
provide their comments thereon, and be it further
RESOLVED, that in addition to participation in the public hearing, all members of the public wishing to submit
written comments on the proposed local law may do so in writing addressed to the Town Clerk at 10 Elm Street,
Trumansburg, NY 14886 or by email to clerk@ulysses.ny.us, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk is directed to publish notice of said hearing in the Ithaca Journal as required by law,
to mail notices to all persons and agencies entitled to notice, to file in the office of the Town Clerk affidavits of
publication, and the Town Board authorizes payment of expenses associated with said publications and mailings,
and be it further
RESOLVED, that a copy of the proposed Zoning Law and a copy of this Resolution shall be sent by the Town Clerk of
the Town of Ulysses to all persons entitled to notice pursuant to NY Town Law §264 and NY General Municipal Law
§239-m including to wit,
1. The Ulysses Planning Board,
2. The Ulysses Zoning Board of Appeals,
3. Building and Code Inspector of the Town of Ulysses,
4. Tompkins County Department of Planning,
5. Clerk of the Tompkins County Legislature,
6. Seneca County
7. Schuyler County
8. Town of Covert
9. Town of Hector
10. Town of Enfield
11. Town of Lansing
12. Town of Ithaca
13. Village of Trumansburg
14. New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation
15. New York State Commissioner of Environmental Conservation
16. New York State Commissioner of Ag & Markets
Vote: 5-0
Date Adopted: 7/14/2020
CLERK'S CERTIFICATION:
STATE OF NEW YORK}
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS} SS:
TOWN OF ULYSSES:
I, the undersigned Clerk of the Town of Ulysses, County of Tompkins, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the
above resolution is an exact copy of the same adopted by the Ulysses Town Board at a meeting on the 14th
day of July, 2020.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set maMqA14AD
1 of the Town of Ulysses,
y and and
New York, on this 20th day of July, 2020.
Carissa Parlato, Ulysses Town Clerk
(SEAL)
TOWN OF ULYSSES
10 I�Jrn Street,'frurnansburg, NY 14886
ulyssmny.us
1'own Supcn,isor (607) 387-5767, 1:xt 232
Town ( lerk (607) 387-5767, Ext 221 cicrk(�Vuly«es.n mq
y
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
of 2020: AMENDING TOWN OF ULYSSES ZONING LAW
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Town Board of the Town of Ulysses will hold a Public Hearing
for a Local Law # AMENDING TOWN OF ULYSSES ZONING LAW REGARDING LAKESHORE
AND CONSERVATION ZONES, at 6:30pm on Tuesday, ugustll.
Details for accessing the public hearing shall be published on the Town's website at
Ulysses.ny.us.
The purpose of the public hearing is for all persons wishing to comment in favor or against
the proposed zoning amendments to have an opportunity to provide their comments
thereon.
In addition to participation in the public hearing, all members of the public wishing to
submit written comments on the proposed local law may do so in writing addressed to the
Town Clerk at 10 Elm Street, Trumansburg, NY 14886 or by email to clerk@ulysses.ny.us.
To review the full text of the proposed Local Law, please visit www.ulyssesny.us or contact
the Town Clerk's office at clerl(@ulysses.ny.us or (607)387-5767 ext. 2.
BY ORDER OF THE TOWN BOARD
Carissa Parlato
Ulysses Town Clerk
7/16/2020
LOCAL LAW No. of202O
A LOCAL LAW AMENDING TOWN OF ULYSSES ZONING LAW REGARDING
LAKESHORE, AND CONSERVATION ZONES.
SECTION LLEGILSATIVE HISTORY AND PURPOSE.
The Town Board or the Town oil' Ulysses (Town Board) enacted Local Law No. 3 of 2019 on
December 10, 2019, which law was filed with the New York State Secretary of State oil
December 16, 2019. Local Law No. 3 of 2019 repealed in its entirety the Town of' Ulysses
Zoning Law adopted by Local Law No. 3 of'2013, amended from time to time, and codified as
Chapter 212 of the Laws of"the"rown of" Ulysses, and in its place adopted a new zoning law.
Tile Town Board now seeks to further refine the Ulysses Zoning Law by revising the niaxinlUln
foot print or buildings in the Lake Shore Zone (LS) and Conservation Zone (CZ), as well as to
refine building standards in these zones to protect the impact of development oil the steep slopes
and natural resources according to the goals set in the Ulysses Comprehensive Plan of 2009.
SECTION 2. AUTRO.RITY. This Local Law is enacted Pursuant to the statutory authority
conferred oil the J'own of Ulysses by Municipal I-10rue R111C Law Section 10, and New York
Town Law Section 264.
SECTION 3. Chapter 212 of the Codified Laws of the Town of Ulysses is hereby amended as
follows: Article Vill
WINEWME-MITOMRS "M
§ 212-42 I"urpose.
A. The purposes of the Lakeshore Zone are:
(1) To protect the fragile environment of the lakeshore, that area east of State Route
89 to the center line of Cayuga Lake, in accordance with the Town of Ulysses
Comprehensive Plan (2009);
(2) To provide a regulatory framework through which development can occur with
minimal environmental impact; and
(3) To develop design standards for houses and accessory buildings that create a
harmonious effect for the natural environment and the residents.
B. In particular, the following are important aspects or considerations for the Lakeshore
(1) Among the important natural and ecological features of the Lakeshore Zone are
steep slopes, mature forests, fragile cliffs tributaries, and seasonal streams
feeding into Cayuga Lake.
(z) mrecognition o[their natural and ecological significance, several areas nfthe
Lakeshore Zone have been designated asunique natural areas bythe Tompkins
County Environmental Management Council.
EU The Town has designated aslope overlay area, which recognizes six soil types that
when disturbed anesignificandyemdiNeaodunstablebaednnthei,
characteristics and slope steepness (see Article IV, Terminology).
C. Nothing inthese regulations bintended tnrequire urpermit activities which
contravene any laws, rules, or regulations or permits of the United States or New York
State, or any agency thereof, nor are any of the provisions intended to supersede any
requirements for obtaining any permits vrapprovals required bythe United States or
New York State, orany agency thereof.
g210-43Permitted uses.
A. Only the following buildings o,uses are permitted in this district, and site plan approval,
pursuant tothe provisions ofArticle III, §azaagbrequired inunique natural area and
slope overlay areas:
CU Single-family residences and their accessory buildings.
(2) Two-family residences and their accessory buildings.
EV Any municipal orpublic utility purpose necessary outhe maintenance ofutility
services except that substations and similar structures shall besubject tothe same
setback requirements that apply tnresidences.
§azz-4«Permitted accessory uses.
A. The following are permitted accessory uses, which are customarily incidental tothe
permitted uses listed above in § 212-43:
(U Accessory buildings, asdefined inArticle mand subject toprovisions ofArticle xXx(
5azz'za7:Accessory Buildings.
(Z) Accessory Dwelling Unit, subject tnthe provisions ofArticle XX,y212-128.
(a) Elder Cottage, subject tothe provisions ofArticle Xx'5Z12'l]9.S.
(5) Temporary buildings, as defined in Article IV.
(6) Minor solar collection system subject to the provisions of Article XX, § 212-139.1.
[Added 11-24-2015 by L.L. No. 3-20151
B. Site plan approval, pursuant tothe provisions ofArticle III, § 212-1B,brequired inunique
natural areas and slope overlay areas for the permitted accessory uses listed in this
section.
C. Permitted accessory uses without site plan approval. Such uses as are customarily
incidental tothe permitted uses listed above inthis article, § 212-43.
(1) Signs asregulated under Article XX,§ 212-122
(2) Home occupations, where no more than one person residing off the premises is
§ 212-45Uses permitted bvsite plan approval.
The following uses are allowed upon approval of a site plan by the Planning Board and subject
tothe design standards set forth inrelevant sections ofArticle XX:
A. Adult care, family.
B. Farm Operation.
C. Bed -a nd- breakfast operations where such is part of the residence.
D. Child care, family.
E. Professional offices where:
1) Such office is part of the residence property; and
2) No more than three persons residing off the premises are employed on site.
§ 212-46Uses allowed 6»special permit.
The following uses are allowed upon approval of a special permit pursuant to Article 111, § 212-
1O,subiecttnthedesignstandardssetforthinre|eventsectionsmfAriideXXandshep|an
review bythe Planning Board:
A. Fire stations or other public buildings necessary to the protection of or servicing of a
neighborhood.
B. Restaurants,
C. Public or nonprofit owned boat launching site, swimming beach, picnic area.
D. Public or nonprofit owned park or playground, including accessory buildings and
improvements.
§ 212-47 Lot area and yard requirements.
A. There shall be no more than one principal building on any lot in the LS-Lakeshore Zone.
B. Minimum lot area shall be two acres for lake front lots and five acres for non -lake front
lots.
C. Minimum lot width at the mean high-water elevation (MHWE) shall be 250 feet and
minimum lot width at the road frontage shall be 250 feet for all non -flag lots.
D. Minimum lot depth shall be 250 feet for lake front lots and 450 feet for non -lake front
lots.
E. Minimum setback, front and rear, shall be 50 feet from the highway right-of-way, and
50 feet where the lot abuts the lake; the MHWE shall be used for setback measurement.
Docks, boat hoists, and boat ramps are permitted within the setback area.
F. Minimum side yard setbacks shall be 15 feet, except for a corner lot fronting on two
public streets, where the minimum yard setback for the side yard to the street or road
shall be 25 feet.
G. Maximum building height for the principal dwelling shall be 32 feet above average grade
measured at the building perimeter.
H. Maximum lot coverage for all building footprints shall be 5% of the lot area. For lots
with a single-family or a two-family residence, lot coverage calculations do not include
driveways, walkways, or parking areas. The term "building footprint' is defined in Article
IV, §212-22.
I. Streams and wetlands are required to a have a protective setback as defined in § 212-
124.
J. No parking areas shall be constructed within 50 feet of the MHWE.
K. Flag lots shall meet minimum lake frontage (250 feet) and lot area (two acre)
requirements. Lot area excludes the pole. The pole shall connect to the road, not the
lake. Non-lakeshore flag lots shall meet minimum lot area (five acres) excluding the
pole. See Article XX, Design Standards, § 212-130.
L. The above notwithstanding, in the case of a lot with frontage on the lake, accessory uses
such as pump houses, docks, boat ramps and boat hoists typically associated with
water -oriented recreational pursuits are permitted within the front yard setback area
fronting on the lake; provided, however, that they are located outside of the required
side yard setback areas and conform to the regulations or permits of the United States
orNew York State.
M. For the purposes ofcluster development on a lake front lot, one dwelling unit will be
allowed per 15Ofeet oflake frontage.
N. K4axinnunn building footprint shall be 3,500 square feet, except for Accessory Dwelling
Units which shall have a rnaxirnunn floor area of1,2O0square feet pursuant toArticle XX,
§212-128.
Lot Area and Yard Requirements Summary
Requirement
Lake Front
Non -Lake Front
Lot coverage, maximum (percBnd
5
S
Building height, nnaxinnunn (feet)
32
32
Lot area, nnin|nounn (acres)
2
5
Maximum footprint ofprincipal
3,500
3,500
building
250
Not applicable
Lakeshore frontage, nninirnunn
(feet)
Lot width at road frontage,
250
250
rninirnunn (feet)
Lot depth, minimum /feet\
250
450
Setback from |akeshore,
50
Not applicable
noinirnunn, measured from
K4HVVE (feet)
Setback from road orrear
50
50
property line (feet)
Side yard setback, rninirnurn
15
15
(feet)
Structure orparking area orroad
50
50
setback from
Lot Area and Yard Requirements Summary
Requirement
perennial/intermittent stream,
minimum (not in unique natural
area or steep slope overlay (feet)
Structure or parking area or road
setback from any
perennial/intermittent streams,
or Federal wetland edge in
unique natural area and steep
slope overlay areas, minimum
(feet).
Structure or parking area or road
setback from any State wetland
edge.
Structure or parking area or road
setback from any Federally or
locally designated wetland edge.
Lake Front Non -Lake Front
75 75
100 100
50 — 100 (see §212-48 50-100 (see §212-48 below)
below)
§ 212-48 Design standards.
In the event of any conflict between the provisions of this § 212-48 and other provisions of this
chapter, the provisions of this section shall prevail.
A. Streams.
(1) Perennial and intermittent streams are, and wetlands may become, prominent
features of the Lakeshore Zone and the condition of these water bodies directly
affects the health of Cayuga Lake and the various creatures that depend on the
water for sustenance. As such, it is the intent of these Lakeshore Zone regulations to
ensure the continued preservation and health of these many Cayuga Lake tributaries
for current and future generations.
(2) For the purposes of this section, the area of a wetland is defined by both state and
federal governing regulations. Buffer areas apply to federally protected wetlands
greater than 0.1 acre.
(3) Requirements.
(a) To the extent possible, perennial and intermittent streams shall be protected
from sediment, effluent, sewage, and driveway runoff.
(b) Diverting or altering the course of perennial or intermittent streams shall be
prohibited, except where a NYSDEC permit is obtained in advance of starting
work.
(c) Unless otherwise authorized by the Planning Board or state or federal agency,
nodisturbance as listed previously |nthis section shall be located within 100
feet of any NY State regulated wetland or5Ofeet from a Federally or locally
regulated wetland.
(d) During the site plan approval process where there is evidence of a wetland, the
Planning Board may require awetland delineation study todetermine
potential impacts ofdevelopment onsaid wetland.
/4\ Recommendations.
(a) Plowing of salt laden snow from driveways into streams should be avoided.
(b) The proximity ofdocks tomouths uftributaries should consider natural
variation in stream boundary location so as to not interfere with stream flow
over time.
(6 Stream bank vegetation should be encouraged to minimize erosion. Where
necessary, stream banks should bereplanted with native species.
(d) Flow of water in Cayuga Lake tributaries should not be impeded by human -
made structures in or spanning streams.
B. Vegetation and landscape.
(1) The intent ofthe Town ofUlysses istmpreserve and encourage vegetation,
especially noninvasive trees and shrubs, in the Lakeshore Zone in order to prevent
erosion, sedimentation of the lake and streams, and maintain the rural, scenic
nature of the Town. The intent of this section is to encourage landowners in this
district to preserve and encourage vegetation for the benefit of current and
future residents of the Town.
(2) The intent ofthe Town ofUlysses istopreserve the natural features ofthe
Lakeshore Zone and, as such,� to a||ovv development that uses mechanisms that
minimize disruption of the current ecological balance. The Zoning Officer and
Planning Board shall review all development with the following guidelines when
reviewing a site plan for approval.
(3) Requirements. Tree removal, except clear -cutting, is allowed in the Lakeshore
Zone outside of unique natural areas or slope overlay areas. Tree removal is
allowed in the Lakeshore Zone inthe unique natural areas orslope overlay areas
according to the following terms and conditions:
(a) Without Town approval: atree o,trees whose location and conditions
combine mmake itathreat tuhuman life o,property.
(b) With the approval ofthe Zoning Officer and the possession ofava|idbui|ding
permit: those trees that are inthe footprint ofaconstruction site, septic
system, parking areas, and the driveway access.
(d Clear -cutting nfforest stands for any use other than necessary minimal
clearing for the requirements ofabuilding project isprohibited.
(d) |nunique natural areas o,slope overlay areas, awoodland management plan
shall befiled with and approved bythe Zoning Officer and/or the Town's
consulting forester for multiple trees removed for the landowner's firewood
n,lumber use, and for forest management and forest improvement. A
woodland management plan shall beprepared byaprofessional forester
with Society ofAmerican Foresters certification orbyacooperating
consulting forester with the New York State Department ofEnvironmental
Conservation.
pq Recommendations.
(a) In areas outside ofunique natural areas and slope overlay areas, awoodland
management plan brecommended when removing multiple trees for the
|andnwner'sfirewood orlumber use and for forest management and forest
improvement.
(b) Existing noninvasive vegetation should be maintained to the extent practicable
tnminimize runoff.
(d Buffer areas proximal towater bodies are tobepromoted using noninvasive
plants toprotect water resources.
(d) Removal vftrees for the purpose ofexpanding aview i,discouraged.
(e) Removal mtrees for the purpose ofexpanding sunlight exposure i,
discouraged.
(f) Native plants should be encouraged, especially shrubs and trees that produce
edible fruit and nuts for wildlife.
(g) Removal nfinvasive plants (garlic mustard, swaUowwort'barberry,
honeysuckle, buckthorn, multiflora rose, Russian olive and Norway maple, etc.)
isencouraged ,olong asthis effort does not contribute tnsignificant soil
/h\ Wildlife habitats, biological corridors, contiguous fmrests and open space
linkages should beencouraged and preserved.
(i) Dead trees that do not pose a threat to life, property or healthy forest should
be left to provide wildlife habitat for both birds and animals.
U\ New development should not compromise scenic views, in particular viewing
points from adjacent roads and trails.
(N Regrading should blend inwith the natural contours and undulations ofthe
U\ Buildings proposed tVbelocated within significant vievvng areas should be
screened and landscaped to minimize their intrusion on the character of the
area.
(m) Building design should harmonize with the natural setting.
(n) Building materials should harmonize with their natural setting and be
compatible with neighboring land uses.
C. Stormwater
1. In Unique Natural Areas and/orSteep Slope Overlay areas that are subject to site plan review,
the following standards apply:
Any alteration of the hydrology of the site shall be minimized and/or mitigated so as to
minimize the impact on water quality, peak discharge, groundwater recharge, and
drainage patterns. To the extent possible, the quantity, quality, and timing of
stormwater runoff during and after development shall not be substantially altered from
pre -development conditions. The recommended technical standards for the design of
post -construction structures are detailed in the "New York State Stormvvater
Management Design Manual," as revised. In reviewing the adequacy of an applicant's
stormwater management plans, the Planning Board may seek recommendations from a licensed
engineer selected bythe Town and paid for bythe applicant.
3. Priority should hegiven tu maintaining natural drainage systems, including perennial
and intermittent streams, rwa|esand drainage ditches.
4. Drainage of stormwater shall not cause erosion, siltation, contribute to slope failures, pollute
groundwater or cause damage to or flooding of adjacent or downstream properties.
5. The Planning Board may require the developer or property owner to submit the following:
a) Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), prepared by a NYS licensed engineer or
other qualified professional. The contents of the SWPPP and qualifications of qualified
professionals are specified in the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activity.
b) A statement of the proposed stormwater management objectives.
c) A description of the proposed structural and vegetative stormwater measures
that will be utilized to ensure that the quantity, temporal distribution and quality of
stormwater runoff during and after development are not substantially altered from
pre -development conditions. This will include appropriate plans, design data,
calculations, and other information.
d) A maintenance plan, which describes the type and frequency of maintenance
required by the stormwater management facilities utilized and the arrangements
that will be made to ensure long-term maintenance of these facilities. Operation,
maintenance, and any necessary repairs are the responsibility of the property
owner or his/her designee. Storm water management facilities shall have
adequate easements to permit the Town to inspect and, if necessary,
to take corrective action should the owner fail to properly maintain the system. If
corrective action by the Town is required, incurred costs are the responsibility of the
property owner.
e) A flood hazard analysis for any development located within or adjacent to the
designated floodplain.
D. Soil and sediment control.
(1) The goals for erosion and sediment control are (1) to minimize the opportunity
for soil to be moved by wind, precipitation and runoff and (2) to contain
sediment that does move close to its place of origin and thus prevent it from
reaching a water body or damaging other lands. In order to ensure that the land
will be developed with a minimum amount of soil erosion and to protect the
natural character of on -site and off -site water bodies, the Planning Board shall
require the developer to follow certain erosion control practices. The standards
for erosion and sediment control are as follows:
(2) A structure or parking area shall have a minimum setback to perennial and
intermittent streams of 50 feet or 75 feet if within a Unique Natural Area or
Steep Slope Overlay, as measured from the top edge of the slope rising from the
bank of the stream. See § 212-124.B.
(3) On sites within the slope overlay area or unique natural area, there shall be no
excavation, grading or filling without the submission to the Zoning Officer of an
excavation, fill, and grading permit. Excavation, grading orfilling ofmore than
IOcubic yards issubject tosite plan approval. The Planning Board may seek
recommendations from the Town Engineer, and the associated cost shall be
paid for by the applicant. This provision is not applicable to projects with a valid
permit from acounty, state, orfederal agency; nor isbapplicable toany
projects with current site plan approval.
(4) In addition to the requirements of this article, any construction, grading, or
other activities shall be conducted in accordance with any federal, state, or
other local law or requirement pertaining to such activity, including, but not
limited to, any requirements of the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation and the United States Army Corps of Engineers.
(5) Roads and driveways should follow existing contours to the extent practicable to
minimize erosion from cuts and fills.
(6) In Unique Natural Areas and/or Steep Slope Overlay areas that are subject to
site plan review, the following standards apply:
The Planning Board may require the developer tosubmit anerosion and
sediment control plan, the contents ofwhich are specified inthe New York
State Department ofEnvironmental Conservation SPDE5General Permit for
Stormvvater Discharges from Construction Activity.
k Erosion and sediment control practices shall beconsistent with requirements of
the New York State Department ofEnvironmental Conservation SPDESGeneral
Permit for StormvvaterDischarges from Construction Activity. Apermit ia
generally required for construction activities that disturb one or more acre of
c. The recommended technical standards for erosion and sedimentation control
are detailed inthe "New York Standards and Specifications for Erosion and
SedimentContr*|"puWishedbytheEmpireS1ateChapterofthe5oi!andVVater
Conservation Society, esrevised.
d. The development plan should beconsistent with the topography, soils, and
other physical characteristics of the site so as to minimize the erosion potential
and avoid disturbance ofenvironmentally sensitive areas.
e. Existing vegetation onthe project site should beretained and protected as
much as possible to minimize soil loss from the project site. (This will also
minimize erosion and sediment control costs.)
[ Erosion and sediment control measures should beconstructed prior to
beginning any land disturbances. All runoff from disturbed areas Should be
until the disturbed land areas are stabilized.
g. The timing and sequence of construction activities shall expose the smallest
practical area of land at any one time during the development. Temporary
vegetation and/or mulching should be used to protect critical areas. Permanent
vegetation shall be established as soon as practicable. Construction will not be
considered complete until all disturbed areas are successfully seeded or
stabilized with erosion control materials.
E. Driveways and parking.
(1) Requirements.
(a) For new impervious surfaces proposed for driveways, parking areas, or
walkways in unique natural areas or slope overlay areas, site plan review
procedures shall be followed, and the Planning Board may seek
recommendations from a licensed engineer selected by the Town and paid for
by the applicant.
(b) For safety purposes, parking areas shall be designed and built to avoid the
necessity for drivers to back their vehicles onto Route 89.
(2) Recommendations.
(a) Semi -pervious and pervious surfaces for driveways and parking areas are
encouraged to minimize runoff and erosion.
(b) Driveways and parking areas should be designed to include a combination of
pervious and impervious surface materials as needed to provide for safe passage
of traffic and to minimize the total area of impervious surface, which would
contribute to runoff.
(c) Driveways and parking areas should follow contour lines of the land as much as
possible.
(d) Excavation and regrading of slopes for parking areas should be minimized.
§ 212-49 Limitations on subdivision of parent tracts.
Any tract or parcel of land in common contiguous ownership at the time of the creation of this
zone on December 17, 2013, subject to other normally applicable subdivision laws and
regulations, may be subdivided to create up to and not more than three lots.
Article IX
CZ — Conservation Zone
§ 212-50Purpnse.
A. The purposes of the Conservation Zone are:
(1) To preserve the outstanding natural features in the Town of Ulysses in accordance
with the Town of Ulysses Comprehensive Plan (2009);
/2\ To provide a regulatory framework through which development can occur with
minimal environmental impact;
(3) Topreserve existing areas ofcontiguous open space, prevent destruction of
natural areas, preserve existing and potential agricultural land, and promote
mechanisms that protect these areas, such as enlarged stream buffer areas,
conservation easements, and deed restrictions when considering any future land
development; and
(4) To preserve the scenic beauty of the area to promote tourism as an important
benefit to the Town of Ulysses.
B. |nparticular, the following are important aspects orconsiderations for the Conservation
/1\ Among the natural values and ecological importance of this area are the mature
forest, plant and wildlife habitat, numerous streams, and natural character. The
Conservation Zone contains large areas of steep slopes, wetlands, and highly
erodible soil, where any future development may have an adverse environmental
impact on both the land and Cayuga Lake.
/2\ |nrecognition ofits natural and ecological significance, aevena||argeareasmfthe
Conservation Zone have been designated as unique natural areas by the Tompkins
County Environmental Management Council.
(]) The Town has designated a slope overlay area, which recognizes six soil types that
when disturbed are significantly erodible and unstable based ontheir
characteristics and slope steepness (see Article IV, Ternnino|ogy\.
C. Nothing in these regulations is intended to require or permit activities which
contravene any laws, rules, or regulations or permits of the United States or New York
State, or any agency thereof, nor are any of the provisions intended to supersede any
requirements for obtaining any permits or approvals required by the United States or
New York State, orany agency thereof.
§ 212-51 Permitted uses.
A. Only the following buildings or uses are permitted in this district, and site plan approval,
pursuant to the provisions of Article III, § 212-19, is required in unique natural areas
and slope overlay areas:
(1) Farm Operation.
(2) One single-family residence and accessory buildings.
(3) One two-family residence and accessory buildings.
(4)[RESERVED]
(5) Any municipal or public utility necessary to the maintenance of utility services
except that substations and similar structures shall be subject to the same
setback requirements that apply to residences.
(6) Major solar collection system subject to the provisions of Article XX, § 212-139.2.
[Added 11-24-2015 by L.L. No. 3-20151
§ 212-52 Permitted accessory uses.
A. Only the following are permitted accessory uses, which are customarily incidental to
the permitted uses listed above in § 212-51:
(1) Accessory buildings, as defined in Article IV and subject to the provisions of
Article XXIV, § 212-167: Accessory Building.
(2) Accessory Dwelling Unit, subject to the provision of Article XX, § 212-128.
(3) Adult care, family.
(4) Bed -and -breakfast establishments.
(5) Child care, family.
(6) Elder cottage, subject to the provisions of Article XX, § 212-139.5.
(7) Professional offices where such office is part of the residence property and no
more than three persons residing off the premises are employed on site.
(8) Roadside stands, subject to the provisions of Article XX, § 212-135.
(9) Temporary building, as defined in Article IV.
(10) Minor solar collection system subject to the provisions of Article XX,
§ 212-139.1. [Added 11-24-2015 by L.L. No. 3-20151
B. Site plan approval, pursuant to the provisions of Article III, § 212-19, is required in
unique natural areas and slope overlay areas for the permitted accessory uses listed in
this section.
C. Permitted accessory uses without site plan approval. Such uses as are customarily
incidental Lothe permitted uses listed above inthis Article X[§ 212-51.
(1) Signs as regulated under Article XX, § 212-122
(2) Home occupation where nomore than one person residing off the premises b
employed.
§ 212-53Uses allowed bvspecial permit.
The following uses are allowed upon approval pursuant toArticle III, § 212-18,subject Tothe
design standards in the Conservation Zone and site plan review by the Planning Board:
A. Museums and nature centers.
B. Public and private community parks, regional parks and preserves.
C, Residential care/assisted living.
D. Restaurants.
E. Bicycle/ski rental business.
§ 212-54Lot area and yard requirements.
A. There shall be no more than one principal building on any lot in the CZ -Conservation
Zone.
B. Minimum lot area for one principal building shall be five acres.
C. Minimum lot width at front lot line shall be 400 feet.
D. Minimurn lot depth shall be 450 feet.
E. Minimum front yard setback shall be 75 feet.
F. Minimum side yard setback shall be 50 feet.
H. Maximum building height shaUbe33feetaboveaveragegnadenneasunedatthebui}dinA
perimeter or as determined by the Planning Board when slope exceeds 15%. It is within
the discretion of the Planning Board whether or not to allow any building on slopes
greater than 2596.
|. The maximum footprint of a building shall be 3,500 square feet except Accessory
DvveUingUnitsvvhichare|iroitedtoI,2OOsquarefeetfloorarea/6Zl2-128\.
J. Driveways and parking areas may be considered a building as part of the lot coverage
requirements at the discretion of the Planning Board.
K. Flag lots are permitted, subject to the standards set forth in Article XX, § 212-130.
L. Accessory buildings shall not occupy the front yard, except for roadside stands (subject
to provisions of Article XX, § 212-135), and a garage may be attached to the front of a
house.
M. Maximum lot coverage by permanent structures shall be 5% of the lot area.
§ 212-55 Design standards.
In the event of any conflict between the provisions of this § 212-55 and other provisions of this
chapter, the provisions of this section shall prevail.
A. Stream and wetland setbacks.
(1) Perennial and intermittent streams and wetlands are prominent features of the
Conservation Zone, and the condition of these water bodies directly affects the
health of Cayuga Lake and the fauna that depend on the water for sustenance.
As such, it is the intent of these Conservation Zone regulations to ensure the
continued preservation and health of these many Cayuga Lake water resources
for current and future generations. (See§ 212-124 Standards for buffer areas).
(2) For the purposes of this section, wetlands are defined by both state, federal and
local governing regulations. Buffer areas apply to federal and locally protected
wetlands greater than 0.1 acre and all state wetlands.
(3) No buildings, structures, paved areas, or storage of construction equipment or
machinery shall be located within the following buffer areas: 50 linear feet of
the bank of any perennial or intermittent stream and 100 feet of any wetland.
These buffer areas may be increased by up to 50% should the Planning Board
determine that such an increase is necessary to protect water quality or to
minimize the impacts of erosion and sedimentation.
(4) During the site plan approval process where there is evidence of a wetland, the
Planning Board may require a wetland delineation study to determine the exact
boundaries and to evaluate potential impacts of development on said wetland.
B. Vegetation and landscape.
(1) The intent of the Town of Ulysses is to preserve and encourage vegetation,
especially noninvasive trees and shrubs, in the Conservation Zone in order to
prevent erosion, sedimentation of the lake and streams, and maintain the rural,
scenic nature of the Town.
(7) The intent of this section is to encourage landowners in this district to preserve
and encourage vegetation for the benefit of current and future residents of the
Town.
/3\ The intent o[the Town ofUlysses btopreserve the natural features ofthe
Conservation Zone and, as such, to allow development that uses mechanisms that
minimize disruption of the current ecological balance. The Zoning Officer and
Planning Board shall review all development with the following guidelines when
reviewing asite plan for approval.
Nj Requirements. Tree removal, except clear -cutting, is allowed in the Conservation
Zone outside of unique natural areas or slope overlay areas. Tree removal is
allowed in the Conservation Zone in the unique natural areas or slope overlay
areas according tothe following terms and conditions:
(a) Without Town approval: a tree or trees whose location and conditions combine
to make it a threat to human life or property.
(b) With the approval ofthe Zoning Officer and the possession ofevalid building
permit: those trees that are in the footprint of construction site, septic system,
parking areas, and the driveway access.
/c\ Clear -cutting offorest stands for any use other than necessary minimal clearing
for the requirements of a building project is prohibited.
(d) In unique natural areas or slope overlay areas, a woodland management plan
shall befiled with and approved bythe Zoning Off icerand/or the Tovvn's
consulting forester for multiple trees removed for the landowner's firewood or
lumber use, and for forest management and forest improvement. A woodland
management plan shall be prepared by a professional forester with Society of
American Foresters certification or by a cooperating consulting forester with the
New York State Department ofEnvironmental Conservation.
/5\ Recommendations.
/a\ In areas outside of unique natural areas and slope overlay areas, a woodland
management plan is recommended when removing multiple trees for the
landowner's firewood or lumber use and for forest management and forest
improvement.
(b) Existing noninvasive vegetation should be maintained tothe extent practicable
to minimize runoff.
(6 Buffer areas proximal towater bodies are to be promoted using noninvasive
native plants toprotect water resources.
(d) Retain existing stone walls.
(e) Removal of trees for the purpose of expanding a view is discouraged.
(f) Removal of trees for the purpose of expanding sunlight exposure is discouraged.
(g) Native plants should be encouraged, especially shrubs and trees that produce
edible fruit and nuts for wildlife.
(h) Removal of invasive plants (garlic mustard, swallowwort, barberry, honeysuckle,
buckthorn, multiflora rose, Russian olive and Norway maple, etc.) is encouraged
so long as this effort does not contribute to significant soil disturbance or
erosion.
(i) Wildlife habitats, biological corridors, contiguous forests, and open space
linkages should be encouraged and preserved.
(j) Dead trees that do not pose a threat to life, property, or a healthy forest should
be left to provide wildlife habitat for both birds and animals.
(k) New development should not compromise scenic views, in particular viewing
points from adjacent roads and trails.
(1) Regrading should blend in with the natural contours and undulations of the land.
(m) Siting of buildings should be below ridgelines or hilltops.
(n) Where possible, buildings and structures should be located on the edges of open
fields to minimize visual impacts.
(o) Buildings proposed to be located within significant viewing areas should be
screened and landscaped to minimize their intrusion on the character of the
area.
(p) Building design should harmonize with the natural setting.
(q) Building materials should harmonize with their natural setting and be
compatible with neighboring land uses.
C . Stormwater
1. In Unique Natural Areas and/or Steep Slope Overlay areas that are subject to site plan review,
the following standards apply:
2. Any alteration of the hydrology of the site shall be minimized and/or mitigated so as to
minimize the impact on water quality, peak discharge, groundwater recharge, and
drainage patterns. To the extent possible, the quantity, quality, and timing of
stormwater runoff during and after development shall not be substantially altered from
pre -development conditions. The recommended technical standards for the design of
post -construction structures are detailed in the "New York State Stormvvater
Management Design Manual," as revised. In reviewing the adequacy of an applicant's
stormwater management plans, the Planning Board may seek recommendations from a licensed
engineer selected bythe Town and paid for bythe applicant.
3. Priority should be given to maintaining natural drainage systems, including perennial
and intermittent streams, nwa|eaand drainage ditches.
4. Drainage ofstonnwatershall not cause erosion, siltation, contribute toslope failures, pollute
groundwater or cause damage to orflooding of adjacent or downstream properties.
The Planning Board onuy,oquire the developer or property owner to submit the
D StomnwaterPollution PrevntionPlan (S, prepared byuNYSlicensed
engineer orother qualified professional. The contents o[the SWITIParid
qualifications ofguuliGcdpvofleuuionu|aare specified in the New York State
Dcyor1nocntofEnv iron ozomLo]Conservation SlI[)BS General Permit for Sho,nzvvutcc
Discharges |�oroCuny1ruotimnAo1ivity.
n\ As1aternenimfN#proposed mtoonnatermonatlemodobecives.
Adescription o[1he proposed struCtum|and vegetative stommatermeasurem
that will be utilized to ensure that the quantity, icnVporo| distribution and quality of
sLonn\votmcrunoff dur' and ullecdovo|opnuon1are not substantially altered from
In
pre -development conditions. This will include appropriate plans, design data,
calculations, and other information.
A maintenance plan, which describes the type arid fireqUency of maintenance
required kvthe a\onnvvuLcrmanagement facUitiesutilized and the oono�ccoeo1x
that will be nxsdc to ousure long-term rnoiotcnaouc uptbcsc [xoi|i1icm. (}pcodioo,
maintenance, arid any necessary repairs are the responsibility ofthe property
owner or his/her designee. Storm water management facilities shall have
adequate easements 10 permit the l-ovvnto inspect and, i[ocooaaary,
to take corrective uo1ioo should the owner Fail to properly rnaiutaioibu myo1eno. If
corrective action by the Town is required, incurred costs are the responsibility ofthe property
owner.
Aflood hazard analysis for any development located within oradjacent tmthe
designated floodplain.
D. Soil and sediment control.
The goals fior erosion arid sediment control are (1) to minimize the Opportunity lor soil to be
moved 6v`vind, precipitation arid runoff arid (Z) to contain sediment that does move close to its
to ensure that the land will be developed with a minimum amount of soil erosion and to protect
the natural character of on -site and off -site water bodies, the Planning Board shall require the
developer to follow certain erosion control practices.
(1) A structure or parking area shall have a minimum setback to perennial and
intermittent streams of 50 feet or 75 feet if within a Unique Natural Area or Steep
Slope Overlay, as measured from the top edge of the slope rising from the bank
of the stream. See § 212-124.B.
(2) On sites within the slope overlay area or unique natural area, there shall be no
excavation, grading or filling without the submission to the Zoning Officer of an
excavation, fill, and grading permit. Excavation, grading or filling of more than
10 cubic yards is subject to site plan approval. The Planning Board may seek
recommendations from the Town Engineer, and the associated cost shall be paid
for by the applicant. This provision is not applicable to projects with a valid
permit from a county, state, or federal agency; nor is it applicable to any projects
with current site plan approval.
(3) In addition to the requirements of this article, any construction, grading, or other
activities shall be conducted in accordance with any federal, state, or other local
law or requirement pertaining to such activity, including, but not limited to, any
requirements of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
and the United States Army Corps of Engineers.
(4) Roads and driveways should follow existing contours to the extent practicable to
minimize erosion from cuts and fills.
(5) In Unique Natural Areas and/or Steep Slope Overlay areas that are subject to site
plan review, the following standards apply:
a. The Planning Board may require the developer to submit an erosion and
sediment control plan, the contents of which are specified in the New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation SPDES General
Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activity.
b. Erosion and sediment control practices shall be consistent with
requirements of the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from
Construction Activity. A permit is generally required for construction
activities that disturb one or more acre of land.
c. The recommended technical standards for erosion and sedimentation
control are detailed in the "New York Standards and Specifications for
Erosion and Sediment Control" published by the Empire State Chapter of
the Soil and Water Conservation Society, as revised.
d. The development plan should be consistent with the topography, soils,
and other physical characteristics of the site so as to minimize the erosion
potential and avoid disturbance of environmentally sensitive areas.
c. Existing vegetation onthe project site should be retained and protected as
much ampossible tominimize soil loss from the projectsite. U7his will
also minimize erosion and sediment control costs.)
[ Erosion and sediment control measures Should be constructed prior to
beginning any land disturbances. All runoff fi-omdis1udbed areas should
be directed to the sediment control devices. 'I'liese devices should riot be
removed until the disturbed land areas are stabilized.
g. I'he timing and sequence ofConstruction activities shall expose tile
smallest practical area of land a1any one time dur' the development.
Tennpororyvegetation and/or Mulching should be used to protect uritkzo|
areas. Permanent vegetation shall be established as soon uspracticable.
Construction will not be considered complete until all disturbed areas are
successfully seeded orstabilized with erosion control materials
Driveways and parking.
/1\ Requirements.
/a\ For new impervious surfaces proposed for driveways, parking areas, or
walkways in unique natural areas or slope overlay areas, site plan review
procedures shall befollowed, and the Planning Board may seek
recommendations from a licensed engineer selected by the Town and paid for
bythe applicant.
(b) For safety purposes, parking areas shall bedesigned andbui|ttoavoidthe
necessity for drivers tVback their vehicles onto roads.
(2) Recommendations.
(a) Semi -pervious and pervious surfaces for driveways and parking areas are
encouraged tominimize runoff and erosion.
/b\ Driveways and parking areas should bedesigned toinclude acombination of
pervious and impervious surface materials as needed to provide for safe passage
of traffic and to minimize the total area of impervious surface which would
contribute to runoff.
/d Driveways and parking areas should follow contour lines of the land as much as
possible.
(d) Excavation and regrading of slopes for parking areas should be minimized.
Limitations on subdivision of parent tracts.
(1) Any tract or parcel of land in common contiguous ownership at tire time of the
creation of this zone on December 17, 2013, subject to other normally applicable
subdivision laws and regulations, may be subdivided to create up to and not more
than 3 lots.
SECTION 4. The definition section 2t2-22 of the Ulysses Zoning Law is amended to insert a
new definition of "Building Footprint" as follows:
"Building Footprint: The area of a lot or site included within the surrounding exterior walls of a
building or portion of a building, exclusive of courtyards. In the absence of surrounding exterior
walls, the building footprint shall be the area under the horizontal projection of the roof. It
includes garages, carports and porches open at the sides but roofed, and accessory structures if
attached to the primary residence, but not trellises, patios, and unroofed areas of porch, deck, and
balcony. Accessory Dwelling Units attached to a primary residence shall not be considered a
part of the primary residence's footprint."
SECTION 5. SEVERABILITY. If any part or provision of this Local Law or the application
thereof to any person or circumstance be adjudged invalid by any court of competent
jurisdiction, such judgment shall be confined in its operation to the part or provision or
application directly involved in the controversy in which such judgment shall have been rendered
and shall not affect or impair the validity of the remainder of this Local Law or the application
thereof to other persons or circumstances. Any prior inconsistent Local Law is hereby repealed
and superseded.
SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Local Law shall take effect immediately upon filing
in the office of the New York State Secretary of State in accordance with section 27 of the
Municipal Home Rule Law.
TOWN OF ITHACA
215 NORTH TIOGA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850
www. town. ithaca. ny. us
CORRESPONDENCE LISTING
Please review the following correspondence and indicate, by placing your initials in the right-hand column
adjacent to the correspondence that you wish to receive a copy. We can forward a copy to you via e-mail or
make a hard copy. Please indicate your preference next to your name at the bottom of this form.
OF I?,
0 1 0 TOWN OF ITHACA
215 N Tio-a St, Ithaca, NY 14850
Ph: 607-273-1721
-------- ---- -
YO Rod Howe, Town Supervisor - Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk
July 28, 2020
New York State Liquor Authority
Division of Alcohol Beverage Control
535 Washington Street
Buffalo, NY 14203
Re: Temporary permits — over four (4)
Dear Sir/Madam:
At its meeting on Monday, July 27, 2020, the Town Board of the ']'own of Ithaca, New York
waived the 30 day waiting period fora liquor license for Serendipity's Backlot (Backlot) located
at 950 Danby Rd., South Lawn, Ithaca, NY 14850.
The Board also discussed the fact that Backlot has applied for temporary permits for the Friday
and Saturday dates in August. 2020 and they are in full support of the issuance of additional
temporary licenses above the usual four permits per calendar year per location usually allowed.
Should you have any questions or need anything further from the municipality, please feel free to
contact me.
pay 4 sa
tt �o
Town Clerk
Town of Ithaca
cc. Serendipity Backlot stepti_tn - ic @)sc " ren ' (I ' ijty I1��ripgj)jz�
Robert Heil
or
TOWN OF ITHACA
14 0
215 N '11oga St., Ithaca, NY 14850
Ph: 607-273-1721 0 WWWAMVIIJUILICLUIVAIS
y 0 Rod Howe, Town Supervisor - PLAUlette Rosa, Town Clerk
July 28, 2020
New York State Liquor Authority
Division ol'Alcohol Bevera-e Control
535 Washington Street
Buffalo, NY 14203
Re: Thirty (30) Day Notification Waiver
Dear Sir/Madarn:
The Town of Ithaca, New York has been notified and a request made, by Serendipity's Backlot
located at 950 Danby Rd., South Lawn, Ithaca, NY 14850 of its; intention to file an application
for ail on prennse license to sell liqU0r, beer, wine and cider at retail, in a seasonal tavern Under
the Alcoholic Beverage Control law and to waive the 30-day Municipality Notification.
The Town Board of the Town of Ithaca, New York discussed the request at, its July 27"' rneeting
and has no objection to the application, and hereby waives the 30-day notification requirement.
Si►xcer
Paulette Rosa
Town Clerk
Town of Ithaca
cc. Serendipity Backlot sie hanicQPserendill►ty q!.Jng.hiz
Robert Heil I tl0 fO'S LISO ILI 6011, COM
1 -11 - . ......►.►... ...
5008 MOUNT VERNON BLVD.
HAMBURG, NY 14075
716-512-5018 info(@sIasoIutions.com www.slasolutions.com
REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF THE 30 DAY MUNICIPALITY NOTIFICATION
Date: 07/13/2020
To the Municipality of: TOWN OF ITHACA
Please be advised that a waiver of the 30 day notification is being requested by SERENDIPITY CATERING,
LLC, dbo SERENDIPITY'S BACKLOT located at 950 DANBY PI),, SOUTH LAWN, ITHACA, NY 14850 is
applying for an ON PREMISE LIQUOR LICENSE serving LIQUOR, WINE, BEER, & CIDER in a SEASONAL
TAVERN. This request is made to expedite the licensing process.
Thank You,
Robert Heil
If such waiver is granted, please write a letter to that effect, signed by an Official, on OFFICIAL municipality
stationary and either fox, e-mail or forward it to:
Robert Heil, Liquor License Consultant
5008 Mount Vernon Blvd.
Hamburg, NY 14075
FAX : 866-910-5025 E-MAIL : info@slasolufions.com
opla-revO329201 8 -------m====�
OFFICE USE 0�1'� -------------------- - -----
0 Original 0 Amended Date
49
Standardized NOTICE FORM for Providing 30-Day Advance Notice
to a Local Municipality or Community Board
1. Date Notice was Sent: 107/13/2020 Ia. Delivered by: I Certified Mail Return Receipt RequestedF77]
2, Select the type of Application that will be filed with the Authority for an On -Premises Alcoholic Beverage License:
(F) New Application 0 Renewal 0 Alteration 0 Corporate Change 0 Removal 0 Class Change 0 Method of Operation Change
For New applicants, answer each question below rising all information known to date
For Renewal applicants, answer all questions
For Alteration applicants, attach a complete written description and diagrams depicting the proposed alteration($)
For Corporate Change applicants, attach a list of the current and proposed corporate principals
For Removal applicants, attach a statement of your current and proposed addresses will) tire reason(s) for the relocation
For Class Change applicants, attach a statement detailing your current license type and your proposed license type
For Method of Operation Change applicants, although not required, if you choose to submit, attach an explanation detailing those changes
This 30-Day Advance Notice is Being Provided to the Clerk of the Following Local Municipality or Community Board:
3, Name of Municipality or Community Board: ITOWN OF ITHACA
Applicant/Licensee Information:
4. Licensee Serial Number (if applicable): Expiration Date (if applicable):
1 0
5. Applicant or Licensee Name: SERENDIPITY CATERING LLC
6. Trade Name (if any): ISERENDIPITY'SBACKLOT
"I.Street Address ofEstablishment: 1950 DANBY RD., SOUTH LAWN
& City, Town or Village: JITHACA == I NY 7ip Code:
9. Business Telephone Number of Applicant/Licensee: FO-2145
10. Business E-mail of Applicant/Licensee: Isteptianie@serendipitycatering . biz
11. Type(s) of alcohol sold or to be sold: 0 Beer & Cider 0 Wine, Beer & Cider @ Liquor, Wine, Beer & Cider
12. Extent of Food Service:
0 Full food menu; full kitchen run by a chef or cook (2) Menu meets legal rnininiurn food availability requirements; food prep area at rnininiurn
13. Type of Establishment:
I/L Method of Operation. F71 Seasonal Establishment [] J rike Box [Z] Disc.lockey FvJ Recorded Music Q Karaoke
(check all that apply) n/ Live Music (give details i.e., rock, bands, acoustic, jazz, etc.): IM IXED
El Patron Dancing E] Employee Dancing [—] Exotic Dancing [:] Topless Entertainment
E] Video/Arcade Garnes [:] Third Party Promoters ❑ Security Personnel
1;0 Other, (specify):
15. Licensed Outdoor Area: E] None EJ Patio or Deck E] Rooftop EZ] Garden/Grounds F-1 Freestanding Covered Structure
(check all that apply)
0 Sidewalk Cafe EJ Other (specify): ISTORAGE
Page 2 of 24
opla-rav03292018 -
OFFICE USE ONLY
Q Original Q Amended Date
49
16. List the Roorisl of the building that the establishment is located mr. 1 ST
17. List the room number(%) the establishment is located in -eithm the building, if appropriate: 1-bar,dinin ,food prep,restrootir lCe,
28. Is the premises located within 500 feet of three or more on -premises liquor establishments? O Yes Q No
19. Will the license holder or a manager be physically present within the establishment during all hours of operation? Ova$ O No
20. If this is a transfer application Ian existing licensed business is being purcbaseu) provide the name and serial number of the licensee:
NIA
Name Serial Number
21. Doesthe applicant or licensee own the buntline in wh,cn the establishment is located? Q Yes (if YES, SKIP 23.26) Q No
Owner of the Building in Which the Licensed Establishment is Located
22.BuildinflOwner'sFuliName: SOUTH HILL BUSINESS CAMPUS
23. Building Owner's Street Address: 1950 DANBY RD., SUITE 104
24, City, Town or village: JITHACA state: NY —� Zip Coda; 14850
25. Business Telephone Number of Building Owner: 607 H5 -2025
Representative or Attorney Representing the Applicant in Connection with the
Application for a License to Traffic in Alcohol at the Establishment Identified In this Notice
26. Representative/Attorney's Full Name: IROBERTHEIL
27.Representative/Attorney'sStreet Address: 5008 MOUNT VERNON BLVD
28. City, Town oryillage: HAMBURG I state: NY Zip Code: 14075
29. Business Telephone Number of Representative/Attorney: (7 t 6) 512-5018
30. Business E-mall Address of RepresentativejAltorney: linfo@slasolutions.com
I am the applicant or licensee holder or a principal of the legal entity that holds or is applying for the license.
Representations In this form are in conformity with representations made In submitted documents relied upon by
the Authority when granting the license. I understand that representations made in this form will also be relied
upon, and that false representations may result in disapproval of the application or revocation of the license.
By my signature, I affirm - under Penalty of Perjury - that the representations made in this form are true.
31. Printed Principal Name: ISTEPHANIE HOLZBAUR Title: LLC MEMBER
Principal Signature: ��✓ l��V
Page 3 of 24
Paulette Rosa
From: Anita Bellucci Weiss <abellucci@twcny.rr.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 12:56 PM
To: Paulette Rosa
Subject: Ithaca Gorges
Ithaca Gorges are not gorgeous anymore. They are being trashed. I live on Slaterville Rd. I often take my grandkids
hiking behind our house into the woods to hike and to look at the falls at 30 foot dam.
Over the years young people have gone there to swim, etc. However, this year things are out of control. Young people,
many of them under age, go there to swim, drink and leave trash. The gorge is full of beer cans, bottles, underwear,
blankets, towels, etc.
A few weeks ago, my grandkids and I went down there to hang up a poster they made. It said, "This is our park
too. Please pick up after yourselves." They added save the earth pictures, etc. We brought trash bags to pick up trash.
The next week we went down again. There was trash everywhere; too much to pick up. The sign had been spray
painted. My grandkids would not go any further. They were freaked out. I will not be taking them there anymore.
I cannot believe there isn't something that can be done to keep our gorges clean and free of underage partiers who
want to get drunk and take over the area. Please let me know how I can help to facilitate this endeavor.
Thank you,
Citizen of Ithaca,
Anita Bellucci Weiss
1411 Slaterville rd.
Phone: 607/277-377
Paulette Rosa
From: marieandrew93@gmail.com
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2020 4:42 PM
To: Paulette Rosa; Bill Goodman; Rich DePaolo; Pam Bleiwas; TeeAnn Hunter, Eric Levine; Pat
Leary; Nick Goldsmith; Rod Howe; Susan Ritter, Chris Balestra;
brock@clarityconnect.com
Subject: Retaining local control, and other key takeaways from the "5G" forum
00
This week's "5G" legislator forum reiterated some vital information about the installation of
4G/5G/small cell antennas, including:
• Perhaps most importantly, Attorney Andrew Campanelli reaffirmed that the
Telecommunications Act gave local governments the control over these facilities, not
the FCC, as long as there is no gap in cell service coverage. (minutes 45-51) He states
that "most of the [telecom] applicants wouldn't be able to show that these facilities are actually
necessary to provide personal wireless services". The companies have to "prove that they
suffer from a significant gap in personal wireless service", but as he notes "they can't
meet that test for the 5G rollout". Thus, "local governments have the power to stop
this."
• The FCC radiation guidelines have not been updated in the 24 years since the
Telecommunications Act was passed, and there is an open question about whether or not that
level is a safe one (it is one of the highest in the world). (minute 68)
• The FCC does not test wireless facilities - no one does, nor are the radiation limits
enforced. (minute 69)
• 4G/5G/small cell deployment is widely known as unnecessary and "redundant infrastructure,
one of the three main goals that Smart Planning tries to prevent." (minute 78)
• The multiple antennas inherent to small cell deployment will, in total, "easily exceed the
FCC limits". In fact, "for the vast majority of the 5G rollout the FCC has no idea where
these facilities are and no idea what level of radiation they're exposing members of the
general public to." (minutes 80-82)
• The risk of litigation against any municipality who resist the FCC/telecoms is "extremely
limited", a "hollow threat". (minute 71) In fact, no telecom company has won damages
from any city. (minute 88)
• The evidence is mounting of the adverse health impacts of cell radiation. Andrew
Campanelli himself knows this "because I receive twenty to thirty phone calls every day with
people providing me with evidence of adverse health impacts." (minute 95)
• 4G/5G/small cell deployment would not provide broadband home internet, especially because
it won't go through walls. (minute 55)
• 4G/5G/small cell deployment would increase Ithaca's carbon footprint. (minute 68)
We urge you to retake control and power in this issue, follow the example of countless places in the
US and around the world, and stop the installation of 4G/5G/small cells in Ithaca.
Marie and Andrew Molnar
07/17/2020
To Whom It May Concern:
My name is Jerame Hawkins. I live and own my home located at 126 Kendall Ave, Ithaca NY 14850.1
have lived at this location over 10 years. The reason I am writing is to request much needed "SPEED
BUMPS" on Kendall Ave, Ithaca NY 14850. And or change the speed limit. As you know the majority of
resident on Kendall Ave are College students. But we have several residential homes on Kendall Ave. In
which me and my neighbors consider Kendall Ave to be our neighborhood/community. I have major
concerns with the traffic on Kendall Ave. Since I have lived on Kendall Ave. The safety concerns for my
children and my neighbor children has increased dramatically. Due to the unsafe traffic and driving
practices on Kendall Ave. The College student "SPEED" up and down the street, daily. I observe daily
college students being distracted while driving, due to them being on their cell phones. They race their
cars side by side up in down the street and have no respect for the speed limit. I have seen student
speeding excessively and have experienced them passing my car at excessive speed while I was driving
the speed limit. Since I have lived on Kendall, I have witness multi accident, one which resulted in death
right in front of my home on Kendall Ave. I have witness multiply student running into deer on the
street. Student race their motor bike and scooter up in down the street. I have seen my neighbor's car
get totaled as he pulled out his driveway on Kendall Ave. I have small children that play on our street, in
our community. My neighbors have small children and grandchildren that play in front on their home
and walk the street. Kendall Ave has become very unsafe due to the traffic concerns. As a resident we
have the right to feel safe in our home and community. The unsafe traffic on Kendall Ave, has put our
youth and families in jeopardy of being hurt. I eagerly request that you investigate this matter and
please consider speed bumps on Kendall Ave. We hope that you honor our request. We are taxpayers
that are trying to build stronger and safer community.
Please please feel free to contact me to talk about this concern.
I look forward to a favorable reseonse
Sincerely.
Jerame Hawkins, Resident 126 Kendall Ave.
Contact:
Jerame Hawkins, 126 Kendall Ave, Ithaca NY 14850
607-220-8643:::::: jhawkins@yapinc.org
TOWN OF ITHACA
215 NORTH TIOGA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850
www.town.ithaca.ny.us
CORRESPONDENCE LISTING
August 10, 2020
Please review the following correspondence and indicate, by placing your initials in the right-hand column
adjacent to the correspondence that you wish to receive a copy. We can forward a copy to you via e-mail or
make a hard copy. Please indicate your preference next to your name at the bottom of this form.
Correspondence — Item
1. Email from Residents re: opposition to 5G
2. Letter from Residents re: Temporary Certificate of Occupancy and fee
waiver
3. Resignation of Conservation Board Member
4.
1.
1. NYMIR Newsletter
2.
Please place your
initials here if you wish
to receive a copy
Paulette Rosa
From: Ithacans for Responsible Technology <ithacasafetech@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, August 3, 2020 4:14 PM
To: Paulette Rosa; Bill Goodman; Rich DePaolo; Pam Bleiwas; TeeAnn Hunter; Eric Levine; Pat
Leary; Nick Goldsmith; Rod Howe; Susan Ritter; Chris Balestra;
brock@clarityconnect.com
Subject: Yes, you can legally halt 5G in Ithaca
The following is a recent video of NY attorney Andrew Campanelli speaking more in depth to another
NY town board.
The important takeaways:
do what it can to push back against telecom companies in order to protect their
constituents' health and safety
The town can refuse Verizon with no legal implications.
The town can simply require telecom companies to give proof that the new cell
antennas are necessary for a gap in coverage.
This video clip provides more details that build on Ithaca's forum. For more detail on the key pieces
of this testimony and how Ithaca can use this same process, see the video and write-up below.
Litt s&t=854s
Ithacans for Responsible Technology
From the video:
"Here is the test. the courts have said that a town must grant a permit for a location to build a
Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) — even if it violates your local zoning code — if the
applicant can prove two things:
1. The wireless carrier suffers from a gap in its personal wireless services
2. The proposed installation is the least intrusive means of remedying that gap and there is no
possible less intrusive alternative location
If — and only if — they can prove those two things, then the municipality has to issue the
permit for the WTF.
BUT, the important part is to make the applicant prove these two points with substantial
written evidence in the public record.
Usually, when it is a site developer, such as Crown Castle or Extenet, it is not the best
location. So local governments have to force the applicant to give them probitive evidence, just like
anybody else would. The applicant will come in with propagation maps, many of which are bogus.
Without the data behind the maps, the municipality does not know if the propagation map is worth the
paper it is written on. The truth is that no Federal Court would take a propagation map without
verification.
The first thing a town should say to a wireless applicant is "Do you have a clap in
telecommunications service? Do a drive test and give me the drive test results. " Very cheap.
They take a phone [or RF meter], attach a recording device and they drive through town. The
recording device records the signal strengths every few milliseconds and it will give you a precise
reading of all the signal strengths on the streets of the town. That hard data will show you if there is a
gap in telecommunications service, where it is and what it's boundaries are. Then and only then can a
local board — whether it is a planning board, zoning board, or city council — figure out if the location
the applicant is proposing is consistent with intelligent planning ... because if the proposed tower
does not fill the identified gap in telecommunications service and the town approves the construction
of the WTF, the applicant might come back six months later and propose another cell tower because
the first WTF did not fill the gap in the first place. And usually when the application is from a site
developer, it's not the best location. It's not even necessary. If a wireless carrier has a significant
gap, they will be the one applying for the cell tower or the WTF.... if sophisticated local governments
know what to ask for, they can control, for the most part, where Wireless Telecommunications
Facilities go....
If the town denies an application because of aesthetics, and an applicant has said we have a
significant gap and the town does not find whether or not the applicant proves there is a gap,
then the town loses by default. Under the federal law, any denial of a cell tower must be based
upon substantial written evidence.
The town wants to say "We deny the application because of an adverse effect on property values and
the evidence we have that this property owner brought in a letter from a professional, a real estate
broker or an appraiser, saying this tower will reduce the value of your house by 20-30%. "
The next thing the town wants to do is give your boards) some guidance as to what type of
evidence they should ask for so they can understand if they see a false document. ... The two
most common types of fraud that I have seen perpetrated through false FCC compliance reports is
claims of compliance with the wrong standard or the other trick they play called the distance game
and here is what that is.
When the applicant gives the town an FCC compliance report, they have to calculate the level of
microwave radiation to which they will expose people. The reason for such a report is that the WTF
doesn't exist yet. The easiest way to prevent a false calculation is with a false distance fact. The first
factor they have to consider is how close someone can get to the WTF. The closer someone gets to a
WTF, the greater the level of microwave radiation to which they get exposed.
To prepare a false FCC compliance report, which shows the level of microwave radiation will
be a fraction of what it will actually be, all they have to do is start with a false distance factor....
If your board does not know how to read these reports, they can miss this. The same goes for false
propagation maps, false visual impact analysis. You have to give your board guidance on how to
analyze what is given to them because, in my experience, 90% of the applications i have seen, the
applicant has submitted false and misleading information and it is not by mistake.
The important part is to make the Wireless Company give you proof.
1140 Ellis Hollow Road
Ithaca, New York. 14850
RECEIVED
AUC`i 0 3 2020
-rowN or ITHACA
CODE ENFORCEMENT
Town Of Ithaca Planning Board
Ithaca Town Hall
215 N. Tioga Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
mma=
Our new home construction at 104 Grove Place began in October 2019 with an anticipated April
2020 completion. Due to the Covid-19 virus and subsequent New York Pause, which shut down
construction, the house is not yet finished.
This delay has resulted in financial hardship. We have been making two mortgage payments,
two property tax payments and utility bills much longer than budgeted.
We missed listing our current home for sale during the prime spring market and are now moving
further into the worst time of the year to list a home even as the local real estate market is
threatened. We need to move into our new home and list our current home as soon as possible.
Our builder, Chris Hesse of EverGreen Construction, is requesting a temporary Certificate of
Occupancy as soon as services and safety measures are in place but before all construction
and landscaping are complete. This will allow us to accelerate the real estate process by at
least a month.
Because of the severe financial situation that has developed for us as a result of unusual
circumstances posed by the Covid-1 9 pandemic and New York State Pause, it is our request
that the $1100 fee for the temporary Certificate of Occupancy be waived.
Thank you for your attention and consideration of our request. This makes a difference for us.
Since ly,
'y
Frank Zgola and Don a T/./g /ki's
607-882-5830
copies: Marty Moseley, Chris Hesse
Paulette Rosa
From:
Paulette Rosa
Sent
Friday, July 31,2O2O11:Z8AK4
To:
Paulette Rosa
Subject:
FW: Conservation Board - Hannah
From: Hannah George
Sent: Tuesday, July 28L2U2O9:ODPM
To: Mike Smith
Subject: Re: July 2nd Conservation Board Meeting
Hey Mike,
Thanks! It's been great to work with you both with C13 and FLLT as well.
You can put down August 10 as my last official day. A few days after the last meeting mightbeniceforanvthing|shou|d
wrap up,
Thanks,
Hannah
TOWN OF ITHACA
215 NORTH TIOGA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850
www.town.ithaca.ny.us
CORRESPONDENCE LISTING
August 24, 2020
Please review the following correspondence and indicate, by placing your initials in the right-hand column
adjacent to the correspondence that you wish to receive a copy. We can forward a copy to you via e-mail or
make a hard copy. Please indicate your preference next to your name at the bottom of this form.
Correspondence — Item Please place your
initials here if you wish
to receive a copy
1. Recommendation for No Parking signs on East Shore Dr/Rte. 34
2. Temporary Road Closure — 30 Ton max Maple Ave
3. Letter from Resident re: 5G
4. Letter from Resident re: 5G
5.
Notice of Public Hearing re: NYSEG Rates
6.
Letter from Resident re:
East Shore Cayuga Lake (Lansing)
7.
Letter from Resident re:
Forest Home Walkway
8.
Letter from Resident re:
Forest Home Walkway
9.
Letter from Resident re:
5G
10. Letter and Article from Resident re: 5G
1. Letter from Lifelong re: Continued support
TOWN OF ITHACA
215 N Tio,a St, Ithaca, NY 14850
L�
+ Ph: 607-273-1721 m www..town.ithacamy, s
.... ..... i
01.
Yo Rod I lowc, Town Supervisor - Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk
July 30, 2020
NYS DOTCortland Office
Jeff Buck, Resident Engineer
3668 NYS Rt 281
(ortland, NY 1304.5
Re.: Town offthaca request for permission to install No Parking o Signs
Z�
Dear Mr. Buck,
Thank YOU again for talking with me last. week. Enclosed is a certified resolution regarding the
Town offthaca's request to install No Parking g signs along Rt 34 aka East Shore Drive.
17
Regards,
Paulette osa
Enc.
MEETING OF THE ITHACA TOWN BOARD
Monday, July 27, 2020
TB Resolution 2020 - 102: Recommendation to the New York State Department of
Transportation concerning installation of No Parking signs on a portion of East
Shore Dr/Rte. 34
Whereas, the Town of Ithaca is concerned about the proliferation of cars parked on the
side of the road along East Shore Dr./Rte. 34 near the Merrill Family Sailing Center and
the adjacent small Town Park in the summer months, and
Whereas the Town has installed numerous signs indicating that swimming is not allowed
at the park; these signs are routinely defaced and/or removed by the public, and
Whereas the Town Board can empathize with the public's desire to access the waterfront,
nevertheless, NYS prohibits swimming in areas not served by a lifeguard, among other
requirements, and
Whereas the public continues to flock to the Town Park, parking on both sides of the road
for quite a long stretch, and causing concerns regarding safety issues while walking to the
park, and
Whereas the Town has discussed these concerns at various Public Works Committees and
Town Board meetings, met onsite with the Tompkins County Sheriff and representatives
of the Sailing Center and tried various ways of addressing the issue, now, therefore, be it
Resolved, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby recommends to the New
York State Department of Transportation that they prohibit parking on both sides of road
between 951 and 1062 East Shore Drive (Route 34), and post signs indicating same.
Moved: Bill Goodman Seconded: Eric Levine
Vote: ayes — Goodman, Levine, Howe, Leary, Hunter, DePaolo and Bleiwas
STATE OF NEW YORK)
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS:
TOWN OF ITHACA:
I, Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca, do hereby certify that the above
resolution is an exact copy of the same adopted by the Ithaca Town Board at a meeting on the 271h
day of July, 2020.
SEAL Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk
TOWN OF I"1 HACA.
AFFIDAVIT OE POSTING AND PUBLICATION
1, Paulette Rosa, being c1Li1y sw01•11, say that l am the "Down Clerk. of the Town of lthaca, Tompkins
C"oLrrity, New York that the following, notice has been duly posted on the sign board of" the Town Clerk of
tfie. 1'own of Ithaca and the notice has been duly published in the official newspaper, Ithaca journal-
FI ADVERTISEMENT/NOTICE
1"] NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
LJ NOTICE, OF ESTOPPEL
11 NOTICE OF ADOPTION OF PI.)IfrLIC.'
INTEREST ORDER
Temporary Road Closure — 30 Ton max
Maple Ave
Highway Superintendent.
Location of Sign Board Used for Posting,:
'fawn Clerk's Office
215 North Tioga Street
lthaca, NY 14850
'['own website at w" Io n,itliart: i?ry fi
Date of Posting: /1.4/2020
Date of Pu c tion: 8/1.7/2020
Paulette Rosa
'Town Clerk
STATE OF NEW YOR.K)
COUNTY OF `I O PKINS) SS:
TOWN OF I'I HACA)
// nr�,1 0—.
Sworn o and subscribed before note this _/ / clay
Notary Public
ECKv L. JRrA
NOTARY PUBLIC -STATE OF NEW YORK
No, 01 J06186381
uollfied In Tompkins County
try Corw1misslran Expires April M 20222 1
TC)WN OF RHACIAI
GROSS S vd4PR.law"HT OF 4ffkOR
THAN "N bgU0`TT " Ttnff Irk)S
rgCMa "yrwMr Vohicie and Tfaa!
Via.Law §11660(z001), 'ih,
town boarcl of, any town
May by ordertevripaar a&.giy
myaw:i aaVm„ fr'rnrrw nray paartir»n
of ay in iu�CaTC^aw ay any
remefnaa tea vvith a w°grwrw arose urgUnt
m„gx e e cfingg er.rt,aiaa tea a of&a „#
w6ghts, wsrfnK.arr [n N.Vaa. Itaw4an
t° oe d a wwU kik.aru faarfa q°ntygia
waway wwaanaUr°:U be gar„�aterli-my 01,)r.arocr fwy thr a .�;re,aar,.atuw,:cal 01,
a;aray �teaa:,0n wchk ple thereon"
Z tara.l
WHEREAS, gatrrsuaarnt
f^cNew, York k V Urae Nee and I
4ic U,,awt) "'iParat(r„), the to
board of nary y town
aTrela ag ate angry aroma all rat
Lar,wva r u Under New "v
Vehicle a!artmd ar,afflk Law
tr'd anka4"1ttw)f U U G t�.a ,wary
a�i��.a0 Urraimj at, agency, dc,
natf d 0ay of ear by kwwwr„ a0
i/tidixdt„tati;.AS, Urn Ithaca T"
Town ttaa,trd de ko- at,ttc.
the Town waf Iptttaar.a
wwrdray Superintendent
nt.
foltowinpea powers ggra.ar
graass vwa„iegV ct.. of over tQur
or r near e fwar r , when 4t Ns
rw ce her ;aggurikm su.ar.„tt road
w ok,0d I'm n1ate,daity Undw,ar'f rst
kAy the r peira¢fron cif wrry
st (jU araaWii Va ther rtary Ahe
a,rertUorn err ,r Ins 0111 tUW
aVa t% auu a U U°narag)'pww .ay fromil
waehkh %U(h wa VaitUa aaa ors.
a,:Utade rt„ .and the issur,araaae, maf
pe ants Uxr earera9rama;p wraVarsagari
„mG;a ex(nnpflrwns x) wrac wne
U"hun.ps w if tt is ela a rrra' at that
swaaf %(esU jdes are V)reawiri0rrgg
w�iwu*tmtr,al loc: U gala::kupa tar
U very service and that aa
t'fvUUrare to grant 5rxh paerrn t:
wcaappat are ate tmaardshr pa„ and
WHEREAS, REAS it aS t)MI taawan Of I
a,Jerttls aapauranrarewk:Ut at MiwpVa
Avenue frearvr the interse -
N:Urut4 c.af Pj ine I n,'e a Road BraeMt
tea q%e 1,o9 AruA rst itUaaa�ar itrma,
ilk's, vawhie.`i as a Town of Rh a,
c road, Wrraa hA t,^'ac rn atra•rrm6.
Uy rww)a.aa°wad fro^V tUl e 'star^awat. on
rat wa•Vaia,°awxw "tla ,°a rc ra.aw�a
gswr+r na,gPat ofrm ore thor, U�narty
d fTg 10015; 'tsar, t.tna r efata e,
Uq°r <ar°'Gar to prevent rnraatw ri,
aU d arrr;i go-e to U'rA apte Ave
r1q,le it is
ORDERED that, fauansnetart Gas
VfI sae °a"a:r ( Vehide and "T" af•
t'&w Law § § dks60 a)f U U) wauuot
r Tkr atfewe) ,,and 0t:0aaa..a 't"rrawrur
Code, § 23 - U 4, 1 R,e "V a„t o n of
)0waca t trr.gtuwr,r,Gurau yaet,:w,,0n,
ter d nt does hereby by tr»ills
fuaat aril) dca e 10 aple AN02-
ttue 6raarn the "UW r e ctn.an
of U"rnc-* "Vat v Lfe:aawd Vvest kn ,
02Town Of kt.rulaet kit 0ts t.c>
araa ,111cL a0V vehicles Una✓iraacg
as rgrae,ss rejjgG°at� of _snore
tt^a an 'thirty d )GA) tcarrw, wo-eaut.h t
s w;Ut to nlr30r afy rest6ction
to be e ffectrtre aa(aiGMl UK`,
Aw"Vekar.an swaann g saea.rn rw,a�j u.x a+.,•
t)raer, can�yai ,,a.aw fw time as 0m
rte rnovat of SUCII wdegaas a,ar cfi•
u-a e t u, q Va
y tlUrr, °4"a:,mm cif wv,'t-
ri,a qOt U& a, uia "errnmwta�a•d,
eruf� e.attrdiK is fs.aaher
r'gftU"aERED tl"re'Dt: r10ti'(7e 0 t
e:ara&a ciasure shall,b WawsUr-
U qVaati in Guar aawvrm Ga o rctM
tar a�rwp ask:>a r.
F."ratu. 8/13/2020
ww a g.)tr Si ater,
Uttgi,nww^aay ya„agwaerIn e mic"'A
"tea ar errtth as
taauangaUrUrr.CouanU' ,
hwwtcw "yNaarr k
t�a1t d"1y'S��a20
--, .+dx")",�,,fa,eaa
ORDER TEMPORARILY CLOSING MAPLE AVENUE IN THE TOWN OF ITHACA
TO VEHICLES WITH A GROSS WEIGHT OF MORE THAN THIRTY TONS
XNHEREAS, pursuant to New York Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1660(a)(1 I), the town board of
any town may by order temporarily exclude from any portion of any town highway any vehicle
with a gross weight exceeding certain specified weights, when in the town board's opinion such
highway would be materially injured by the operation of any such vehicle thereon; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to New York Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1603(e), the town board of any
town may delegate any or all of its powers under New York Vehicle and Traffic Law
§ 1660(a)(11) to any official, board or agency designated by it or by law; and
WHEREAS, in Ithaca Town Code § 230-14, the Ithaca Town Board delegated to the Town of
Ithaca Highway Superintendent the following powers granted to town boards under New York
Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1660(a)(11): temporary exclusion from any portion of any Town
highway of any vehicle with a gross weight of over four or more tons, when in his or her opinion
such road would be materially injured by the operation of any such vehicle thereon; the erection
of signs on the section of highway from which such vehicles are excluded, and the issuance of
permits providing appropriate exemptions to such vehicles, if it is deemed that such vehicles are
providing essential local pickup or delivery service and that a failure to grant such permit would
create hardship, and
WHEREAS, it is the Town of Ithaca Highway Superintendent's opinion that Maple Avenue from
the intersection of Pine Tree Road west to the Town of Ithaca limits, which is a Town of Ithaca
road, would be materially injured by the operation of vehicles with a gross weight of more than
thirty (30) tons, now, therefore, in order to prevent material damage to Maple Avenue it is
ORDERED that, pursuant to New York Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1660(a)(I 1) and 1603(e)
and Ithaca Town Code § 230-14, the Town of Ithaca Highway Superintendent does hereby
temporarily close Maple Avenue from the intersection of Pine Tree Road west to the Town of
Ithaca limits to any and all vehicles having a gross weight of more than thirty (30) tons, with
such temporary restriction to be effective upon the erection of signs on Maple Avenue stating
such restriction, until such time as the removal of such signs as directed by the Town of Ithaca
Highway Superintendent; and it is further
ORDERED that notice of such closure shall be published in the Town's official newspaper.
Date: 8) 3 zt) A A )o�
Josep Slater, Highway Superintendent
Town of Ithaca
Tompkins County, New York
Fromm:
JenoneGag|ianoqeroneg@gmai|zonn>
Sent:
Wednesday, August 19.2U2O81OAK4
To:
Paulette Rosa; Bill Goodman; Rich DePaolo; Parn Bleiwas; TeeAnn Hunter; Eric Levine; Pat
Leary; Nick Goldsmith; Rod Howe Susan RiMe�[hris Ba|estor
brock@clai-itycotinect.com; Laura Lewis; Cynthia Brock,- George McGonigal; Joseph
Murtagh; Ducson Nguyen; Donna F|eming�Rob Gearhart; Graham Kers|ick;Stephen
Smith; Deb K4oh|enho[[dcogmn@diyofithaca.org�kUahei-ty@dtynfithacaorg;]oAnn
Cornish- Julie Holcomb; Attorney; Aaron Lavine; Svante Myrick
Cc:
editor�ithacadmesxom;msteecker@gannettzom;khogan@ithac jqunnaicom;
tgpudney@ithacavoicezom;]essicaVV@*izeUamedia.conn;ToddM@vizeUamediazom;
jbi|inski@ithacehmes.com;nborowski@gannettzom;stephenk@vize||ameUiazom
Subject:
SG Privacy and Security Risks
Attachments:
5GFad3heei[yberSecurity v1.O1.pdf
To the City of Ithaca and Town of Ithaca,
I have watched the discussions by the Common Council on the 4G/5G Small Cell infrastructure proposed to be installed
this fall through the Master License Agreement with Vehzon. However, | have not heard much, ifany, discussion on
the Ltbersecurity aLidq iva hreat this dense network of 4G/5G Small Cell antennas and the proliferation of the
Internet ofThings (IoT)will likely bring about. This isanew technology still being developed and the security ufdata
over this network is behind. Institutions that rely on safety and securiiy- like banks, courL houses, police departments,
city administration offices, large businesses - use fiber optics and will continue to (even Currently here in Ithaca) for the
very reason that sending this kind of data over a wireless connection is not secure.
There is great concern fnzmmany officials including the Dept ofHomeland Security and FCC. Please see some
summarizedpoints with their references }nthe attached pdt
What is|thara'splan toindependently test the Vulnerability oJthe new 56network? The wireless provider cannot
commission their own work.
How will Ithaca ensure that the citizens' cyberseCUrity and privacy will not be eroded?
Will Ithaca be liable for future damages frorn unintended consequences of allowing Verizon, and future providers, to
install this dense 4G/5GSmall Cell infrastructure?
I have yet to hear any compelling reason why this needs to be rushed through, especially when there are so rnany
unknowns and risks. I want to be assured that You have done Your due diligence in this area before deciding to bring
this technology into Our community.
Thank you for your attention.
Jerone6ag|ianqPE
4G/5G Wireless& "Sma III/ Amen h 6s Fact Sheet
• "The currently proposed 4G/5("j' dense deployment will result in personal privacy impairments from
ubiquitous surveillance as never previously experienced in United States"]
• Massive data hacking will become a much simpler thing to pull off if this untested 5G system is
set Lip as currently envisioned.1
• While current cell phone/tablet break-ins are not very common due to the substantial amount of'
equipment a hacker would need to be able to test a device "over tile air", the flatter design of
5G networks will remove many barriers to cellular security hacking.'
• "*With 5G's decentralised [design.] the technology will be opened LIP to scrutiny by a Much wider
range ofthreat actors. For example, ran intelligent, low -budget and amateur hacker with the skill to
crack software might lack the cash for cellular testing equipment but will be able to afford a budget
5G picocell." This will then give them a route to 5G devices for cellular security break in. 2
• "As 5G technology is designed for dense Internet of Things (161) networks in the order of one
million devices per square kilometre, the sheer number of'proJected and insecure devices using 5G
means an exponential increase in attack surface and potential Vulnerabilities" 2
• As 5G is forecast to become the dominant method of` wireless Communications, not only will many
eggs be placed in one basket, but they will be reachable frorn one another. When just one of these
devices is compromised, dozens more are then reachable. fixing this kind of scenario Would be an
enormous undertaking, which is exactly why the security of (JI" [LJsei- Equipment'] devices and the
2
cloud infirasti-LICtUre will be critical.
• The erosion of anonymity is another concern related to 5G's m ill ion -devices -per kilometer plan.
5G precision could reveal the specific floor within a building where a device is located, because the
macro cells used in deployment are substantially smaller than in cellular networks. 2
NATIONAL SECURITY INII)LICATIONS
• "Due to the ease of inevitable hacking the "every block" 4G/5G deployment would allow foreign
powers to track the day to (lay details of virtually all human life in the United States including
location and movement of military assets and personnel, thereby with indelible national security
irnpairment."I
• The Department otl-lorneland Security and the State Department hold the position that the greatest
risk of 5G to national security would be the potential for China to use Huawei —made products for
espionage. China could easily compel its tech firms to act against the interests of citizens of any other
Country. They are already working with authoritarian regimes to suppress Freedoms. All products
made by Fluawei pose great risk of espionage.3
• Torn Wheeler, l'ornier FCC chairman, states that "Effective progress toward achieving minimally
satisfactory 5G cyber risk outcomes is compromised by a hyper rOCLIS on legitimate concerns
regarding HLKINVei equipment in I.J.S. networks ... it is only one of the many important 5G risk factors.
The hyperbolic rhetoric surrounding the Chinese equipment issues is drowning out what should
be a strong national focus on the full breadth of cybersecurity risk factors facing 5G."I
• The world's hackers (good and bad) are already turning to the 5G ecosystem, as the just concluded
DEl"CON 2019 (the annual ethical "hacker Olympics*') illustrate(]. The targets of this year's hacker
villages included key parts of the 5G ecosystem Such as: aviation, automobiles, infrastructure
control systems, privacy, retail call centers and help desks, hardware in general, drones, IoT,
and voting machines.4
• Across the country, consumers, companies, and cities seeking to use 5CY are ill-cqUipped to assess, let
alone address, its threats. "The 5G cybersecurity threat is a whole -of -the -nation peril. We should
not be lulled into complacency because the newness of the network has masked the threat.,, 4
0,01 2020-01-27 mucoSafeGoig
4G/SG Wireless & "small" Antennas Fact Sheet
References
I Harry V. Lehmann, Ali attorney and engineer who served President Reagan, LII-gCS tile Senate to suspend its
approval ofa national close proximity microwave radiating systern underlying 5G. In his le.11.e..t., to Senator
Feinstein dated March 8, 2018 lei in un I I I-
...... . . ..... . .. . . . . .......
S-Ietter�
2 "5G and the Security Challenge" by Alex Farrant. Published: Land Mobile, November 21, 2019
jiqtp� �!Jaj Id III ob i L co ( &LI i -CI g! qqg�
Ujjj);-.--L L
Senate Judiciary Corninittee"flearing oil 5G Security Risks" May 14, 2019 Presenters: Christopher Krebs,
Dir. Cyber Security , Infrastructure Security Agency, under Dept. of I lorneland Security and Robert Strayer,
Del). Asst. Secretary Cyber & Int'l Coln III UniCatiOnS, LIS State Department.
sii
4 Brookings Institution RF`T( I ' 'I Why 5G rC(]Llires new approaches to cyberseCUrity: Racing to protect the
most inn portant network of the 2 1 st century n -s.�(ILCreseqrcI6� hy-5 -r-r UI res-IleW-
& 121 Wl)is�L�L III g LS
. ... ........
By Tom Wheeler and David Sirnp�on Tuesday, September 3, 2019. Torn Wheeler was the ;1st. Chair of the
FVC. fie represented the industry for 12 years as president ofthe Cellular Telecom In Llu i cat i oils and Internet
Association (CTIA) before being appointed chair of the FCC
v 1 0 1 2020-01-27 mocoSal'e(', org
Paulette Rosa
From: niarieandrew93@gmaiI.com
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2020 4:51 PM
To: Bill Goodman; Rod Howe; Susan Ritter; Rich DePaolo; Pam Bleiwas; TeeAnn Hunter, Eric
Levine; Pat Leary; Nick Goldsmith; b rock@ clarityco nnect,com; Chris Balestra; Paulette
Rosa
Subject: The legal basis to consider health impacts with small cell antennas
When considering allowing the installation of 4G/5G/small cells, the issue of health concerns inevitably comes
up, as does the subsequent debate on whether or not local governments can even consider health
considerations around the operations of such facilities. To date, it seems some local officials believe that this
is not the case. But, as this note will show in detail, it is clear that established Congressional laws and
intent, state/local laws, and a recent federal court case do indeed allow for health impacts to be
considered.
1. Starting back in 1968, in the Public Health Safety Act Congress declared that "the public health and
safety must be protected from the dangers of electronic product radiation." (sec. 354)
littr)s://zero5ci.coin/2019/h-r-10790-i'adiation-control-for-iiealtli-atici-safet -act-of-,1968/
2. In the Telecommunications Act (TCA) of 1996, Congress allowed for the operations of any wireless
facility to be regulated by local governments. This includes any environmental or health effects.,
3. The part of the TCA that pertains to the placement, installation and modification of facilities violates
the 10- amendment by stripping local governments of power to protect their citizens in those areas.
From the Constitution: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it
to the States, are reserved to th&States respectively, or to the people."
4. On August 9, 2019, the federal circuit court of DC in Keetoowah v FCC ruled that every new wireless facility
must undergo a NEPA review, and that WTF applications cannot be batched for such purpose. Since the
Court vacated the FCC rule, its decision applies nationally, superseding other prior lawsuits (such as
those in the Second Circuit). After the U.S. SU1Lrern(--,, CqLtrt, the D.C. Circuit is generally considered the most
prestigious of American courts. Its jurisdiction contains the U.S. Congress and many of the U.S. government
agencies, and therefore is the main appellate court for many issues of American administrative and
constitutional law. Its rulings apply to the entire United States, as admitted at-3:34:55 in the public record
video by Verizon Wireless Outside Counsel Paul Albritton at the San TFia`n*c�isco"—Board -of Appeals on November
20, 2019: "My colleague, Melanie Sangupta, reminded me that NEPA does apply nationwide."
Further information on this can be found below.,,
111111 IRIT11 191
5. State and local building codes are predicated on assuring the health and safety of the public. In the
2020 Building Code of New York State: 'The purpose of this code is to establish the minimum
requirements to provide a reasonable level of safetV, public health and general welfare..."
IIE'll, Pill! 111111 1!
111110431111111 E Iliiili I il I
These points confirm what is common sense: it is the right of local citizens and their local representatives
to protect themselves against any harm. This is why cities around the country are outraged. For example,
in 2020, the City of Boston filed a submission to the FCCs 19-226 docket stating, "Boston believes that the
concerns of the public are real and that the Commission has done a disservice to itself, local
government, consumers, and even the wireless industry in failing to understand and respond to the
broadly shared mistrust of the safety of RF emissions."
0111M
(a A I a L&JJILO.Ltas I$ I
Marie and Andrew Molnar
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (TCA) sets the legal framework for this debate, leaving the
regulation of the "operations" of WTFs to the local government. In that act at 47 U.S. Code § 332
(c)(7)(13)(4), the actual environmental effects of RF/MW radiation from WTFs are recognized, indicating by
extension its recognition of actual health effects therefrom. TCA unambiguously left the regulation of the health
effects of WTFs' RF/MW radiation entirely within state and local officials' authorities, obligating said officials to
protect their residents against health effects with regard to all related activities of WTFs: placement,
construction, modification and operations. In plain reading of 47 U.S. Code § 332 (c)(7)(13)(4):
"No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction,
and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of
radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission's regulations
concerning such emissions."
As you can clearly read her " e, all "operations" of all WTFs remain, and have always been, Linder the regulatory
authorities of state and local officials. "Operations", which pertain to the RF / MW radiation transmissions of
WTFs, and the transformation of electrical energy into such, were attempted to have been preempted by the
authors of the original draft of TCA. However, C arrcLgss rp e Lqq�L_q "operations" from the preemption clause at
47 U.S. Code § 332(c)(7)(B)(4), positively leaving the regulation of operations within state and local authorities'
hands, for any and all reasons and grounds: health effects, environmental effects, agricultural effects, energy
conservation, atmospheric effects, weather forecasting effects, astronomy effects, aesthetic effects, historic
preservation, property values, aviation safety, local and state economies, and more.
TCA intent is further evidenced in its ConferencEji'leport, pp. 207-209:
"The conferees also intend that the phrase 'unreasonably discriminate among providers of
functionally equivalent services' will provide localities with the flexibility to treat facilities that create
different visual, aesthetic, or safety concerns differently to the extent permitted under generally
applicable zoning requirements even if those facilities provide functionally equivalent services."
Logisj,a,tjyg_p,�� cannot be ignored, as they supersede specific laws and rules thereunder. The priqLary
pqjmo, je of the U.S. Congress's TCA "mobile services" is to "to promote the safety of life and
property". Congress set up F-_CCfo.,r L ..gj [jgLggfp(Dses "prornoting safety of life and
property". Therefore, where a local government sees actual and potential consequences of WTFs contrary to
the said purposes, it is authorized to ensure that Congressional intent is rather fulfilled.
The following testimony from Attorney Edward B. Myers, an intervenor in Case 18-1129, was delivered at a
November 19, 2019 hearing in Montgomery County, Maryland and again at a November 20, 2019 Safi
Francisco hearing. The testimony was entered into the respective public records at each of these hearings:
"I am an attorney and was an intervenor in the DC Circuit Case 18-1129. 1 worked closely with the Natural
Resources Defense Council on the briefs filed with the Court. My reading of the Court decision is summarized
in the following:
"The Federal Communications Commission issued a rulemaking order on March 30, 2018 to expedite the
deployment of Densified 4G/5G and other advanced wireless facilities (what the FCC called "small cell"
facilities). The FCC's order exempted all of these 4G/5G facilities from two kinds of previously required review:
historic -preservation review Linder the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and environmental review
under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
"On August 9, 2019, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated the FCC's rulemaking
order. The legal effect of vacating the FCC's rule necessarily means that the prior rule was reinstated: any
actions taken on the basis of the vacated rule must be reconsidered under the terms of the prior rule.
"The prior rule required the FCC to apply NEPA to the construction of 4G/5G facilities. Consequently, it
is not lawful that any such facility be constructed without prior NEPA review. While other actions of
Congress and the FCC have attempted to circumscribe local authority over the construction of Densified
4G/5G facilities, in light of the Court's decision, the localities are, nevertheless, within their rights to
require the sponsors of Densified 4G/5G facilities to provide evidence that the FCC has conducted a
NEPA review prior to approving any request for construction.
"Moreover, in as much as the Court's decision vacated the FCC's rule, the decision applies nationwide: its
effect is not limited to the District of Columbia."
We call to your attention that, on August 9, 2019, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, in its Ruling in Case 18-
1129 vacated EC " Q Order 1 8-30's deregulation of WTFs and remanded this to the FCC. In Case 18-1129, the
judges stated that "the FCC failed to justify its determination that it is not in the public interest to require review
of [WTF] deployments" and ruled that "the Order's deregulation of [WTFs] is arbitrary and capricious."
The D.C. Circuit judges, whose Court is esteemed as superseding, and not part of, the other eleven Circuit
Courts — a Court subsidiary solely to the U.S. Supreme Court and of equivalent weight in the absence of an
appeal, which appeal does not exist in this case — published reasons for their 8/9/19 RLJlinQ, concluding:
"The FCC failed to address that it was speeding clensification "without completing its investigation of ...
health effects of low -intensity radiofrequency [microwave] radiation".
The FCC did not adequately address the harms of deregulation.
The FCC did not justify its portrayal of those harms as negligible.
The FCC's characterization of the Order as consistent with its longstanding policy was not "logical and
rational." . . . because the FCC mischaracterized the size, scale and footprint of the anticipated
nationwide deployment of 800,000-unit network of small WTFs.
Such WTFs are "crucially different from the consumer signal boosters and Wi-Fi routers to which the
FCC compares them".
"It is impossible on this record to credit the claim that [WTF] deregulation will 'leave little to no
environmental footprint."'.
The FCC fails to justify its conclusion that small WTFs "as a class" and by their "nature" are "inherently
unlikely" to trigger potential significant environmental impacts.
Therefore, this 8/9/19 D.C. Circuit Ruling renders every WTF application incomplete where the
application does not contain substantial written evidence of NEPA review."
From FCC NEPA Attorney, Erica Rosenberg: "All Wireless Telecommunication Facilities applications
need a NEPA review."
,National Environmental Policy Act Sec. 101 [42 USC § 4331]
(a) The Congress, recognizing the profound impact of man's activity on the interrelations of all components of
the natural environment, particularly the profound influences of population growth, high -density urbanization,
industrial expansion, resource exploitation, and new and expanding technological advances and recognizing
further the critical importance of restoring and maintaining environmental quality to the overall welfare and
development of man, declares that it is the continuing policy of the Federal Government, in cooperation with
State and local governments, and other concerned public and private organizations, to use all practicable
means and measures, including financial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and
promote the general welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in
productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations
of Americans.
(b) In order to carry out the policy set forth in this Act, it is the continuing responsibility of the Federal
Government to use all practicable means, consistent with other essential considerations of national policy, to
improve and coordinate Federal plans, functions, programs, and resources to the end that the Nation may:
1. fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding
generations;
2. assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing
surroundings;
(c) The Congress recognizes that each person should enjoy a healthful environment and that each
person has a responsibility to contribute to the preservation and enhancement of the environment.
CEO NEPA Regulation Section 1508.8 [40 C.F.R. § 1508.8.]
"Effects" include:
(a) Direct effects, which are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place.
(b) Indirect effects, which are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are
still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth inducing effects and other effects related to
induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and
water and other natural systems, including ecosystems. Effects and impacts as used in these regulations are
synonymous. Effects includes ecological (such as the effects on natural resources and on the components,
structures, and functioning of affected ecosystems), aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social, or health,
whether direct, indirect, or cumulative. Effects may also include those resulting from actions which may have
both beneficial and detrimental effects, even if on balance the agency believes that the effect will be beneficial.
From Citizen's Guide to the NEPA, Council on Environmental Quality — Executive Office of the President (p
22.) "The agency must analyze the full range of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the preferred
alternative, if any, and of the reasonable alternatives identified in the draft EIS. For purposes of NEPA,
"effects" and "impacts" mean the same thing. They include ecological, aesthetic, historic, cultural,
economic, social, or health impacts, whether adverse or beneficial. It is important to note that human
beings are part of the environment (indeed, that's why Congress used the phrase "human environment" in
NEPA), so when an EIS is prepared and economic or social and natural or physical environmental effects are
interrelated, the EIS should discuss all of these effects.
NEWYORK
STATE or
OPPORTUNrry
11-�
Department of
Public Service
Office Locations
3 Empire State Plaza, Albany, NY 12223-1350
90 Chu(ch Stieet, 4` Floor, New Yo(k NY 10007-2929
295 Main SUeet, SLIfe 1050, BtlffAb, NY 142(M-2508
12h East Bethpage Road, Rainview, NY 11803
www dps ny,gov
August 14, 2020
Dear Community Leader/Elected Official:
PLiblic Service Commission
John B. Rhodes
Chair and
Chief Exemitive Office
Diane X. Burnaan
Jarnes S. Alesi
'rracey A. Edwards
John B. Howard
Commissioners
Thomas Congdon
Deputy Chairand
Execrative Deputy
Robert Rosenthal
Geneial Counsei
Michelle L. Phillips
Secretary
In June 2020, Department Ol'I'Liblic Service Stall" New York State Electric & Gas Corporation,
Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation, and other parties to the proceedings entered into a.loint
Proposal (J11) that proposes changes in the Companies' electric and gas delivery rates and practices.
The JP also provides I*or the closure ol'six customer service walk-in offices under a phased closure
schedule beginning Junc 1, 2021. Under New York State Law, the New York State Public Service
('011111liSSi011 (C01111niSSiOn) must consider a Utility's proposal and may adopt or re ' ject it in whole or in
part, or modify it by adopting changes proposed by participating parties, the general public or the
C0111111issiOn.
To ensure Full public participation, the C0111111iSSiOn Will ]told Vil-LUal public statement hearings
to solicit input and comments frorl your C0111111LInity regarding the Joint proposal and the proposed
closure otcertain walk-in centers. The public comments received at these hearings will be considered
by the Commission in deciding these cases. The enclosed fact sheet provides detailed iril'ormation on
how to participate in the public statement hearings as Well as the available Options to SLibrnit Comments
on the proceedings. A copy of the Joint Proposal and information abOUt the, case call be 1`01.1nd at the
Commission's A� wAns.iml-lov web site. F'rorn the hornepage, click on "Search," and enter the
associated Case number (19-E-0378 et al) in the "Search by Case Number" field.
I would appreciate your assistance with inflori-ning YOU CO11StitUel1tS about the public statement
hearings and encouraging them to provide conirricrits. It is the Commission's intent to facilitate and
encourage active and meaningful participation throughout all ot'its proceedings. We hope you Will
considerjoining its at one ofthese hearings.
Sincerely,
,John 13. AUricchio
Director ofConsurner Services
Eric.
STATE
STATE OF
0 0 PP,
PPORTUNITY,
Public Service
commission
Factsheet and
Notice of Public Hearings
In May 2019, New York State Electric & Gas Corporation (NYSEG) and Rochester Gas and Electric
Corporation (RG&E) requested that the New York State Public Service Commission (Commission)
approve proposed increases in their electric and gas rates and requested the proposed closure of
multiple customer service walk-in offices. NYSEG and RG&E (collectively, the Companies) serve
approximately 1,786,000 customers in 46 counties in upstate and western New York.
Once the filings were received, formal rate case proceedings were initiated. Department of Public
Service (DPS) Staff began an analysis of the Companies' request to evaluate whether — or to what
extent — a rate increase is justified. DPS Staff represents the public interest in rate proceedings and
evaluates such requests with the goal of ensuring safe and reliable service at just and reasonable
rates.
On June 22, 2020, DPS Staff, the Companies and other parties to the proceedings entered into a
Joint Proposal (JP) that proposes changes in the Companies' electric and gas delivery rates and
practices commencing May 1, 2020 and continuing through April 30, 2023. The 3P also provides for
the closure of six customer service walk-in offices under a phased closure schedule beginning June 1,
2021. Under New York State Law, the Commission must consider a utility's proposal and may adopt
or reject it, in whole or in part, or modify it by adopting changes proposed by participating parties,
the general public or the Commission.
The Commission is seeking public comment on the Companies' rate filings and the proposed
increases to electric and gas delivery rates included in the Joint Proposal. Interested members of the
public are invited to attend a series of virtual public statement hearings and provide comments
regarding the proposal. The dates and times of the hearings are listed at the end of this factsheet.
Parties to the proceeding filed a JP proposing a three-year rate plan for the Companies' electric and
gas delivery services as well as proposed closures of six customer service walk-in offices operated by
the Companies. The rate plan would extend from May 1, 2020 through April 30, 2021 (Rate Year 1),
May 1, 2021 through April 30, 2022 (Rate Year 2), and May 1, 2022 through April 30, 2023 (Rate
Year 3).
Overview of the Joint Proposal:
➢ Rates: An electric or gas bill consists of two parts: delivery and supply. The delivery charge is
the cost to transport the electricity or gas to customers throughout the utility's system. This
delivery charge is regulated by the Commission. The supply charge is the cost of the electricity or
gas itself, which is determined by the competitive markets and is not set by the Commission or
the utility.
• NYSEG Rates: The JP recommends levelized increases of NYSEG's annual electric delivery
revenues by approximately $45.68 million (a 6.1% increase) for Rate Year (RY)1, $84.77
million (a 10.6% increase) for RY2, and $88.57 million (a 9.9% increase) for RY3. If the
Commission approves the rate increases recommended in the JP, the electric total revenue
increase would result in an average monthly bill increase of $2.49 or 3.6% in RY1, $4.13 or
5.7% in RY2 and $5.54 or 7.2% in RY3 for a residential customer using 600 kWh per month.
For NYSEG's gas business, delivery revenues will decrease by approximately $514,000 (a 0.3%
decrease) in RY1, increase by approximately $3.35 million (a 1.7% increase) in RY2 and
increase by $5.27 million (a 2.5% increase) in RY3. The recommended gas delivery revenue
changes contained in the JP would result in an average monthly total bill decreasing by $0.02
(0.0%) in RY1, increasing by $0.53 (a 0.6% increase) in RY2 and increasing by $1.22 (a 1.4%
increase) in RY3 for a residential heating customer using 90 therms per month.
RG&E Rates: The delivery revenue increases for RG&E's electric business are approximately
$15.24 million (a 3.4% increase) for RY1, $28.06 million (a 6.3% increase) for RY2, and
$30.72 million (a 6.2% increase) for RY3. If the Commission approves the rate increases
recommended in the JP, the electric total revenue increase would result in an average monthly
bill increase of $0.37 or 0.5% in RY1, $3.82 or 5.0% in RY2 and $4.14 or 5.2% in RY3 for a
residential customer using 600 kWh per month.
For RG&E's gas business, delivery revenues will decrease by approximately $1.13 million (a
0.6% decrease) in RY1, increase by approximately $859,000 (a 0.5% increase) in RY2 and
increase by $3.87 million (a 2.1% increase) in RY3. The recommended gas delivery revenue
changes contained in the JP would result in an average monthly total bill decreasing by $0.80
(a 0.1% decrease) in RY1, increasing by $0.10 (a 0.1% increase) in RY2 and by $0.81 (a 1.1%
increase) in RY3 for a residential heating customer using 90 therms per month.
The actual bill impacts of these proposed changes on any particular customer class will vary based
upon revenue allocation and rate design.
Walk -In Centers: The second component of the JP is the proposed closure of the following
customer service walk-in offices under a phased closure schedule beginning June 1, 2021:
• NYSEG`s Hornell Office, located at 7760 Industrial Park Road, Hornell (2021 closure)
• NYSEG's Lancaster Office, located at 150 Erie Street, Lancaster (2021 closure)
• NYSEG's Liberty Office, located at 26 Wierk Avenue, Liberty (2022 closure)
• RG&E's Canandaigua Office, located at 79 Clark Street, Canandaigua (2021 closure)
• RG&E's Fillmore Office, located at 32 Main Street, Fillmore (2021 closure)
• RG&E's Rochester Office, located at 256 Waring Road, Rochester (2021 closure)
-2-
The full text of the rate cases may be viewed online at DPSs wwwdpsjjyQv website. From the
homepage, click on "Search" and enter any of the case numbers (NYSEG electric: 19-E-0378, NYSEG
gas: 19-G-0379, RG&E electric: 19-E-0380 or RG&E gas: 19-G-0381) in the "Search by Case Number"
field.
The Commission strongly believes that obtaining public input is a critical component of the rate -
setting process. Stakeholders, such as consumers, government agencies and officials, public interest
and environmental groups, and industry representatives, are invited to participate in the process,
review the proposals, and submit comments.
• 11014111111
• Via Virtual Public Statement Hearings: Comments may be made at a virtual public
statement hearing that will be held before an Administrative Law Judge. Instructions
regarding the virtual hearings are on the last page of this factsheet.
Via the Department's Website: Comments may also be entered directly into the case by
locating the case via the home page of the Commission's website, www.dps.nv.gov, by
clicking on "Search" and entering the associated case number (19-E-0378, 19-G-0379,
19-E-0380 or 19-G-0381) in the "Search by Case Number" field. After clicking to open the
case, enter comments in the "Post Comments" section located at the top of the page.
Via Mail/E-Mail: Submit comments electronically to Hon, Michelle L. Phillips, Secretary,
secretary@dps.ny.gov or by mail or delivery to Secretary at the Department of Public
Service, Three Empire State Plaza, Albany, New York 12223-1350. Comments delivered
in these manners should reference "NYSEG and RG&E Rate Cases (19-E-0378/19-G-03
and 19-E-0380/19-G-0381)". I
Via Toll -Free Opinion Line: Individuals may choose to submit comments by calling the
Commission's toll -free Opinion Line at 1-800-335-2120, This line is set up to receive in-
state calls 24-hours a day. Comments received via the Opinion Lille are not transcribed,
but a summary is provided to the Commission for their consideration.
Comments will be accepted at any point while this proceeding is pending but are requested by
August 31, 2020 to ensure full consideration. All comments will become part of the record
considered by the Commission.
-3-
The New York State Department of Public Service will hold virtual public statement hearings
regarding the NYSEG/RG&E Joint Proposal (Case 19-E-0378 et al.) in its entirety as well as virtual
public statement hearings regarding the proposed walk-in center closures. To join a hearing
electronically, visit www.webex.com, click "Join" at the top right corner of the screen, and enter the
event number and password for that hearing. To join the hearings using the telephone only, dial
518-549-0500 and enter the hearing access code when prompted.
Virtual Hearings Regarding the Joint Proposal:
Date
Time
Electronic Access
www.webex.com
Phone -only Access
518-549-0500
Wednesday, August 26
1:00 P.M.
Event #: 129 561 6203
Access code: 129 561 6203
Password: August 26-1 pm
Wednesday, August 26
6:00 P.M.
Event* 129 716 5524
Access code: 129 716 5524
Password: August 26-6pm
Virtual Hearings Regarding Proposed Walk -In Center Closures:
Date
Time
Electronic Access
www.webex.com
Phone -only Access
518-549-0500
Thursday, August 27
1:00 P.M.
Event #: 129 700 4393
Access code: 129 700 4393
Password: August 27-1 pm
Thursday, August 27
6:00 P.M.
Event #: 129 389 7531
Access code: 129 380 7531
Password: August 27-6pm
Provide a Statement for the Record:
Any person wishing to provide a public statement on the record during one of these hearings must
register in advance of the hearing no later than 5:00 P.M. on Monday, August 24, 2020.
To register electronically: Participants who will login electronically to the hearing may register
by visiting www.webex.com, clicking "Join" at the top right corner of the screen, inputting the
hearing event number listed above and providing the requested information. When logging into
the hearing at the appropriate date and time, participants will be asked to "select audio system."
It is recommended that participants opt to have the system "call me" or "call using computer."
The "call me" option will require participants enter their phone number.
To register by phone: Any participant who is not able to login to a hearing electronically may
participate by phone. Call -in participants wishing to provide a statement must register in
advance by calling 1-800-342-3330 and following the prompts to the appropriate hearing. Calls
must provide the following information: first and last name, address, and phone number.
Persons with disabilities requiring special accommodations should contact DPS's Human Resources
Management Office at 518-474-2520 as soon as possible. Telecommunication Relay Service users
may request a sign language interpreter by calling the New York Relay Service at 711. Individuals
with difficulty understanding English are encouraged to call DIPS at 1-800-342-3377 for free language
assistance services.
-4-
Paulette Rosa
From: Rod Howe
Sent Friday, August 21.2U2O11:59AK4
To: Jodi
Cc kai|etsspis@yahooconT Marty Moseley; Paulette Rosa
Subject: RE: Construction concern on Cayuga Lake's East Shore
MU
The property You reference is not in the Town of Ithaca. We believe that it is in the Town of Lansing and as YOU indicated
you did copy the Lansing Town Supervisor onyour email.
Best, Rod
Rod Flowe
Supurviaor Tonmo[It)acu
215 North Tiow8Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
607-773-1721,cxL 125
VVebGite: www,lo n i
Facebook:Town ofIthaca NY
Twitter: Town of Ithaca (@Ithacal"own)
From: Jodi T^qktsapb@hotmaU.com>
Sent: Friday, August J1,202OQ:59 AM
To: Rod Howe <RHovve@townjthacaoyus>;Bill Goodman <BGoodman@hrwnjthaca.nyua>;Rich DePao|o
<rdepao|o@townjthaca.ny.us>;TeeAnnHunter <thunter@Lovvnjthacaoyus>
Cc: elavigne@lansingtown.com; kailetsapis@yahoo.com
Subject: Construction concern on Cayuga Lake's East Shore
Greetings! I hope this email finds you all staying well and thank you all for your service.
|arnwriting tDyou today regarding development Vnthe east shore cliffs ofCayuga Lake. Agalifetime resident
OnTaughannmckBoulevard and one who Values and cherishes the natural beauty ofthe Ithaca area, |was
incredibly alarmed to see the permanence of this development on the east shore. Please see the photos
| understand that vv8are inaterrible time and this i3a"first world problem" during such grave issues vveface
inthis nation however, istill feel socompelled tObring this toyour awareness.
|vvould have ernail8djust the conservation committee Vfthe Ithaca Town Board but your web site and contact .
information did not align.
Anyways, I was lucky enough to be out on the lake with my sister and friend and we cruised down the east
shore of Cayuga Lake. My sister and I had noticed what appeared to be scaffolding on the east shore of the
lake which we can see from our property on the west shore.
We went to check it out in our friends boat and to our shock and surprise, this was not scaffolding! It is an
elaborate, HUGE staircase to access the lakefront from a house which is perched basically on a cliff. It is
absolutely hideous, excessive and most of all, setting a precedent for people building mansions on the cliffs
about Lake Cayuga to create huge projects and structures to access the lake from their cliffside homes!
Not only is it selfish to mar and alter the landscape for your personal use, it is intended to be permanent
construction which may encourage more Disney-esque construction projects along the cliffs of Cayuga. Is this
what we want for our lake and community? As environmental stewards of this area, is this what we want to
see? In a few years will we see staircase after staircase and elaborately engineered trams and elevators up
and down the gorgeous cliffs of Cayuga for cliff dwelling residents?
As more people seek upstate homes and come settle in Ithaca, are we allowing a free for all with massive
construction projects on Cayuga's shores?
I am copying the Lansing Town Board Supervisor on this email as well as someone I consulted thought this may
be an issue related to Lansing but you know what? Beyond the town lines and jurisdictions, this is an
environmental issue that really warrants our care and concern for our beautiful Ithaca and the shores of
Cayuga Lake! They are not just for those who can afford them but their natural timeless beauty is for all.
Thank you for your time. I am copying my sister Kaile Tsapis on this email as well.
With appreciation,
Jodi Tsapis
IN
Paulette Rosa
From: Bruce Brittain <brucebrittain@verizon.net>
Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2020 5:54 PM
To: rlh13@cornell.edu; TeeAnn Hunter; rd@richdepaolo.com; Bill Goodman; p117
@cornell.edu; pamtownithaca@gmail.com; elevinetown@gmail.com
Cc: Daniel Thaete; Joe Talbut; Joe Slater; Paulette Rosa
Subject: Forest Home Walkway
DATE: August 23, 2020
TO: Ithaca Town Board
CC: Dan Thaete, Joe Talbut, Joe Slater, Paulette Rosa
FROM: Doug and Bruce Brittain
RE: Forest Home Walkway
We see that the Forest Home Walkway is on the agenda for Monday night's Town Board meeting.
While it is nice to see progress being made on this important pedestrian -commuter link, we would like
to remind you that many of the details in Concept D have yet to be finalized by the Public Works
Committee or the entire Town Board.
At the 9/17/19 PWC meeting, Concept D was chosen as the basis for further discussion, but its
features were not all endorsed. The Committee decided to keep the current Walkway alignment (if an
agreement could be worked out with Cornell), and to retain the existing northwest sweep at the
bottom of the Walkway (as in Concept A) in order to steer pedestrians toward the existing
crosswalk, instead of dumping them into the middle of the intersection (as shown in Concept D).
Other decisions were put off until later, including:
o Whether to use stairs or a ramp. A ramp would simplify winter maintenance, and
would accommodate the occasional baby stroller or walked bicycle. Stairs would provide safer
pedestrian footing, especially in winter, provided that the winter maintenance had, in fact, been
done. Stairs would also reduce erosion, since each step would drain sideways individually, rather
than allowing water to converge and run down the center of the Walkway, as happens now. Another
possibility was to have half -width stairs adjacent to a half -width ramp, thereby providing the
advantages of both alternatives. In addition, no decision was made relative to whether to use actual
stone or concrete stairs (if stairs were used). An on -site visit might help the Board make some of
these decisions.
o Handrail design and material. It is unclear what is meant by "timber railing." Split rail fences make
good visual barriers, but poor handrails. The handrails originally specified for Concepts A,
B and C were prohibitively expensive, but there are other alternatives. The current handrail,
constructed of Schedule 40 galvanized water pipe, has served adequately for the past 30 years.
Other issues raised at the time, and evidently not yet sufficiently discussed or resolved, include:
o Handrail is utilized inefficiently. It is specified for some relatively level parts of the trail, but not for
some of the steeper sections. Instead, the specified 290 ft of rail could be used on those sections of
the trail that are steeper than 20%: STA 11+00 to STA 11+75, and STA 13+10 to STA 15+25.
o Trailhead at top of Walkway does not extend north to connect to existing paved shoulder on Warren
Road. This results in a gap in the pedestrian facilities along the western edge of Warren Road. This
could be resolved by filling in behind the curb with some of the stabilized stone dust material that is
being proposed for use on the Walkway surface.
o At top of Walkway, runoff water from golf course and pull -off area drains onto path, causing
erosion. A swale or some other surface -grading feature is needed in order to address this existing
path -erosion problem. The curbing proposed in Concept D would only deal with water running in the
Warren Road ditch.
o Drainage on lower section of Walkway needs to be re -thought before final design begins. If stairs
are used, and pitched toward the southeast, then no drainage swale should be needed. If a ramp is
used, then a drainage swale should wrap up around the corner (to STA 12 + 00) in order to catch the
surface water that would otherwise run down the center of the Walkway. The cross-section of the
proposed swale itself is also problematic, in that it would add width to the construction (necessitating
moving existing fences), and is steep -sided enough that it could pose an ankle -twisting hazard, and
could create a new erosion problem in itself.
o Treating the existing natural rivulet as a "drainage swale" that needs to be cleaned, graded,
reshaped, and stabilized with the addition of check dams may not be the best approach. If "stream
restoration" were specified instead, it might result in a more appropriate outcome.
Thank you very much of your thoughtful attention to these issues. And thank you also for continuing
to work for the benefit of the public, in spite of the challenges posed by the pandemic.
Paulette Rosa
From:
Allison DeSaho«desariomUison@onmaiiconn^
Sent:
Monday, August 24,202O10:27AM
To:
dnnoh|enhoff@chxofithaca.o»g
Cc;
||ewis@cityofithoca.org; cbnock@cityofithaca.org;gnncgoniga|@cityofithacaorg;
'nnurtagh@cityofi1hoca.org;dnguyen@cityofithaca.org;df|enming@dtyofithaca.org;
rgearhart@dtyofithaca.org;gkes|ick@cityofithaca.org; 'srnith@dtyofithaca.org;
6cogan@cityofithaca.org;kf|aherty@cityofithaco.org;'cornish@cityofithaca.orQ;
'ho|cornb@cityofithaca.org;ALavine8Dcityofithaca.org;nnayormnyrick@cityofithaca.org;
Paulette Rosa; Bill Goodman; Rich DePao|o; Pam 0|eiwau;TeeAnn Hunter, Eric Levine; Pat
Leary; Nick Goldsmith; Nod Howe; Susan Ritter; Chris Ba|estra;
brock@darityconnect.comn;edi1or@ithacatirnes.comn;nnsteecker@ygannett.comn;
khogan@ithac 'ourna|.conn; tgpudney@ithacavoice.conn;]essicaVV@vize||anmedia.conn;
ToddK8@vizeUanmedia.corn;'bi|inski@ithacadnnes.com;nbovowaki@gannett.comn;
Stephen Kimball
Subject:
Results ofSG poll on Ithaca.o»m
Attachments:
pnU.png
Hi all,
| have included ascreenshotfrom Ithacozonnxoebsitethat shows apoll gauging ddzen'spercemtionofBGconningtm
Ithaca. As you can see, out of 89 votes, 64% of responders said yes -they are afraid of 5G coming to Ithaca.
I hope this sways you to take the majority of citizen's concerns seriously.
Thank you,
AUisonDeSaho
In your heart of hearts, are you scared c
Ithaca?
I 6.05Yes
)f 5G comi ng to
Special Coverage
VA" S("d UJ k r'i ',�Ie- C"13fl, jj),'957+1� 'rf �U C�WHZ E
�S,
and
Paulette Rosa
From: caroline arms <caroline.arms@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2020 9:48 AM
To: Paulette Rosa; Rod Howe
Cc: Joe Talbut; Joe Slater; Daniel Thaete
Subject: For Town Board meeting on 2020-08-24 -- Forest Home Walkway
DATE: August 24, 2020
TO: Ithaca Town Board
CC: Dan Thaete, Joe Talbut, Joe Slater, Paulette Rosa (town clerk)
FROM: Caroline Arms
RE: Forest Home Walkway
I see that item 4 on the agenda for this evening's Town Board meeting is Discuss and consider authorization for the Town
supervisor to sign a contract for Final Design and Bid Phase Services for the Forest Home Walkway Improvement Project
and that the agenda package includes a proposal from Barton & Loguidice (B&L) for these services. My interest in this
item is as the current President of the Forest Home Improvement Association (FHIA) and as an adjacent property
owner. Unfortunately, I am currently out of town and without the ability to listen in to the meeting by ZOOM.
I notice that item 7 in the Design Development Phase, which the proposal suggests will be in September -October 2020,
includes a meeting of B&L with the Town to review comments and input on the design development deliverables. Early
this year, in an email written on January 29, the Town Supervisor assured me that "Next phase of developing concrete plans
will include community input. I expect that will be early Spring." This was before the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, which has
clearly caused major problems for the Town's planning and scheduling. We understand the challenges the Town is facing, but I do
look forward to learning how the Town looks to incorporate community input and how FHIA might facilitate such input.
Doug and Bruce Brittain have sent a message (dated August 23, 2020) to the Town Board that details comments that
have already been raised in relation to Option D provided by B&L. These issues were raised at the Public Works
Committee (PWC) meeting of 9/17/2019, including in a written submission by the Brittains.
Three of their points are particularly important:
* I left the PWC meeting of 9/17/2019 with the understanding it had been agreed that the alignment at the very bottom
of the Walkway should match the current alignment, curving to be parallel to the road and connecting with the existing
crosswalk at the bottom of Pleasant Grove Road (PGR). [Aside: The community has additional concerns about the
safety of the intersection of PGR with Forest Home Drive (FHD) by the Downstream Bridge and there have been hopes
that some other adjustments could be made when the Walkway was reconstructed, such as aligning the two striped
stop lines with the corresponding stop signs.]
* The choice between stairs and a ramp for the steepest sections was discussed and explicitly deferred. PWC member
(and now PWC chair) Tee -Ann Hunter had asked in an earlier PWC meeting what the community would choose if there
was a choice between steps and keeping the path clear in winter. An answer to that question would require a clear
explanation of the tradeoff by the Town.
* Option D suggests a timber railing but without making it clear what form it should take. It clearly needs to be as
functional as the current galvanized pipe. Past community comments have emphasized the primary importance of a
secure handhold and extension of the rail to additional steep sections. PWC deferred any decision on these matters.
I hope
(a)that all the points raised mthe mittains'message can beconveyed by the Town me&L early mthe Design
Development Phase
and (Wthat the Town will provide an opportunity for additional community input before the conclusion of this phase.
Thank you for continuing to serve the public interest in these challenging times. The ForestHome community will
appreciate the fact that the Town of Ithaca is preparing to move ahead with this long -anticipated project and be grateful
for your attention mthese issues.
carolineAnns (President, Forest Home Improvement Aoudanvn)
Paulette Rosa
From: rna riea nd rew93 @ g ma i Lcorn
Sent: Saturday, August 22, 2020 7:38 PM
To: Paulette Rosa; Bill Goodman; Rich DePaolo; Pam Bleiwas; TeeAnn Hunter; Eric Levine,- Pat
Leary; Nick Goldsmith; Rod Howe; Susan Ritter; Chris Balestra;
brock@clarityconnect.com
Cc: Todd M @vizel lamed ia.co m; j bi I i nski @ ithacatimes.co rn; i-nsteecker@gannett.com;
steplienk@vizellamedia.com
Subject: The science is clear: cell radiation is a proven health hazard - FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD
Attachments: SG -Ci ndy- Russel- M D-Overview-of- Dangers-5G.pdf
[Paulette, wilt you please add this email to the Ithaca Public Record, attached to the open (continued) matter of 5G/srnall
cell installation in Ithaca? Thank you.]
Thousands of peer -reviewed studies worldwide definitively show that pulse -modulated, microwave radiation from
cell towers and cell phones (5G, 4G, and prior) is a proven health hazard, posing significant dangers to human
health and the environment. This includes DNA single and double strand breaks, oxidative damagd, disruption of cell
metabolism, increased blood brain barrier permeability, melatonin reduction disruption to brain glucose metabolism, and
the generation of stress proteins. Below there is an extensive list of this research, and we urge you to carefully review
them if you are skeptical. Because of these studies, literally thousands of doctors and scientists from around the world
have sounded the alarm on this issue, e.g. �icpgo2pal.oAr hg:,qppeal
As early as 1968, Congress acknowledged that radiation from electronics was a health hazard. The Radiation
Control for Health and Safety Act of 1968 was an amendment to the Public Health Service Act mandating performance
standards for electronic products susceptible of electromagnetic radiation or radiation emissions. This specified ionizing
and non -ionizing radiation and included "genetic injury".
In 1994, the United States Air Force clearly communicated the danger of this radiation. "Experimental evidence
has shown that exposure to low intensity radiation can have a profound effect on biological
processes.... It is essentially the absorption of RF/MW energy that causes stress and trauma to
biological systems." httr)s://www.semanticscholar.orcl/12aper/Radiofrequenc %2FMicrowave-Radiation-
Biological-and-A-Bolen/6afeb1cle9aOdOa3f3e78ce92c44ff3df2284ab7
This is why large insurance companies will not insure for this kind of radiation - the overwhelming evidence has
convinced them that it is in the "high risk" category.
This is why firefighters have banned towers from close proximity to their stations. ..."1AFF oppose the use of
fire stations as base stations for towers and/or antennas for the conduction of cell phone
transmissions until a study with the highest scientific merit and integrity on health effects of
exposure to low -intensity RF/MW radiation is conducted and it is proven that such sitings are
not hazardous to the health of our members." https://zero5cl.com/2019/intet-national-association-of-f ire-
jfiqhters/
This is why countries like Switzerland, Russia and Belgium have stopped its implementation, and many others are
considering the same.
This is why wireless companies now put health effects from cell phone radiation above all other potential
corporate losses in their investor information. In a 2017 report for wireless investors, the EMF health risk issue was
ranked as having the "highest" impact over several other potential loss of profit. The graphic states, "EIVIF health -related
risks - EIVIF found to pose health risks causing a reduction in mobile usage and litigation." The report states that: "What is
the risk? Electromagnetic signals emitted by mobile devices and base stations may be found to pose health risks,
with potential impacts including changes to national legislation, a reduction in mobile phone usage or litigation."
"The potential connection between radio frequency emissions and certain negative health effects, including settle
forms of cancer, has been the subject of substantial study by the scientific community in recent years. We cannot
guarantee that claims relating to radio frequency emissions will not arise in the future or that the results of
such studies will not be adverse to us."
T-Mobile US, Inc, 2017 Annual Report: 'governmental investigation results could require, us to pay significant
amounts or lead to onerous operating procedures" "Our business could be adversely affected by findings of
product liability for health/safety risks from wireless devices and transmission equipment, as well as by
changes to regulations/radio frequency emission standards.
And yet, industry leaders admitted to the US Senate last year that they have done NO research on the safety of
5G, that they cannot guarantee its safety, nor do they plan to!
In addition to thousands of completed studies on pre-5G radiation, there are also more recent studies showing the specific
dangers of 5G (again, see below). In fact, the military is actively using these same 5G millimeter waves as a weapon
precisely because it is harmful. https,- L/cm...w.mki a mLv,LKI/ e Do 1i L?edi
If some 'experts' (many of whom have funding ties to the telecom industry) want to make the extraordinary claim that all of
these thousands of studies are wrong and that wireless radiation is safe, then we ask: provide the corresponding
thousands of peer -reviewed studies that conclusively prove the safety, not iust "inconclusive results". Ultimately, with
the possibility of such a potentially disruptive new technology, the burden of proof must be on those promoting
it to prove that it is safe. If they cannot, the precautionary principle must rule here, especially given the
overwhelming evidence.
Protecting the safety and well-being of your constituents is your highest priority. Now that you have this
information, you cannot claim ignorance if you allow hundreds of small cell towers throughout Ithaca and the
future damaae to vour constituents is revealed.
Marie and Andrew Molnar
"Wireless radiation has biological effects. Period. This is no longer a subject for debate when you look at
PubMedand the L�er-review fiteratcare. These effects are seen in all life forms; plants, animals, insects, microbes.
In humans, we have clear evidence of cancer now: there is no question. We have evidence of DNA damage,
cardiomyopathy, which is the precursor of congestive heart failure, neuropsychiatric effects... 5G is an untested
application of a technology that we know is harmful; we know it from the science. In academics, this is called
human subjects research."— Dr. Sharon Goldberg LiLtpj://wtwK.. outitbe.cot771watch?v=CKOAliMe-I(A
A Scientific American article from Joel M. Moskowitz, director of the Center for Family and Community Health in the
School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley.
!2ttlla,.I/biogs.scieqtit'iczAi,neC�can.com/observqtiotis/vve-have-rio-Le,i-,IoLi-Lo-bLerieve-5g-is-��tL,—/
"The truth about mobile phone and wireless radiation" -- Dr. Devra
Davis littps./Ywww.yoLitube.com/watcli?v=BWYDCHf5iCY
From the National Institutes of Health - Conclusion. RF radiation should be regarded as a human carcinogen causing
glioma.
.1 it.!p s://w.w... w__.._nc bi.0 -In i,!ni 1) 764 54/
A similar study in Italy then confirmed this. Conclusions: The RI findings on far field exposure to RFR are consistent with
and reinforce the results of the NTP study on near field exposure, as both reported an increase in the incidence of tumors
of the brain and heart in RFR-exposed Sprague-Dawley rats. These tumors are of the same histotype of those observed
in some epidemiological studies on cell phone users.
Thousands of doctors and scientists offer caution:
...... . .... ... . ... . ............
!-t.1://freibL1r er-aplLe.�L-. 1 jLgjerL/hL jr11g....pf1p?Iang-_-EN
L1nJ1fL/LVY,W 1(.1122,1L ru_a g, yy
Y� �CellpL aq �LoLc or nr gan izat ions that -ban -or- �1� 2inst wireless-techn I _fJ4oV_ ---------- = I�
Thousands of studies listed here, mainly on wireless radiation below 5G bands (remember: "small cells" includes both 5G
and pre-5G technology):
h, t
A 5G WIRELESS
Ihc/use of"mobile wireless technologies continues to increase worldwide. A new faster 5(h gen-'
oration (5G) telecommunication systern has recently been approved by the Federal Comi'llunications
Conunission(FCC) with new antennas already being installed and tested in Palo Alto and Mountain
View. While it may give us uber automation and instantaneous "finmersive entertainment" a lot of
questions remain with regards to public health and safety of wireless devices. Will the adoption of
this new5(; technology harm directly or indirectly the consumers and businesses it hopes to attract?
5G, is the new promised land for wireless technology. It could connect. us in our hones, work-
places and city streets to over as trillion objects around the world. (96) 'the Internet of'lhings (I(ff)
is primed to give Lis self driving cars, appliances that can order their own laundry soap, autorna-
tion hulls that pay your bills, not to mention fast movie downloads and virtual reality streaming
from anywhere when you are oil the go. Companies are already asking local cities nand counties to
move forward to create "Siiiart Cities" which have comprehensive digital connectivity by installing
a massive wireless sensor network of almost invisible small cell antennae oil light posts, utility Poles,
homes and businesses throughout neighborhoods and towns in order to integrate 1(.)'I'with I'F.'Fl)cy
state it will improve services, the economy and quality of life. ']his communication network will
20 1 THE BULLETIN 1,1ANUARY / FEBRUARY 207
Lion of new high frequencies were mixed. Industry generaIly applauded the
FCC for its efforts and discussed the growing demand for this technology
along with a need for flexible regulation to implement it. Some expressed
concerns about interference with other satellite systems, Some felt there
should be maxiloUrn spectrum usage opening tip even higher frequencies
that are onlyexperimental now in order to help "the underserved". Others
argued about opening this tip to licensed versus unlicensed uses. Industry
did not mention any potential public or environmental health hazards re-
garding the use of these new frequencies.
RAISING A RED FLAG TO PUSH THE PAUSE
BUTTON ON SG
Private citizens, and Phd'S, however did raise it rcd fLig, at the FCC,
1CCOulmending it halt to infrastructure plans and more testing for health
and environmental reasons. 'they questioned the current FCC standards
lives. More scientific evidence links biologic effects with increased reports
of health related effects including elect rosen sitiv it y. In 1971 Russian sci-
entists Gordon and Sadchikova front the Institute of Labor Hygiene and
Occupational Diseases described a comprehensive series of symptoms
which they called 'nucrowave sickness" and presented this at ,in interna-
tional WHO meeting. (109)
In it 1981 NASA report, "llectromarnetic Field Interactions: Of).
served Effects and 'Ibeories" microwave sickness was also described. 'the
symptoms recorded were headaches, eyestrain, fatigue, dizziness, dis-
turbed sleep at night, sleepiness in daytime, moodiness, irritability, unso-
ciability, hypochondriac reactions, feelings (,lffear, nervous tension, men-
tal depression, memory impairment, polling sensation in the scalp and
brow, loss of hair, pain in Muscles and heart region, breathill,' difficulties,
increased perspiration ofcxtrenotics. (63)
JN',J(JARY / F1 J1,1 ,I )AI 4Y �M 17 1 THE BULLETIN 121
ol'rats required to reveal a significant effect, if present. 'llie preliminary
results of the study showed that. RFR caused -it statistically significant in-
crease in two types of brain tumors, glionias and schwannornas, 'lliese
Were the saute two types oftuanorsshown to increase in human epidenno-
logical studies on long term use of cell phones. Dr. Lennart I-lardell and
others have demonstrated it consistent pattern of increased incidence of
ipsilateral (same side) acoustic acuromas (vestibular schwannonlas) and
gliomas with each 100 hours of cell phone use. (112-118) Another telling
finding was that the control rats had much lower than expected cancer
rates. It k believed Clue to the I'ad the control rats were in it controlled fara-
day Cage and not exposed to normal ambient EM.F that could contribute
to cancer.
Ron Melnik, Pill), Senior Foxicologist and I )irejor of Special Pro-
grams in the Divironnicinal Toxicology Program at the National Insti.
k— an't "' V" "') Limscu plonoulmeu at rilytillina. lliele was It() criallge in
skin or whole body temperature. (69)
TERATOGENIC EFFECTS
(,)lie studyof"MMW teralogenic ellects was performed in Drosophila
flies
by I.felyacv. Embryos were exposed to 3 different GfIz frequencies for
4-4.5 hours at 0.1 mW/cm2. lie found that irradiation at 46.35 G&N, but
not at 46.42 or 46.50 GI 1z, caused marked efl'CCt.q including an increase in
morphological abnormalities and decreased survival. It Was fell the MMW
disturbed I)NA-protein interactions at that particular frequency.(65)
BACTERIAL AFFECTS AND ANTIBIOTIC
RESISTANCE
1411gakova in over 1,000 studies with 14 different antibiotics showed
how Nl,',IW exposure of'S. aurcus ad'ecis its sensitivity to antibiotics With
different mechanisms of action. The IMMW increased or decreased antibi-
22 1 THE BULLETIN I IM'AJAW / FFBR(J/V:'0' ,?M�
Ilabauzit 111 2013 looked at gene expression in keratinocytes with
60GA lz exposure at tipper linut of current guidelines and concluded "In
our experimental design, the high number of modified genes (665) shows
that the ICNIRP current limit is probably too permissive to prevent bio-
logical response. (73)
GAPS IN DATA FOR LAUNCHING SG
MILLIMETER DEVICES
Commercial production often precedes research on consumer pro-
tection and health effects. We have too many toxins that have escaped
prCluarkel safety protocols for too long lead, asbestos, smoking; and our
uI011CI-11 unregulated nanoparlicics to mention just a Covllicsc affect our
limy, term and short term health in ways we do not even know. If we be-
come ill, we do not question or identify the daily orweekly chemical expo-
sures that could have contributed to that cancer orarthritis or lung disease
testing and research needs in a transparent envirOuroCut with
Public input.
G. Label pertinent I'M 1: 1 nfionnat ion on devices along with
appropriate precautionary warnings.
REFERENCES
A full list of retereoCCS used III this article are available at
w _Nv w �'( r ;.
!X,UAJ iY / I H�,J ,( JNY 2017 1 THE BULLETIN 123
REFERENCES
1) 11 roject Skybenden Go ogle's secretive SG Internet drone tests revea I Olt. Th C Guardian. Mark I I a rris. j a nuary 29, 2016.
W I as;Umay'd tc"Val'i'A Lbli"u I, 1194a:oi(,._cl -skytww
.uLujic, 2) Acceleration of Broadband Deployment by
Improving Wireless Facilities Siting Policies . October 17, 20 14,
11,3ALP.di
3) Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GlIz For Mobile Radio Services. October 22, 2015.
1 up�S;4a pwilcl,g! Jan 15 : 12WALp&
4)5GSpectruin.
5) FCC Comments. Ronald Powell, Phl). Applied Physics Degree-flarvard University. August 31, 2013.
6) Message to Schools and Colleges about Wireless Devices and Health. Ronald Powell, PhD. Nov 24, 2015.
i,)sd_A,��m�a rA ' W -a)n Otusaw]SuLtj �!.UZLMQ,5,3111 c,,,is L'o
7) FCC Letter Opposition to Development of Spectrum Frontiers 5G. Derek Bishop for Ronald Powell, PhD.
(VIW ml
8)Small cells: Backhaul difficulties and as 5G future
9) Non-line-of.sight. microwave backhaul foi- small cells.
10) Frequency Wavelength Chart- Henry Ottfur Consultants.
11) Convert, G iga It ertz to cend meter wa velengths. t 1, jjw rce/Ka(.'v/ (qq, c
12) What is 2 G Spectrum? Graph of Electromagnetic spectrum.
13) Electromagnetic radiation. U oforegoll
14) Bees Can Sense the Electric Fields of Flowers.
1.5) Detection and Learning of Floral Electric Fields by Bumblebees. Clarke, Whitney, Sutton & Robert Science,
11 12 3 OM13
16) Dolphin detects electric fields with ex -whisker pits. I_Lft4j:
dj
17) The electromagnetic response of human skin in the millimetre and subraillimetre wave range.Feldnian,Y. Phys Med Biol.
2009 Jim 7;54(l 1):3341-63,1jtjjr
I I-
18) Human skin its arrays of helical antennas it) the millimeter and submillfirieter wave range, Feldman, Y. f1hys RevLett. 2008
Mat- 28;100(12)A 28102 ljut)r m("Ld/185J_ZD,J
19) Hurnin skin as arrays of helical antennas in the millimeter and submillinicter wave range. Feldman, Y. 11hys Rev Lett. 2008
Mar 28;100(12):128102. lilt y/ le
20) Modeling of reflectometric and ellipsometric spectra from the skin in the teraheritz and sulnuillfincLer waves region.Ney, M.
I Biomed Opt. 20 11 Jim; ,/�J, 7?j UZ
21) Twenty Four-HOUr Exposure to a 0.1 2THz E'lectroniagnetic Field Does Not Affect the Genotoxicity, Morphological Changes,
or Expression of` Heat Shock Protein in fICH-TCells. Intl E.nviron Res PLlbIiC 110altIL 2016 Aug 5;13(8). Koyarna, S.
22) Terahertz radiation at 0.380 THz and 2.520TlIz does not lead to DNA damage Ili skin cells in vitro. Rachat Res. 2013
laii;179(l):38-45
23) Verizon and AT&T Prepare to Bring 5G, to Market. Dec 30, 2016.
atLjrc, I, Js)-r narR,01
24) 1 E'E I-,.o rg- Spectrum News Articles.
Augmented Reality: Forger the Glasses. Dec 29, 2016.
25) Facellooks Face Recognition Tech Goes oil 1'riaal.laltp,,,//�pr;',.t.tr..69prT
26) Electronic Frontier Foundation.
27) Saying kids were endangered, Uganda is closing schools backed by U.S., World Bank, Bill Gates and Mark Zlickerberg
Charter Schools -
alit p di (m tI
28) Reactions of biological systems of various complexity to the action of low-level EJIF radiation. Chernyakov GM, Korochkin
VL, Babenkri All, Bigdai EX (1989). In Devyatkov ND (eel): "Millimeter Waves Ili Medicihe and Biology". Moscow: Rachoelectronica,
lip 141-1,67 (in Russian).
29)FCC I)ock(�tl,'('(:1.5-138,jaii26,2016
30) SG Spectrum Frontiers filings to FCC- Docker- 14-177
htt • //www fcc goyjecfsl ar fiiiggs?limit=25&offset=75&proceedings n ni 14-177&sort-date dks n,lnatecl DESC
31) FCC filing docket 13-39. June 4, 2013- Info on reevaluation of safety standards and wifi in schools. Sage-
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7520941649.pd f
32) FCC Filing Bioinitiative summary on reevaluation of standards- ISps,// fsapa.fcc,gov/file/7520939954 odf
33) National Academies of Science,Engineering and Medicine. Report on Potential Health Effect of Wireless Communication
Devices. http;/Jwww8.nationalacademies org/onl inews/newsitem aspx7RecordlD=12036
34) [Evaluation of genotoxic and/or co-genotoxic effects in cells exposed in vitro to extremely -low frequency electromagnetic
fields]. Scassellati Sforzolini. Ann Ig. 2004 Jan-Apr;16(1-2):321-40G. https://www.ncbi,nlni.nili.gov/t)til)iiied /15554538
35) Effects of co -exposure to extremely low frequency (50 Hz) magnetic fields and xenobiotics determined in vitro by the
alkaline comet assay. Villarini M. Sci Total Environ. 2006 May 15;361(1-3):208-19. Sci Total Environ. 2006 May 15;361(1-3):208-19.
36) Extremely low frequency magnetic fields cause oxidative DNA damage in rats. Yokus B. Int J Radiat Biol. 2008
Oct;84(10):789-95.littps•//www.ncbi nim nih,gov/pubme /18979312
37) Induction of micronuclei and superoxide production in neuroblastoma and glioma cell lines exposed to weak 50 Hz
magnetic fields. Kesari KK. J R Soc Interface. 2016 Jan;13(114) . httlL//www.iicl)4.iiiiii,nih.gov/"`ptil)med/26791000
38) Pre -exposure to 50 Hz magnetic fields modifies menadione-induced genotoxic effects in human SH-SYSY neuroblastoma
cells. Luukkonen J. PLoS One. 2011 Mar 23;6(3). httir.//iournals.p[OS.Org/plosouc/article?id=10.1371/iournal.pone.001802l
39) Animal studies on the role of SO/60-Hertz magnetic fields in carcinogenesis. L6scher W. Life Sci. 1994;54(21):1531.43.
40) Genomic instability induced by 50Hz magnetic fields is a dynamically evolving process not blocked by antioxidant
treatment. Kesari KK. Mutat Res GenetToxicol Environ Mutagen. 2015 Dec;794:46-51.
littps://www.iicbi.iiliii,niii.gov/ptibmed/26653983
41) Do electromagnetic fields enhance the effects of environmental carcinogens? Juutilainen J. Radiat Prot Dosimetry.
2008;132(2):228-3Lhttos://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ littps://www.ncbi.iiiiii.iiili.gov/pLibined/18977776
42) FCC Filing 14-177. CITA- https //www.fcc,goy,/ecfs/filing/1025161301514
43) FCC Filing 14-177- Satellite Industry Association.
littps://www.fcc goylecfs/filing/ 1003878007495 /document/ 10038780074954070
44) FCC Filing 14-177- WiFi Alliance.
littps://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/
1093082983944 / W i-Fi'Y,20A1lianee%, 20Conunen is%20onv/n20M illimeterv/)20 W ave'%:20 FN PRM.pd f
45) FCC letter- T Mobile- October 1, 2016. htgL//www.fcc gov/ecfs/filing/ 100105449239/docnment/100105449239a495
46) FCC Filing 14.177 Facebook. Oct 1, 2016.
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10012127400524/FCCO/,20Spectrum'%r20Frontiers%20FNPRM%20v6'%'20FINAL.pdf
47) FCC Filing 14-177 SG Americas- httlls;//www fcc gov/ecfsJfiling/109307779600 doatment/1093077796003462f
48) FCC Filing 14-177-Telecommunications Industry Association.
littps://www.fcc.goy/ecfs/filing/ 10930622009381 /docu men t/ 1093062200938116fe
49) UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.1989. httlz//www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc asps
50) Western countries 1989.2010: Cause for concern. Pritchard C. Surg Neurol Int. 2015 Jul 23;6:123.
https://www.11cbi.nhn.Ilih.gov/ u�dJ?term=PMC4521226
51) European Manifesto in Support of European Citizens Initiative to REgualte EMF Exposure.
http,//www.pe cent org/DocumentacionDesc•irgLi/C7ml a�/ICE2013/ENG EUROPEAN MANIFESTO IN SUPPORT THE ECI pdf
52) Letter to the Pope. The Church and the Urgent Protection of Life Against Electromagnetic Pollution. July 2016.
littp://www peccent org/])octimentacionDescarga/international/Letter to the Pope Francis WYD 2016-['N pd
53) FCC Filing 14-177- Patricia Burke- Catholic-
https: //eefsal)i.fcc.goy/fi I e/ 1093087536094/FCC'%,20'1'estintony"/o 20 Patricia"/�20Bu rke.l)df
54) FCC Filing 14.177 Lind Kurtz. Sept 29, 2016. lamps://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/flling/109292235821570
SS) FCC Filing 14.177- Veronica Zrnchik. Electrosensitive.
httlL//www.fccgovJecf Jfilirg/10930262319207/(ioctnnent/109302623192073205
56) Mobile phones and vanishing birds- htga;//www.i-sfs.org.0 MPVB.nho
57) Mobile Phones and Vanishing Bees- littp,//ww),v.m-,.;Os.org.tik/"Mob6lel)lioiiesVaii a shing Bees. Ph
58) Bioeffects of microwave --a brief review. S. Banik . Bioresource Technology 87 (2003)155-159.
https://"www.researcii2ate,net/ rp ofile/Dr Shyamal 13an6k/publication/10745209 Bioeffects of microwave -
A brief review/links/543f95d80cf27832ae8b8e41 odf
59) FCC Guidelines for exposure to microwave EMF. tsiangaw@gmail.com. Isps'//www.gpo.gpy/�sys/pgg/"CFR-2002-
title47-voll/pdf•/CFR-2002-t6tle47-voll-secl-1310 odf
60) International Association of Firefighters. Division of Occupational Health Safety and Medicine. Position on Health Effects
from Radiofrequency/Microwave radiation in Fire Department Facilities from Base Stations for Antennas and Towers for the
Conduction of Cell Phone Transmissions. Adopted 2004. Firefighters stopped cell towers due to concerns ofgeneral health and
neurologic symptoms. httlzJ/www iaff.org/hs/"fzicts/"` ell'rowerFitial =
61) Annual Wireless Industry Survey. CTIA. 2015. littp://www.ctia.org/ 4 ndustry-data /ctia-a n nua I-wi rel ess-industry-su ryey
62) FCC- SG Remarks of Chairman Wheeler on "Tlie Future of Wireless' June 20, 2016.
https //www fccgov/document/remarks-chairman-wheeler-future-wireless
63) NASA Report- Electromagnetic Field Interactions with the Human Body: Observed Effects and Theories. April 1981. Jeremy
Raines, Phl),I-titps;//ntrs.nasa gov/archive/nasa/casi ntrs nasa.goy/1981001713 2 odf
64) French companies will have to protect employees from electromagnetic waves. Jan 1, 2017.
https://www.legifrance.gotiv.fr/eli jdecre /2016 j$/"3 JETST1611714D/io
littps:llwww.france*nter.frisociete./les-entreprises-vorit-devoir-proteger-les-salar*es-des-ondes-electromagnetiques
65) Differential sensitivity of developmental stages to low-level electromagnetic radiation of extremely ultrahigh frequency.
Belyaev IYa, Okladnova OV, Izmailov DM, Sheglov VS, Obukhova LK (1990). Dok) Akad Nauk SSSR [Ser B Geol Chim Biol] 12:68-70
(in Russian).
66) Why You May Have Good Reason to Worry About All those Smart Devices. Larry Downes. Washington Post Dec 6, 2017.
httl2s:[f www was[iingtonpost com/news/innovations/wp/2016/12106/whyyouti-may-have-good-reason-to-worry-about-all-
those-smart-devices/?utm term=.baB722675d72
67) "What's the Diagnosis Doctor?" Dr. Scott Eberle. SCCMA Bulletin Nov 2016. httl2:JJwww,sccma-
mcros.orgjNews Events/ BuIletinMemberMagazine asnx
68) Reliable disease biomarkers characterizing and identifying electrohypersensitivity and multiple chemical sensitivity as two
etiopathogenic aspects of a unique pathological disorder. Belpomme, D. Rev Environ Health. 2015;30(4):25-71.
littps://www.ncbi.nlm.iiiii.gov/pubmed/"`26613326
69) Effects of low -intensity electromagnetic radiation in the millimeter range on the cardio-vascular system of the white rat
Potekhina IL, Akoyev GN, Yenin LD, Oleyner VD (1992): Fiziol Zh [formerly Fiziol Zh SSSR] 78: 35-41(in Russian).
70) The Body Electric: Electromagnetism and the Foundation of Life. Dr. Robert Becker.1985.
htti)s://www.hari)ercollins.com/978068BO69711
71) Current State and Implications of Research on Biological Effects of Millimeter Waves: A Review of the Literature. Andrei G.
Pakhomov. Bioelectromagnetics 19:393-413 (1998)
littp://www.rife.org/otherresearchlniillimeterwayes.litinl
72) State of knowledge on biological effects at 40-60 GHz. Yves Le Man, Yonis Soubere Mahamoud, Yann Le Page, Denis
Habauzit, Catherine Le Qu6ment, Maxim Zhadobov, Ronan Sauleau. State of knowledge on biological effects at 40-60 GHz. Comptes
Rendus Physique, 14(5): 402-411.2013. http://f illtext.stud review/pdfll860108.pdf
http://www.scienced irect.com/science/articie/pii /S 1631070513000480
73) Transcriptome Analysis Reveals the Contribution of Thermal and the Specific Effects in Cellular Response to Millimeter
Wave Exposure.Oct14, 2014. PlosOne.Habauzit, D.littps://www.ncbi.nlm.niii.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4193780/ or
http: j/iournals.plos.org jplosong/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0109435
74) ) Experimental studies on the influence of millimeter radiation on light transmission through the lens]. Prost, M. Klin Oczna.
1994 Aug-Sep;96(8-9):257-9. https: / /www.ncbi.iilm.nih.gov/ptibmed/7897988
75) The Human Body and Millimeter -Wave Wireless Communication Systems: Interactions and Implications. T.Wu, T. S.
Rappaport, C. M. Collins. 2015 IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC), Jun. 2015.
76) [Microwaves and the visual analyzer]. Zuev VG. Aviakosm Ekolog Med.1992 Jul-Aug;26(4):4-8.
littps: / /www,ncbi.nlni.iiih.govov/oubmed/ l296837
77) [Early ultrastructural reactions in various parts of the visual analyzer in guinea pigs after thermogenic microwave
irradiation]. Ryzhov Al. Arkh Anat Gistol Embriol.1991 Jul-Aug;100(7-8):30-6. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nib.gov/ptibmed/1843431
78) Visually evoked hemodynamical response and assessment of neurovascular coupling in the optic nerve and retina. Riva CE.
Prog Retin Eye Res. 2005 Mar;24(2):183-215. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/oubmed/15610973
79) Dosimetric study of microwave cataractogenesis. Foster MR. Bioelectromagnetics.1986;7(2):129-40.
littps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12tibnled/3741488
80) Report of electromagnetic radiation surveys of video display terminals. NIOSH. Moss,C.E.1977
https:llwww.cdc.gov/nioshliiioslitic-2/00081009.litmi
09.litmi
81) Radiation Emissions and Their Effects. Radiation Effects of Video Display Terminals.1983.
littps: //wivw.ncbi.nim.nili.goy/books/NBK2164a7/
82) Cataracts and avionic radiations.
Zaret,MM. Br J Ophthalmol.1977 Jun;61(6):380-4. hips://www.iicbi.nlin.nih.gov/oubmed/871464
82) NASA study of cataract in astronauts (NASCA). Report 1: Cross -sectional study of the relationship of exposure to space
radiation and risk of lens opacity. Chylack LT. Radiat Res. 2009 Ju1;172(1):10-20.
httpsel/www.ncbi.nlm.n*h.gov/ptibnied/19580503
83) The impact of the new biology on radiation risks in space. Dicello JF. Health Phys. 2003 Jul;85(1):94-102.
httR//www.ncbi.nlm.iiiii.gov./pubnied/12861962
84) Electromagnetic Energy and Cataracts. Dr. Milton Zaret littp:/landrewamaritio.com/PDFs/MB/MB Ch24.p4
85) Industry Denies Health Threat: Explosion in Use of VDTs Spurs Regulation Debate. LA Times. August 10,1985.
hltp://articles.latimes.com/1985-08-10inewsJmn-3713 1 vdt-safety/4
86) Safety of Vdts: Are They Really User-friendly? Mary T. Schmich. July 21,198S
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1985-07-21/features/8502170510 1 vdt-workers-vdt-operators-tinker/2
87) The strange case of Irving Selikoff. Anthony Seaton. Occup Med (2010) 60 (1): 53.
littps://academic.ou p.com/occtned/article/60/1/53% 1439563/The-strange-case-of-I rving-Selikoff
88) Science is not sufficient: Irving J. Selikoff and the asbestos tragedy. McCulloch J. New Solut 2007;17(4):293-310.
https:/ jwww.ncbi.nim.n ih goy jpubmed/ 18184623
89) Shooting the messenger: the vilification of Irving J. Selikoff. McCulloch J. Int J Health Serv. 2007;37(4):619-34.
https://www.ncbi.nhn.ningpy/pubme 18072311
90) Crown Castle plan for DAS in Palo Alto. littR//www.crowncastle.com/projects/palo-alto ca.aspx
91) City of Palo Alto Architectural Review Board meeting minutes 10/15/15. Summary Title: Crown Castle Downtown Wireless
Project
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/49415 92) Architectural Review Board for DAS At&T. City of
Palo Alto. August 4, 2011. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/28220
93) Naval Medical Research Institute.1971. Bibliography of Reported Biological Phenomena ("Effects") and Clinical
Manifestations Attributed to Microwave and Radio -Frequency Radiation. Report No. 2 Revised. Zorach Glaser,PhD,Lt MSC,USN.April
20th 1972.
http://wwwjustproveit.net/sites/default/files trove-it/files/military radiowave.pdf
94) Microwave frequency electromagnetic fields (EMFs) produce widespread neuropsychiatric effects including depression.
Pall, M. Journal of Chemical Neuroanatomy. Volume 75, Part B, September 2016, Pages 43-51
http://www.sc'encedirect.com /science/article/pii/SO891061815000599
95) UCSF Letter from John to Assistant to the President for Science and Technology regarding airport scanners.
littp://www.npr.org/assets/iiews/2010/05/17/coiicera,pAf
96) The Internet Of Things Won't Be Big It'll Be Huge.
https: //www.forbes.com /sites/markpmills /2016 /09 /28/the-i nternet-of-tiii ngs-wont-be-big-itll-be-huge
97) What is a smartcity? http://smartcities.gov.in/upload/uploadfiles/files/What'/u20is�%u20SmarM/,20Citv.pdf
98) SG Future: https•//wwwyoutube.cons/watchly=6-XWClggMAo
99) Everything You Should Know About 5G! https;//"wwwyotitube.conb/watch?v=ikRO 1 tc4P4
100) So, what's SG exactly? Samsung. littps;//wwwyoutube.com/watch?v= GMMtMKYH2A
101) Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 Unveil ICES 2017,litti2s,//www.yotitLibeconi/watcli?v=QvnaBT79gnO
102) Millimeter Waves Will Expand The Wireless Future. http://electronicdesign.coi communications/millimeter-waves-
will-expa nd-wireless-fu to re
103) How the microwave was invented by a radar engineer who accidentally cooked a candy bar in his pocket July 3, 2015.
http://www.busi nessi nsider.com/how-the-microwave-oven-was-invented-by-accident-2015.4
104) Chronic Disease Prevention and Health promotion. CDC. littl)s://www.cdc.goy/clironicdisease/
105) MILKEN INSTITUTE STUDY: CHRONIC DISEASE COSTS U.S. ECONOMY MORE THAN $1 TRILLION ANNUALLY.
http://www.fightclirmt icdiscase.org/latest-n ews/m ilken-institu te-study-ch ronic-clisease-costs-us-economy-more-l-
trillion-annually
106) Evolution and Earth's Electric Field. littps://www.tliunderbolts.info/wp/2015/10/08/evolution-and-earths-
electric-field/
107) A World Without Day or Night. https://www.mpg.de/943613/S003 Flashback 060 061 1)d
108) The Origin and Evolution of Life. Tom Fenchel. Pg 23.
109) WHO1981 Radiofrequency and Microwaves. Biologic Effects and Health Hazards of Microwave Radiation: Proceedings on
International Symposium 1973. Warsaw, Oct 15.18, 1973. Sponsored by the WHO, US Department of Health, Education and Welfare,
and The Scientific Council to the Minister of health and Social Welfare, Poland.
http;//"anos who int/iris/bitsh-eam/10665/39107/`l/9241540761 eng.odf
110) Qualcomm's SG preview: High frequencies, 5-gigabit speed. htto://www computerworld com/article/3131842/mobile-
wireless/qualcomms-5g-preview-highf freouencies-5-gig ba it -speed htmI
111) How do Satellites communicate? NASA.
httiZ//www.nasaoov/dir�torat s/he0/s a ommuni atinnsj nr 'mf,,ict /txt satellite comht,nr
112) Case -control study of the association between malignant brain tumours diagnosed between 2007 and 2009 and mobile
and cordless phone use. Hardell L. Int J Oncol.2013 Dec;43(6):1833-45. http;//www ncbi.nlm.nih gov/pubme 24064953
113) Pooled analysis of case -control studies on acoustic neuroma diagnosed 1997.2003 and 2007-2009 and use of mobile and
cordless phones. Hardell L. Int J Oncol. 2013 Oct;43(4):1036-44.littp_//www.nchi.nlm.nih.gov/pubme 23877578
114) Risk of brain tumours in relation to estimated RF dose from mobile phones: results from five Interphone countries. Cardis
E.Occup Environ Med. 2011 Sep;68(9):631-40. http_llwww.ncbi.nlnl.tiih.gov/ up bmed/21659469
115) Mobile phone use and risk of tumors: a meta -analysis. Myung SK. Moskowitz JM. J Clin Oncol. 2009 Nov 20;27(33):5565-
72. littl�//wxvw.ncb'.nliii.ii'li.gov/pubmed I?terin=cell+pbones+braiii+caiicer+ioel+moskomIM
116) Pooled analysis of two Swedish case -control studies on the use of mobile and cordless telephones and the risk of brain
tumours diagnosed during 1997-2003. Mild KH. Hardell L. Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 2007;13(1):63-71.
http•//www ncbi nim nih goy/liubnied/`17362659
117) Long-term use of cellular phones and brain tumours: increased risk associated with use for > or =10 years. Hardell L.
Occup Environ Med. 2007 Sep;64(9):62632, http:l/www.ncbi.iiiin.nii),gov/pLibmed/"`17409179
118) Case -control study on cellular and cordless telephones and the risk for acoustic neuroma or meningioma in patients
diagnosed 2000-2003. Hardell L. Neuroepidemiology. 2005;25(3):120-8. http, //`www.nchi.iilm,nwh.gov/plibmed /15956809
119) Adey, WR. Biological effects of electromagnetic fields. J Cell Biochem. 1993 Apr;51(4):410-6.
httpsi//www.ncb'.nlm nih gov/ptibmed18388394
120) Skin heating effects of millimeter- wave irradiation -Thermal modeling results. Nelson, D. A., M. T. Nelson, T. J. Walters, and
P. A. Mason. IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques 48:2111.2120, 2000.
http;//jeeexplore.ieee.org/document/884202/
121) Heating and pain sensation produced in human skin by millimeter waves: comparison to a simple thermal model. Walters,
T. J., D. W. Blick, L. R. Johnson, E. R. Adair, and K. R. Foster. Health Physics 78:259- 267, 2000.
https:/ jwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed j10688448
122) Comparison of blood pressure and thermal responses in rats exposed to millimeter wave energy or environmental heat.
Millenbaugh NJ. Shock. 2006 Jun;25(6):625-32. littps://www.ncbi.nlm.niii.govlpubinedll6721271
123) Current State and Implications of Research on Biological Effects of Millimeter Waves: A Review of the Literature. Andrei G.
Pakhomov. Bioelectromagnetics 19:393-413 (1998). bttp://www.rife-orglotlierresearch/millimeterwaves.htm1
124) National Toxicology Program Carcinogenesis Studies of Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation in Hsd: Sprague Dawley SD
Rats (Whole Body Exposure)," http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/055699.
125) National Toxicology Program Carcinogenesis Studies of Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation. May 2016.
ittps;//ntp.niehs.nih.gov/r .sul s/areas/cell lip ones]
126) Major Cell Phone Radiation Study Reignites Cancer Questions. Scientific America. May 2016.
ittns://www.scientificamerican.com /article/maior-cell-nhone-radiation-studv-reignites-cancer-nuestinns /
127) Ron Melnick PhD Commentary On The National Toxicology Program Radiofrequency And Cancer Study.
Dtp_//ehtrList.org/ron-rnelnick-phd-commentary-national-toxicology-gram-radiofrequ -cancer-study/
128) Radiofrequency radiation injures trees around mobile phone base stations. Waldmann-Selsam C. Sci Total Environ. 2016
Dec 1;572:554-569 https://www.ncbi.nim.nih.gov/oubmed/27552133.
130) Increased sensitivity of the non -human primate eye to microwave radiation following ophthalmic drug pretreatment Kues
HA. Bioelectro magnetics. 1992;13(5):379-93 bttt�s:/jwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1 u� bmedII445419
131) [Suppression of nonspecific resistance of the body under the effect of extremely high frequency electromagnetic radiation
of low intensity]. Kolomytseva MP. Biofizika. 2002 Jan-Feb;47(1):71-7. https://www.ncbi.tilm.iiih.gov/12ubmed/l 1855293
132) Effects of low -intensity extremely high frequency electromagnetic radiation on chromatin structure of lymphoid cells in
vivo and in vitro]. Gapeev AB. Radiats Biol Radioecol. 2003 Jan-Feb;43(1):87-92. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nubmed/12677665
133) . Ye,J. Chin Med J (Engl). 2001 Dec;114(12):1290-4. Chin Med j (Engl). 2001 Dec,114(12):1290-4.
littps://www.ncbi.nlrtl.i)ili.govlpubmedil 1793856
134) Effect of millimeter -band radiation of nonthermal intensity on the sensitivity of staphylococcus to various antibiotics.
Bulgakova VG, Grushina VA, Orlova TI, Petrykina ZM, Polin AN, Noks PP, Kononenko AA, Rubin AB (1996). Biofizika 41:1289-1293
(in Russian).Dips:/Iwww.ncbi.nitn.nih.gov/ uh/9044624
135) Adey, WR.1993 Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields. Journal of Cellular Biochemistry 51:410-416.
136) The Big Disconnect. Catherine Steiner -Adair. Published 2013.
137) The role of electromagnetic fields in neurological disorders. Journal of Chemical Neuroanatomy. Terzi, M, Ozberk,-B, Deniz,
OG, Kaplan, S. Available online 12 April 2016. http;//1usa.gov/1SVOa2g
138) Gray matter abnormalities in Internet addiction: a voxel-based morphometry study. Zhou, Y. Eur J Radiol. 2011
Jul;79(1):92-5. httgz//www.ncbi.iilm.nih.gov/pubmed/19926237
139) Biolnitiative Working Group, Cindy Sage and David 0. Carpenter, Editors. BioInitiative Report: A Rationale for a
Biologically -based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Radiation at www.bioinitiative.org, December 31, 2012
at http://www.bioinitiative.org
TOWN OF ITHACA
215 NORTH TIOGA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850
www.town.ithamny.us
CORRESPONDENCE LISTING
03MMMMEMIM
Please review the following correspondence and indicate, by placing your initials in the right-hand column
adjacent to the correspondence that you wish to receive a copy. We can forward a copy to you via e-mail or
make a hard copy. Please indicate your preference next to your name at the bottom of this form.
Paulette Rosa
From: marieandrew93@gmail.com
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2020 1:34 PM
To: Laura Lewis; Cynthia Brock; George McGonigal; Joseph MUrtagh; Ducson Nguyen;
Donna Flerning; Rob Gearhart; Graham Kerslick; Stephen Smith; Deb Mohlenhoff; Dan
Cogan; Krin Flaherty; JoAnn Cornish; Julie Holcomb; Attorney; Aaron Lavine; Svante
Myrick; Paulette Rosa; Bill Goodman; Rich DePaolo; Pam Bleiwas; TeeAnn Hunter; Eric
Levine; Pat Leary; Nick Goldsmith; Rod Howe; Susan Ritter; Chris Balestra;
brock@claritycotiriect.com
Subject: U.S. Congressman Tom Suozzi (NY) writes FCC about "devastating impact" of 5G in his
district
Attachments: NY Congressman letter to FCC.pdf
On August 24th, U.S. Congressman Tom Suozzi of New York's 3rd District wrote a scathing letter to Federal
Communications Commission Chairman, Ajit Pai, citing the "devastating impact" 5G deployments are having
on local Communities in his jurisdiction. The letter is attached - some highlights below:
Marie and Andrew
"Whatyou may not be aware of is the devastating impact they are having on those communities —Residents of
the towns and villages I represent have raised many and varied legitimate concerns. Some of the concerns I
share are as follows:
- By overturning the longstanding relationship between companies and con-imunities, the FCC has turned
approval of cell tower installations into nothing more than a ministerial duty. There is absolutely no incentive
for the cell companies to work with the communities to place these Lowers in the least offensive location that
serves the interest, of both parties.
- The placement of a cell tower in front of a home immediately decreases the value of that property .... It is
devastating to see that investment and hard work dismissed rit the whiny of a cell company that is quick to
install their systems before moving on to the next community.
- As noted in my April 16, 2019 letter to you, many families have concerns regarding the health impacts of cell
towers. The FCC has done nothing to alleviate these concerns. Since 1.996, communities have not been able to
take human exposure to RF energy inter consideration when reviewing applications for cell towers. r"'ven
though the technology has developed, gi-eatly over the past 24 years, the FCC has not released
any updated repot*ts derinitivel3r showing that eN-ppsure_h lem. his feeling of
s not a prob T
vulnerability was heightened by the release of a study by the National Toxicology Program (MITI') in November
2018 which linked R.]F'radiation Used in 2G and 3G networks to cancerous growths in rats.
[5G's] impact On COMIlumities should be of grave concern to the FCC. It is to many of us in Congress who have
co -sponsored H.R. 530 which would restore traditional oversight responsibilities to local government. This
one size fits all communities across the United States is wrong. I strongly urge the FCC`, to roll back its
September 2018 regulations, thus allowing communities to have input into the cellular networks located
3iu) Dnnucr, Nsw YomfI, )-
............. .
478A PArm
Hmurzoo,.,�, NY11743
COMMI"I"FEE ON
(631) 923-4100-s1,110!sE
WAYS AND MEANS
150 02 NURTHER.N BOULEVARD
LiTn.ENEcK, NY 1562
(718) 631-0400-FifOUL"
House of Represento-Ifives
'Wasbington, DC'20515
August 24, 2020
The Honorable AJit Pai
Chairman
Federal Communications Commission
445 12 Ih Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554
Dear Chairman Pai:
I am once again writing to you regarding what I believe are misguided 5G deployment regulations
adopted by the FCC in September 2018. As you know, these regulations overrode the longstanding
relationship between cellular companies and communities in which they operate. What you may not be
aware of is the devasting impact they are having on those communities, especially those that are located
in densely populated areas Such as my district. Residents of the towns and villages I represent have raised
many and varied legitimate concerns. Some of the concerns I share are as follows:
• By overturning the longstanding relationship between companies and communities, the FCC has
turned approval of cell tower installations into nothing more than a ministerial duty. There is
absolutely no incentive for the cell companies to work with the communities to place these towers
in the least offensive location that serves the interest of both parties. There is no incentive for cell
companies to explore nearby alternatives that may be more suited for a particular
C0111MUnity. Mayors, Supervisors and other locally ejected officials know their
Communities. Their input can make the difference between a SUccessful or acrimonious
relationship. Their relationships with local individuals, businesses and organizations can open
doors and present opportunities that beriel"it all parties. But by tipping the scale in favor of cellular
C011111ILinities, these opportunities for a win -win resolution are lost.
For example, Extenet, which has been hired by Vernon to install cell towers throughout Illy
district, has Sued the Town of North Hempstead and the Villages of Lake Success, Flower Hill,
Plandorne and Plandorne Manor over cell node installations in residential neighborhoods. Instead
of"working with local municipalities, the company is forcing its business plans upon communities
with little regard for the legitimate concerns of their citizens. ]'here is no effort to compromise or
find a workable Solution.
The Honorable Ajit Pai
August 24, 2020
Page 2
• Home ownership is part of the American dream and usually takes many years of savings to become
a reality. The placement of a cell tower in front of a home immediately decreases the value of that
property. In my district, a modest home costs more than $600,000. It takes many years for most
families to save for their down payment. It is devastating to see that investment and hard work
dismissed at the whim of a cell company that is quick to install their systems before moving on to
the next community.
• This problem is exacerbated in densely populate neighborhoods, such as the ones found in my
district. Many lots are less than a quarter acre. The buy -in of local communities is especially
important in these cases.
• As noted in my April 16, 2019 letter to you, many families have concerns regarding the health
impacts of cell towers. The FCC has done nothing to alleviate these concerns. Since 1996,
communities have not been able to take human exposure to RF energy into consideration when
reviewing applications for cell towers. Even though the technology has developed greatly over
the past 24 years, the FCC has not released any updated reports definitively showing that exposure
is not a problem. This feeling of vulnerability was heightened by the release of a study by the
National Toxicology Program (NTP) in November 2018 which linked RF radiation used in 2G and
3G networks to cancerous growths in rats. While this study does not apply to 4G or 5G, it does
raise concerns that have not been publicly addressed by NTP, FCC or any other federal agency.
While 5G technology is expected to yield significant long-term consumer, industrial, and economic
benefits, its impact on communities should be of grave concern to the FCC. It is to many of us in Congress
who have cosponsored H.R. 530 which would restore traditional oversite responsibilities to local
government. This one size fits all communities across the United States is wrong. I strong urge the FCC
to roll back its September 2018 regulations, thus allowing communities to have input into the cellular
networks located within their borders.
With kindest regards, I am
Sincerely,
jl� C40-0
Thomas R. Suozzi
Member of Congress
TRS:csr
Paulette Rosa
From: marieandrewy@gmaii.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 8,aumaospIVI
To: Paulette Rosa; Bill Goodman; Rich DePaolo; Pam Bleiwas; TeeAnn Hunter, Eric Levine; Pat
Leary; Nick Goldsmith; Rod Howe; Susan Ritter; Chris na|esto
Subject: The sslie: The network ofthe future isstill slow
This WaPo article from today echoes some of the things we've shared:
t
Andrew and Marie
Paulette Rosa
From:
Rich DePaolo <RDePaolo@town.ithaca.ny.us>
Sent:
Tuesday, September 8, 2020 10:21 AM
To:
Southern Tier Balloon Tours
Cc:
Rod Howe; Paulette Rosa
Subject:
Low -altitude flying over residential areas
Hi, Dar -
I trust you have been well since our flight together on 7/21. 1 write to you today in my capacity as Councilperson in the
Town of Ithaca.
Recently, a Town resident near your launch site on Bostwick Rd. contacted the Board after witnessing one of your
balloons flying over her house at treetop altitude. She articulated safety and privacy concerns. While many residents do
not object to the close proximity of passenger balloons, some do. With the increasing frequency of flights, it seems a
good time to check -in.
We realize that your in-flight operation is largely regulated by FAA, and that you are subject to wind currents for
navigation. With that understanding, and with the understanding that your ground operations are regulated by NYSDOT
and local municipalities, the Board would like to respectfully request that you do whatever is within your technical
ability to prevent unnecessarily low -altitude flying over residential areas. For example, I understand that there is a
method of takeoff whereby the balloon is restrained by the ground crew while being filled with more hot air than
typically needed for liftoff, and then released, causing a more vertical ascent. Of course, I am not a pilot, so I defer to
your expertise for practical solutions.
Thank you for your consideration, as you seek to balance your passenger experience with the need to coexist with the
community at -large.
Please contact me if you have any questions or observations.
Regards,
Rich
Rich DePaolo
Councilperson, Town of Ithaca
215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
607.273.1721 (office)
607.351.6512 (cell)
Town Committees
Planning Committee — Chair
Public Works Committee
Intermunicinal Committees
hlc; hears O�c�.rE,i�zlil t'r�t tttaailci Chah
11haca 0o11cC,w: C:ommimi v Wol k Group
.sccscr Jodi( I'm III I) I I Wc ol� I1w IPhIra AIe
Caai ,u I aIL Wa(cfr ,hcd Imol oni cih,awl Uap¢'rir.,utu,t
I mIlpkin" t Joint "t'owh C "olnmi,o,iml
Ad l{oc Committees
V con m is 1)c• elrrlmtcni C ommiurcv
Sh(rr IctIII Genital, 0)lIMriItt,r
tiiclnw.rlics C;'omlllittcc
Paulette Rosa
From: *oque,waznu <ooT /maonui*oque@dut.nyeuv`
Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2020/0:49Am
To: mcxoepan|o
Cc: Rod Howe; Paulette Rosa; Lingo, Lowell s.(o«D
Subject: RE: Local regulatory authority over manned balloon takeoff and landing sites
Attachments: Establishment -Improvement of Privately Owned NY Ai qports-Section z4y.pdf
|believe you refer manLaue not sIVILz4e While the Town can't regulate the takeoff u,4ndinuopen�ion�ucan
eOv|ateland uos. �eaa»edoes m�h�ejunn1i�ivnmm,local zoning euu|ammn�mthe Tvwnwill need ooaddress
this locally. If their zoning regulations are silent on the issue, the Town may need to pass regulations to address the use
ofthis private property asanaviation facility. |fthe Town and the private owner come managreement mallow the
creation of a private aviation facility, then they will have to follow the Section 249 process to have the State review the
application and provide edetermination. See attached.
Thank you for contacting us.
Neonu|Hoquc,P.E.
Aviation Capital Grant Program Manager
Aviation Bureau
New York State Department ufTransportation
soWolf Road, POD s-4
Albany, mYmzsz
518-485-5428 |
mw_wlotm_�go\�
of
Trans Pa rtat ion
From: Rich oepaolo <noenmlo@mwn.uxara.m+m'
Sent: Wednesday, September uz'xoxozz:mpM
To: xoque'mazmu|(oor)«wazmu|uoque@uo,.ny«ov^
Cc: ,xnwc@mwn.imaca. nvus; Paulette Rosa <pmsa@,uwn.ithaca.nvus>
Subject: Local regulatory authority over manned balloon takeoff and landing sites
Dear Mr. Hoque,
I write in my capacity as Councilperson in the Town of Ithaca, per our telephone conversation this morning.
A commercial ballooning company regularly takes off from private property (with permission of the owner) in the Town
and reportedly flies at very low altitudes over residential neighborhoods. Since the licensing and "flight" components of
ballooning are governed by FAA, I would like to get clarification from you regarding the regulatory authority of
municipalities over takeoff, landing and approval of "private" facilities.
Presumably, this could be done via zoning, under the authority of GML 249 and Town Law Article 14. The Town of Ithaca
has a sophisticated zoning ordinance, but it is silent on this issue.
Any guidance you can provide would be very helpful.
Best regards,
Rich
Rich DePaolo
Councilperson, Town of Ithaca
215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
607.273.1721 (office)
607.351.6512 (cell)
Town Committees
11mmimc COiurmM(T._CChmir
l'uhlic C'ommilivu
Intermunicival Committees
( ahlc Aced~ Oversight C ommi ce � ('.:hair
Wmca C'crilcpc^ Community Work (ro up
'^i,.",Cr loins Cor7miiit2t rol the hhacn Arta yti'€t�W%kater 'IreNimeni kwifiey
( ryu'a l_11 e \4'ttttsrshecl lrrtamunicripal (h;anifauou Alrcimoc
I oinpktiins Count) .loini ym[dl Co llljmssian
Ad Hoc Committees
I;csonomic I)Cyclopmen€ CmlrnilaLT
Short-`I"elm RCIII[ ols Committcc
Sidewlks Comminve
Paulette Rosa
From: Patricia Leary <pn7@romebdv>
Sent: Wednesday, September 2,zozolzsspm
To: Becky Jordan
Cc: TeeAnn Hunter; pam 0eiwas; Eric Levine; Rich oepan|n;Pat Leary; Paulette Rosa; Rod
Howe; Bill Goodman
Subject: Re: Towerview Parking
The "No Littering" sign sounds like a good idea, with fines
Sent from my Wad
Town Board,
Please see correspondence below
The poor maintenance complaint of neighboring house at 135 Westview has been reported to Code
Enforcement and areply a,such has been sent mMr. Healey.
Kind regards,
Becky
From: Timothy James Healey
Sent: rvc,da»sc�rmucr1,onznx:sapm
To: Becky Jordan `
Subject: RE: ruwcmirwParking
Hello Becky, |sthis good enough? Also, who should | talk mabout the house a/os
vve,mic=? r»x. Tim
Dear Town of Ithaca Board
One the entrances mour small development uat the intersection wTower View Dr. and Route 7y. As
you probably know, the "swimmeo^park there throughout the warm -weather Season. Parking onboth
sides v,the road, they treat txcareankemeparkinm|utatvva|mart—conuncuaunmnnmumctnumcin
the middle v,the road and throwing their trash out before they leave. It's really infuriating. "No
narkmm^there would have them simply move right upinto the neighborhood. /amwondering n"no
nuenng"signs with aheavy fine attached would atleast discourage the trash they leave behind. Any
other solutions You may come upwith would bcgreatly appreciated.
Sincerely yours,
Tim Healey
zsawemxiew
anr'rop'zas*
TJ.Healey, Professor
Department ofMathematics
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853
607-255-8282,255~4013
Fax6O7-2SS-7l49
From: Becky Jordan
Sent: Tuesday, September 1,3O2O2:O9PK4
To: Timothy James Healey c >
Subject: Towerview Parking
Thank you for contacting the Town of Ithaca, it was a pleasure speaking with you.
As discussed, please feel free to submit a letter to the Town Board via this email and I'll be sure they
receive it.
Thank you,
Sincere regards,
Becky Jordan, Deputy Town Clerk
215 N.TlogaStreet
Ithaca, NY 14850
ph: GO7-273-1721x139
Fx:GO7-27]-5O54
<imegeOO1.pnO>
Paulette Rosa
From: RichDePao|n <RDePao|o@town,hhaca.nyus>
Sent: Tuesday, September 8'2O2O1O11AK4
To: K4ia S|cdnick
Cc Rod Howe Bill Goodman; pam 8|eiwz� TeeAnn Hunter; Eric Levine; Pat Leery; Paulette
Rosa; Marty Moseley; Susan Ritter
Subject: Re: Short Term Rentals
Mia-
Thank you for sharing Your opinions, Many of your conclusions are erroneous. Please allow me to clarify, where I can.
DearSupenvisorHwwe Deputy Supervisor Goodman, Town Board members, and others involved in
Short Term Rental legislation,
Below are several points about topics discussed at the August 10th Short Term Rental committee
meeting.
1. 80-90 days was mentioned as a number that was taken frorn Tom Knipe's calculations, and was
described at the August 10th meeting as being the difference between "supplemental income versus a
business" In recent communication with Tom Knipe, he clarified that this number was an estimate of
the average daily rate on Airbnb for a 2 BR unit compared to what a landlord could raise in 12 months of
rent for an average 2 BR unit. He went on to state that the data also shows that some units (being
rented as short term rentals) are pulling in many times what they could achieve on a long term lease.
This 8O'9Oday estimated figure only applies Lo this specific Situation inrelation tolong term rentals, and
should not be used as a blanket "acceptable day limit". It may not apply to larger orsmaller properties,
or properties in all areas of Ithaca. It should not be used as an acceptable figure for all concerns since it
was generated to address only the specific concern about housing being taken Out of the long term
rental stock. Allowing 80-90 nights of STRs in our neighborhood would dramatically and negatively
change the character ofour neighborhood.
The committee isand has been aware that the 8O-9Odays cited bvTom Knipe was what hedetermined tobethe the
point at which a potential STR business becomes more lucrative than a long-term rental of the same unit. The
committee never used that figure to delineate between what would be considered "supplemental income versus a
business." We are more concerned that STR allowances don't incentivize removing long-term housing stock from the
market.
2. A limit of 29 days for unhosted rentals has been proposed, though there has never been an
explanation for how this figure was chosen. Bill Goodman mentioned that Brent Katzman, a local realtor
and Airbnb host had discussed with him that he lives on a large lot, and would like to beallowed torent
for more than 29 days. Bill said that after this discussion, he felt in certain circumstances that the day
limit could be greater --maybe 90-120 days since being on a larger lot will not impact the neighbors so
much.
Why is it that despite numerous residents repeatedly expressing concern about allowing up to 29 days,
there has been no discussion or flexibility in decreasing that number, yet the number of days allowed
may potentially be increased after a request from one individual? We have been told that special
exceptions cannot be made for specific neighborhoods, yet exceptions to increase the number of days
are being considered on an individual property basis. This seems both arbitrary and capricious.
The 29-day figure has been explained many times. It is derived from the 2010 amendment to New York Multiple
Dwellings Law, section (8)(a) which essentially defines anything less than a rental of "thirty consecutive days" as short-
term. To answer your second question, the balancing test to determine the number of allowable rental days is largely
being determined by our desire to not erode long-term housing stock, and incidents of nuisance, which are largely
complaint driven. In the example you cite, it is assumed that rentals on a large parcel with faraway neighbors would not
pose as great a nuisance risk. The geometric parameters needed to apply for more days would apply zone -wide, and, as
such, would certainly not be considered "arbitrary," whereas the "neighborhood -specific" solution you allude to would
require that different areas under the same Town zoning classification be treated differently, a much more arbitrary
solution, requiring overlay zones and multiple justifying criteria.
And, to be perfectly frank, "numerous residents repeatedly expressing concern," has basically been half a dozen folks
from Renwick Heights, yourself included. This is a balancing test between people who perceive a threat from a
particular use, and residents who don't and/or who derive a benefit from it.
3. The proposal of having a "threshold" of less than 14 days where no permit or regulations are
imposed is unnecessary and will likely cause major problems including parking issues, large parties,
noise, and increased traffic, which all lead to degradation of the character of neighborhoods where
those 7 weekends of unregulated rentals occur.
All units would require permits. The issue was whether or not to require inspections of properties only being rented less
than a certain number of days.
4. The Cayuga Heights STR regulations have been in place and working for almost 3 years. As Linda
Woodard described it, keeping it simple and consistent is the key. It makes sense to start with a limited
number of days as they have done (14 unhosted or 28 hosted), and require that all properties obtain an
operating permit and follow the same rules. This has so far proved a successful compromise for both
hosts and residents.
Linda Woodard has also described that Cayuga Heights has not been successful at regulating its rentals, regardless of the
number of allowable days in their law. In short, it has NOT worked, which is why she is seeking to collaborate with other
municipalities and the County on enforcement.
5. It has been proposed that enforcement will be partly "complaint driven". A recent example of how
this will be problematic is the home at 20 Renwick Heights Road. The owner told the Town her home
was owner occupied and no longer being rented. Several neighbors noticed that the owner had moved
out of the property on July 6, and that a family of 4 moved into the property on July 7. For over 6 weeks
the owner had not been seen, and the family of 4 had been seen living in the house, yet the Town Code
Enforcement officer did not feel that there was enough "proof' to conclude that the owner was no
longer living there and that a family of 4 was living there. We appreciate that he did come back for a
second site visit, and then concluded that the neighbors' observations were correct. Drawing from this
experience, it seems unlikely that a neighbor's complaint about a host not living in the property for a 1
or 2 day hosted STR stay could be adequately proven. Complaint driven enforcement will not work and
will create major conflict between neighbors. Increasing the number of enforcement personnel to
adequately monitor and enforce regulations is more likely to be successful.
The example you cite above, where a family of 4 moves in for 6 weeks, is not considered a short-term rental and would
be totally legal under any proposed regulatory scenario.
6. The cost of the operating permit should cover all costs, including the increased number of personnel
which adequate monitoring and enforcement will necessitate. As Linda Woodard mentioned, people can
make $3000-$4000 in one weekend, so the cost of the permit should also take the income potential into
consideration.
Towns can not take into consideration the profit -making potential of a use when determining fees to cover the
administration of laws associated with it. Any enforcement and personnel costs associated with STR would be recouped
by permit fees. The level of enforcement will be driven by compliance issues, not by the economics of the rental
economy.
7. Hosted rentals were mentioned as not being a problem because "if the host is there on the property,
they can tell their guests to be quiet if they are having a party". However, as brought up previously,
noise from a party is only one neighborhood concern from renters. Other concerns are increased traffic,
parking issues, damage to neighbors' property, and degradation in the character of a residential
neighborhood and relationships between neighbors. These negative impacts do not disappear if the
rental is hosted, so the number of days allowed for both unhosted and hosted rentals should be limited.
Another issue with hosted rentals is that we have observed in our neighborhood that the host has
learned to leave their car in plain site on the premises to give the impression that the home is
currently hosted, whereas the owner has actually left in another vehicle and the unit is really unhosted.
This practice may be curtailed by advising hosts that random and regular visits to the home by Town
code enforcement personnel are part of the STR regulating process. Again, this would necessitate
further funds, which could be generated from permitting fees.
The perceived advantages of having a host on the property have never been limited to "parties" or "noise." The
committee has considered the benefit to be more comprehensive, and has assumed that oversight by the owner would
also be more effective at curtailing the other nuisances you cite.
Paulette Rosa
From: Rich DePaolo <RDePaolo@town.ithaca.ny.us>
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 12:52 PM
To: Mia Slotnick
Cc: Rod Howe; Bill Goodman; Pam Bleiwas; TeeAnn Hunter, Eric Levine; Pat Leary; Paulette
Rosa; Marty Moseley; Susan Ritter, kws5@cornell.edu; macananny, luisa macananny;
Barbara Koslowski; Richard Newell Boyd; maralyn edid; Inez Vermaas; Grayhaven Motel;
Laure Stroock
Subject: Re: Short Term Rentals
Mia-
Whether you agree with it or not, residential rentals of any shape or form are considered a residential use and, as such,
are in full compliance with our CURRENT zoning. That IS the opinion of the Town Attorney. We are now endeavoring to
regulate a use that is currently ALLOWED. We have limited enforcement tools available in the current construct,
including occupancy (related to our definition of "family") and prohibitions against certain "nuisances" like noise. Under
our current zoning, the fact that people operate rentals as a "business" is immaterial. We are attempting to address
that. I find it curious that you would be pushing back on a proposed 29-day limit on unhosted rentals, considering that
there is no limit at all imposed by current zoning.
To your main metric of the "success" of the Cayuga Heights ordinance... our proposals would also foreclose on the
practice of people "buying up residences and using them exclusively as STRs." We have a principal -residence
requirement in most zones, including yours, with an adjacent property exception under consideration.
Reportedly, there are over 350 hosts in the Town of Ithaca. While there are certainly issues related to STRs, it would
seem, simply based on the relatively low number of complaints, that the practice is not considered objectionable in the
vast majority of occurrences. That said, a balancing test must be applied to try to address the needs and concerns of all
stakeholders.
Thank you for your continued engagement.
Rich
On Sep 14, 2020, at 7:47 AM, Mia Slotnick <m6slotnick123@Rmail.com> wrote:
Dear Rich.
Thank you for your email. Although our letter was a collective effort written by the 8 people who signed
it and was based on notes that were taken during several Short Term Rental meetings, since you
directed your clarifications to me, 1 will respond for the group.
Point 4. Contrary to your opinion with respect to Cayuga Heights that "it has NOT worked", and in line
with our understanding that it is working well, Linda Woodard, the Mayor of Cayuga Heights informed
us that the laws they have in place have been successful. When asked last week how she felt the STR
legislation in Cayuga Heights was working she responded:
"I think we have been successful. We have kept people from buying up residences and using them
exclusively as strs. When there have been complaints from residents, we have a law we can enforce
beyond just a noise complaint and have used it a number of times. Our residents view their houses as
their homes, not businesses.
The biggest issue is making sure all abide by our laws. Airbnb continues to make that a
challenge. We don't have the administrative resources or sophisticated software to monitor
compliance. That is why I am so encouraged by the county willing to pay for the basic service and
hope the Town of Ithaca will pass their laws soon, so we can partner with them to know who is
renting out their homes and for how long. With that information we can be proactive about
compliance. Cayuga Heights is a small village; word gets around.
My best suggestion for you is to keep things simple. Much easier for residents to understand and
less problems with enforcement."
Cayuga Heights has had a successfully working model for STR regulation in operation for over 2 years. It
would seem logical and sensible for the Town to implement this proven plan for residential areas in the
Town. The situation could then be reassessed after an initial period.
Point 1. The following are your words from the August 10 STR meeting (please check your own meeting
minutes for confirmation): "My recollection is that we paid some attention to information from Tom
Knipe... Supplemental income versus a business... Tom said 80-90 days."
As stated in our previous letter, Tom clarified that this number only pertains to the specific situation of a
2 bedroom unit. It does not pertain to all size properties or properties in different
neighborhoods. Therefore, it should not be used as a "point at which a potential STR business becomes
more lucrative than a long-term rental of the same unit" since it only applies to the specific situation
that Tom had estimated it for.
Point 2. We all know the definition of a STR as being a rental of less than 30 days. However, the number
of days allowed within this 29 days maximum is what is being questioned. Cayuga Heights settled on 14
days of unhosted rentals because that number included all the major Cornell, Ithaca College, and area
events that necessitate increased housing. The number of days allowed should reflect the wishes
of those who want to engage in STRs and those residents who do not. 14-15 days seems a fair starting
point between the maximum (30) and minimum (0) days.
Your opinion of considering one method of allowing more days for certain areas more "arbitrary" than
another is simply that --your own opinion. As previously stated, there are multiple factors that justify a
scaled approach to different areas in the Town of Ithaca based on the characteristics of the
neighborhood. An overlay zone in both Renwick Heights and Forest Home would be easy to delineate
and implement.
Your labelling of residents who are concerned about STRs as "half a dozen folks from Renwick Heights,
yourself included" is inaccurate. We presented the Board with a petition opposing STRs signed by 17
Renwick Heights residents in September of 2016. Our concerns are shared by at least 11 Forest Home
residents (see their 11/27/18 letter to the STR committee) as well as members of the Ithaca Bed and
Breakfast Association. We have attended nearly every relevant meeting and been seriously engaged
with the STR committee for 4 years, bringing forth many examples of our grievances as well as many
suggestions for the legislation. It is also well worth noting that the majority of Town residents are not
aware that STR legislation is being discussed or the implications of allowing them, so are not as vocal as
those who are actively benefiting from operating them.
Point 5. The reason we brought this to your attention has nothing to do with STRs or LTRs. It was meant
to illustrate how difficult it will be to use neighbor complaints as part of the regulation process,
especially in regards to proof of occupancy. As stated previously, complaint driven enforcement will not
work and will create major conflict between neighbors. Increasing the number of enforcement
personnel to adequately monitor and enforce regulations is more likely to be successful.
Additionally, the Town is aware that the Owner of #20 Renwick Heights Road lied to the Town about her
intentions for the property. The Owner reported that she was no longer renting it out and that she was
living there herself. She requested to have her long term rental permit rescinded. She then moved back
out of the state and continued to rent the house out to both long and short term tenants, which is what
she has been doing for over two years without the home ever undergoing an inspection. Surely there
should be consequences for this Owner's blatant dishonesty and deception.
Refer to Town Codes 207-2 and 207-4, Operating Permit Required and Penalties, respectively.
Point 6. Figures for the income potential of STR properties have been mentioned multiple times in the
past by STR committee members when discussing proposed costs of permitting fees.
Point 7. From our experience in our own neighborhood, being a hosted rental versus an unhosted rental
has no effect on increased traffic, parking issues, damage to neighbors' properties, degradation of the
character of a neighborhood and relationships between neighbors.
A final comment is in order. It is clear from the existing Town Code, Article IX, 270-65, 'Purpose', that the
MDR is intended 'almost exclusively' for residential purposes and minimal intrusion by commercial
activities. Further there exists in the Code clear wording to discourage traditional B&Bs in MDRs. Yes we
are aware of the very thin distinction between B&B's and STR's- but they are both unsupervised mini -
hotels for transients in neighborhoods not zoned for them. Yet you are in effect through this proposed
legislation adding a new and never intended purpose in our zone- all to suit a subset of
your constituents engaged in a commercial activity. This is rezoning by any other name and we raise the
question as to whether this is the correct process. We would be interested to see a written opinion from
the Town's Attorney.
Sincerely,
Mia Slotnick, Kenneth Simpson, Mike MacAnanny, Luisa MacAnanny, Barbara Koslowski, Richard Boyd,
Maralyn Enid, and Larry Blume
14 September 2020
From:
John D. Powers
106 Buttermilk Falls Rd. West
Town of Ithaca
To:
Town of Ithaca Board.
Susan Ritter, Planning Department Head
Town of Ithaca
I have reviewed the response from Fisher Associates regarding the structural integrity of
the ROW underpass adjacent to 110 Buttermilk Falls Rd. West. I don't believe that their
Jindings.came as any surprise to anyone given the DOT traffic. requirements for the trail.
Incidentally, the need for rescue and ambulance vehicles to transit the trail is totally
absurd. Access to -the trail can be easily made from several other directions and as a
firefighter, newly retired from the IFD after 34 years, I can say with near certainty that no
driver of any emergency vehicle would ever want to drive down this trail. It would
necessitate backing -up the entire response distance, increasing associated driving
hazards to an unacceptable level. Also, I believe that Tim Bangs, the President of
Bangs Ambulance Inc. would never allow one of their vehicles to drive down the trail
and then have to back-up to the point where they entered the trail. I would also think
that it would be dangerous if not irresponsible to have even a small dump -truck drive on
the trail.
Given the Fisher report findings it would seem that there still exists a problem without a
solution. The original plan for the TOI to remove the structure and then fill in the void
was totally unacceptable and irresponsible. We clearly showed that the historical
flooding in this area was destructive and dangerous, and any changes made to the
topography in terms of reducing flow to lower elevations would prove disastrous to the
residents of the neighborhood. A subsequent study performed by the Fisher Associates
that resulted in the 36" culvert solution was totally wrong as there were other dynamic
water flow sources coming onto the property that were not considered by the Fisher
report. The TOI engineer then decided that two 36" culverts would suffice, but we
requested a copy of the calculations performed by the TOI engineer to support the two
36" culvert arrangement, but were never copied on these calculations. Needless to say
that the 36" culverts, no matter how many there are, would be rendered useless by
storm debris clogging the openings. The structural integrity study by Fisher is the last
known attempt that I know of to arrive at a solution to the underpass problem.
We see the last Study done by Fisher Associates to determine the structural integrity of
the underpass as an assertion by the TOI that the twin 36" culvert proposal will not
work.
I think -that people should agree that the TOI should not undertake any action that
increases the flooding hazard to the neighborhood, the increased hazard causing a
significant increase in destruction and risk to life. After all, this is only a trail and the
need for this trail should not undermine the stability and safety of a neighborhood.
When you are making decisions that affect our neighborhood put yourselves in our
position to understand how we may be feeling. We are fighting for our neighborhood,
and this is sad as I think that my local government should be doing everything it could to
protect us.
There are two solutions to make the flooding situation less of a hazard with regards to
the TOI's plans. One solution that it seems no one has brought up is precast concrete
culvert sections. They can be made -to -order and are very reasonable in cost given that
fact that you have already spent $15,000 studying the problem. I have to say, that if you
had come to us prior to engaging Fisher Associates for the first study we could have
provided you with a base requirement for their study, probably showing that the data to
preform the study didn't exist and so the study would not have been performed saving
$7500 in taxpayer money.
The precast culvert can be installed in sections, easily handled by medium construction
equipment. These sections can be ordered in any size or configuration you want. You
could order these without the base section, and with a reduced vertical opening
compared to the existing underpass. A five-foot vertical opening would work well, and
the horizontal section measurement can be increased to allow for greater flow.
The other solution to be employed with the precast concrete culvert solution is to
remove a section of rip -rap reinforcement located west of the underpass. This rip -rap
borders the ROW, and was probably placed after the ROW washed-out in flooding in
the first-half of the last century, The ROW could then be leveled to be made even with
the north and south side of the ROW. This may reduce the tendency of the ROW to act
as a "dike" and reduce the "weir" effect caused by the old abandoned Black Iron bridge
abutments located further west of this area. This is a relatively inexpensive proposition,
and I talked about this in my very first communication tot he TOL
I think that it is important to make a point and say that removing the rip -rap is not an
independent solution ..... this should be done along with the precast -culvert solution.
We would like to be kept informed of decisions that will affect our neighborhood as
relates tot his project.
We would welcome the opportunity to work with the TOI on possible solutions. All you
have to do is ask.
Thank you,
John D. Powers
Paulette Rosa
Subject: FW: internet help for a constituent
From: Susan Verberg<SU!; m,iverker g T il.cc r }
Sent: Sunday, September 13, 202011:15 AM
To: Amanda Champion <ac;h Nrr12ic j@,tc�.rrrpki1ls wco :w?r
Cc: Rod Howe <RHowe 5+,town jthacaw.i y,. L!,}, awl r L.I:�d 4 .t:.rrTajcolrrj rc sd k,&!....ray us
Subject: Re: internet help for a constituent
Thank you Amanda, and pleased to meet you Rod and Chris,
Sarah Wood of ICSD is working on figuring out this as well. I talked to one of the IT techs at ICSD but have not been
contacted by anyone as of yet. We were not aware of this enormous issue until Labor Day, the next billing cycle after
changing our plan with AT&T, and I am very sorry for this last minute scramble.
Right now, we have AT&T but the plan is too restricted for streaming (we got tricked into this, which is another issue).
Even if Simon receives a personal AT&T hotspot for school use, his access could be unpredictable as for most of the
summer the AT&T tower was overwhelmed and we had no internet during working hours at all (which is why we
switched plans. If we had not, and the tower had not, we would not be having this problem / conversation).
We should have access to Spectrum. Every part of Sheffield road except our little stretch between Iradel and Hayts has
cable. We have asked again and again, and are given the run about. As Spectrum has a monopoly, we can not go to
another provider. Because Spectrum can only keep the monopoly as long as they offer internet to everyone, we've been
on the "schedule" to be hooked up. We've been on it for several years. When we call for updates, either the person on
the line has no clue and offers to start a new work request, or work has been "imminent" without any actual details
available.
For our son to have dependable internet (satellite and cellphone has never worked in bad weather / heavy cloud cover)
we need cable. And for that, we need Spectrum to do their job.
For now, we'd be happy to just have a school issued Hotspot, but I really do not think the City should pay for our soil's
access because Spectrum refuses to fulfill their obligation.
I am so sorry to bother you all with this. This really should have been a non -issue and instead it just keeps getting worse
and worse.
Hope some background helps,
Susan Verberg
Can Sun, Sep 13, 2020 at 10:57 AM Amanda Champion {pchgn pic:�r�Cct?t�ar��frl<irts�cca_org} wrote:
Hi Rod and Chris,
I hope you're both well this weekend.
We have a constituent on Sheffield Road who's son will be starting 7th grade at Boynton this week. They are having difficulty
with their internet, and concerned about having enough bandwidth for all the zooming.
Chris, what is ICSD doing for folks with access problems?
Rod, is there any info on the connections or towers in this part of the Town that could help Susan?
Any help You canprovide wouk{beappreciated.
Thanks,
Amanda
Amanda Champion
Tompkins County Legislator
District 12,Town ofIthaca (VVesd
1Z1East Court St.
Ithaca, NY1485O
(607)274-5434
/607\351-2828(ceU)
TOWN OF ITHACA
215 NORTH TIOGA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850
www.town.ithaca.ny.us
CORRESPONDENCE LISTING
September 28, 2020
Please review the following correspondence and indicate, by placing your initials in the right-hand column
adjacent to the correspondence that you wish to receive a copy. We can forward a copy to you via e-mail or
make a hard copy. Please indicate your preference next to your name at the bottom of this form.
Correspondence — Item
1. Letter re: Forest Home Walkway Project
2. Letter from Chris Biehn re: Resignation from Planning Board
3. Letter re: 5G and response
4. Letter re: 5G
1. Court Action re: Dangerous Dog
1. Public Safety Reform Collaboration
Please place your
initials here if you wish
to receive a copy
Paulette Rosa
From: Herbert John Engman <herbengman@cornell.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 9:52 AM
To: Paulette Rosa; Joe Talbut; Joe Slater, Daniel Thaete
Subject: Forest Home Walkway Plan
I understand that the Forest Home Walkway plan is still under review. I want to emphasize two details that are
important to me and to Kris Merschrod: 1. the walkway is the only access to our back yards for tree removal
and utility work (Jim Weber had mentioned that the Town might want to remove some trees to protect the
sewer line that runs through this area) . Therefore, a slope, rather than steps, is the appropriate surface for
the top part of the walkway 2. we would like a gap left in the hand railing to allow a gate to be installed at the
desired access to our back yards.
We are delighted that the plan is progressing. Please let us know if there are questions and if we can do
anything else to advance the plan.
Herb Engman
Fromm: Chris Biehn «chhsbiehn@gmaiicom»
Sent: Friday, September lO,2OZO4:4SPK4
To: Paulette Rosa
Cc: Susan Ritter; Chris Ba|estra
Subject: Resignation from Planning Board
Dear Paulette,
It is with regret that I notify you of my resignation frorn the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, effective today, September
18, 2020. We are moving to Rochester NY this weekend and I will no longer be a resident of Ithaca. I have truly enjoyed
my work on the Board and was planning a much longer tenure. May thanks to everyone for the warm welcome.
We have also enjoyed our time living in the TOI. I wish you and the team every success moving forward. If there's ever
anything | can dotVsupport Your good work, please feel free Uzreach out.
Mybest, Chris
062-579-7649
From: Susan Ritter <SRbt2r0Dtovvn.ithaca.ny.uS>
Date: Thursday, September I7,2O2Dat11:27AM
To: Chris Biehn<chriS.bi8hn@grnai[corn>
Subject: Resignation frorn Planning Board
Hi Chris,
Sorry to bother you with this, as I can imagine you have plenty on your plate right now. But ifyou can find some time,
could You please email the Town Clerk, Paulette Rosa, and provide her with confirmation of
Your resignation from the Planning Board. The Clerk's office likes tohave this information for their records.
Once again, I sincerely wish you all the best with your new job and home in Rochester. You were such anideal
candidate for the Planning Board, I hope you will consider serving your new home town once You get settled and find
time in your life.
Best,
Sue
Susan Ritter, Director ofPlanning
Town ofIthaca
21So1TinquStreet
Ithaca, NY148SD
607-273-2747
Paulette Rosa
From: Paulette Rosa
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 8:51 AM
To: marieandrew93@gmail.com
Subject: Correspondence Process RE: Wireless Facility Code Change Recommendations
Hi Andrew and Marie,
I just wanted to be clear about my role, since you mentioned me in your email.
Board members' emails are posted on the website, and they forward correspondence to me for filing.
Non -Town Board members of boards and committees do not give out their personal emails and we will not.
All correspondence should go through me as Records Management Officer for recording and dissemination. This
ensures all board or committee members receive the same information at the same time. It also ensures that it gets to
the proper support staff person to be integrated into the permanent record; either of the project or topic, or under the
larger umbrella of Town Correspondence.
Also, our legal counsel is not staff and should not receive unsolicited correspondence from anyone. Counsel has asked
me to make this clear to others in the past and I thought I had discussed this with you in months past.
Counsel works at the direction of the Town Board and secondly town staff. Counsel will not read correspondence unless
directed to do so. I wanted to clarify that so you understood clearly, given that one would commonly believe that any
email sent is read. I would like to respectfully request that you do not send Counsel emails. If and when Counsel needs
to read something, it will be forwarded to them by the appropriate person authorized to incur that cost to the town.
I understand that you are passionate about this topic. I will be happy to forward any of your correspondence to the
appropriate people, an/or all the people you address it to, as I have done in the past.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact me.
Sincerely
Paulette Rosa
Town Clerk/RMO
From: marieandrew93@gmail.com <marieandrew93@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2020 3:45 PM
To: Bill Goodman <BGoodman@town.ithaca.ny.us>; Eric Levine <elevine@town.ithaca. ny.us>; Pat Leary
<pleary@town.ithaca.ny.us>; Chris Balestra <CBaIestra@town.ithaca.ny.us>; Paulette Rosa <PRosa @town.ithaca.ny.us>
Cc: Nick Goldsmith <NGoldsmith@town.ithaca.ny.us>; Pam Bleiwas <pbleiwas@town.ithaca.ny.us>; Rod Howe
<RHowe@town.ithaca.ny.us>; Rich DePaolo <rdepaolo@town.ithaca.ny.us>; TeeAnn Hunter
<thunter@town.ithaca.ny.us>; Susan Ritter <SRitter@town. ithaca.ny.us>; brock@clarityconnect.com
Subject: Wireless Facility Code Change Recommendations
Hello Codes Committee members,
uappears that inthe coming months, you will ueworking more onthe code changes regarding small cellwireless facilities
in Ithaca. As you may know, many in our community are very concerned about the densification of 4G/5G small cell
antennas, particularly near residences and schools. On June 8, we sent our initial list ofrecommended code changes m
four Town officials, and we are now sending an updated version to the whole Committee (below - yellow highlights being
the most impvrtam), Many mthese come from Andrew camponem.emvattorney that the city isconsulting for assistance
with the specific codes. They are based onfour principles:
1 . Ensure that telecom companies have full voice coverage in the area.
o. Maximize local control over all wireless infrastructure decisions.
3. Minimize all adverse impacts, including aesthetics, public welfare, economic impacts, etc. 4. Ensure that any
additional infrastructure is not redundant or superfluous (and thus minimizing additional energy usage).
Given the potential for significantnegative consequences from a plethora of new towers, we and the coalition wmhelp
lead - hope that the Committee includes as many of these provisions as possible going forward.
Thank you.
Andrew and Marie Molnar
PS: Thank you, Paulette, for telling mothat you can forward this email mEva Hoffmann, Yvonne Fogarty, and Bill King.
Recommended Design Guidelines for 4G/5G/small cell antennas
Town of Ithaca, NY
Note: Unless otherwise indicated, most quotes are from NY Attorney Andrew Campanelli, a legal expert on
wireless facilities.
|ntegrity-Require that everything submitted by the applicant is done so under oath and penalty of
[eUuly. "In 90% of the applications that I've seen across the entire United States, applicants submit
false or misleading information. And unfortunately, ordinances do not empower localgovernments to
understand when they're being deceived.^
Avoiding Unnecessary Redundancy ' Require telecom companies to prove that there is a clap in
voice coverage, prior to adding new technology. Have them certify that the proposed small cell
ineta|latiun$Vaddresses anexisting and significant gap incoverage inthe service area, and that such
certification includes a detailed map of the "gap areas" and documentation of such gaps causing an
inability for ouser 10connect with the land -based national telephone nawxorkormeinLuinaoonnaction
capable ofsupporting areasonably uninterrupted communication. Aoapart of this, require l[tKiId
Ze$1ng'oothat^ifanapp|icantc|uimetoau#erfmmaeiQnificantgapinitsin'bui|dingcovenage'thon
they should not be able to conduct testing outside, and then purport to calculate what the signal
strength 'would be'inmide.^
JodioioosP|moememm-Manminvequinamontshxthe least intrusive methods /ofill any coverage gap
for both small cells and cell towers. .Ajustification study which includes the rationale for selecting the
proposed use; if applicable, a detailed explanation of the coverage gap that the proposed use would
serve; and how the proposed use is the least intrusive means for the applicant to provide wireless
service. Said study shall include all existing structures and/or alternative sites evaluated for potential
installation ofthe proposed facility and why id alternatives are not a viableoption."
Revocabi|hy-Havoadauoe voiding the agreement or requiring its modification in the event of a
requlatorV change, Understanding that the FCC is directed by 5 commissioners mp intodbyUhe
Pmaidont. FCC regulations can be changed, but contracts signed will continue to be binding per the
terms of the contract. Example: Bellevue, Washington, includes contingencies in its master licensing
agreement that would allow the city mincrease the rent per poJeUthe FCC limits change.
Proper Protection for the Town- Require as part of the licensing agreement, General Liability
Insurance
6. Limiting Carbon Footprint - Limit tile output of Effective Radiated Power (ERP). ERP measures the
combination of the power emitted by the transmitter and the ability of the antenna to direct that power in
a given direction. ERP is equal to the input power to the antenna multiplied by the gain of the
antenna. Unlike the ultimate radiation coming frorn antennas, ERP is not regulated by the FCC, so
cities have the freedom to limit it as much as possible. Example, "For any Close Proximity Microwave
Radiation Antennas (CPMRA) Wireless Telecommunications Facility (WTF) that is�
a installed inthe public rights -of -way, or
b. attached toany building, or
o. has antennas installed a1aheight that imlower than 1OOfeet off the ground,
... the applicant must install only antennas, radios and other
chance of exceeding a total of 0.1 Watt of effective radiated power from the face of the antenna
shroud."
1Watt EBPfrom aaYVTF[small wireless transmission facility] antenna is all that isneeded for ^5bars"
onucell phone (-85dBM)at 1/2-mUaradius for Telecom Service. This allows over 3.00people at same
time he a call.For information, UP
OTHERS:
1. Require
the United States. Many telecom companies are installing sWTFs that could later be retrofitted to add
5G technology to existing 4G. If and when this occurs, the proponent should be required to file an
additional application, in part because the frequency and radiation may be different and must be
verified to be in accordance with FCC standards.
2. Require a visual impact analVsis that issubmitted Nthe zoning board, This should include full-size
mockups, drawings, surveys, etc. Example: Monterey, CA, has anapplication requirement fnrfull-size
mock-ups of all proposed sWTFs to consider aesthetics, fire hazards, and threats to anything historic.
Larkspur, CA has proposed that all SWTF applications include construction drawings, a site survey,
and photo simulations.
3. Insist on a citV-owned fiber-optic sharing box at each WTF pole to allow residents to access the existing
fiber-optic network by wiring directly to their homes. In Ithaca, FirstLight does this."Sending big data (for
video/music streaming, gaming or Internet) directly to homes via wireline fiber optic cables and copper
uses much less energy than wireless. Private wireless companies should not be allowed to board the
use of fiber optic cables in the public rights -of -way for their sole benefit. Instead, the fiber optic cables
can be shared with the residents as a condition for gaining access to the public rights -of -way."
Littps.,,�,s e ifists4 wi recitech.conl See also Irregulators v FCC. More on this on page 4 of the "Ask the
Lawyers" document we sent in our May 20 email.
4, Address the possibility n(the decline of property values. For example, the town can force anapplicant
to disclose factors taken into account in the applicant's determination that the proposed installation will
not cause usignificant reduction ofthe values o/the properties inclose proximity Nthe proposed
installation. Seaside, CA struck down a license based on this without any lawsuit from a telecom.
5. Require that any wireless facility must beauleast ,
Examples: Co|ebuaao, Peta|uma, Los Altos, Fairfax, and San Ramon (all California).
6. Require that any wireless facility must beouleast 1500 feet awaV from residences, schools, hospitals,
and daV care facilities. xamp|oa:Pa|oA|toC4.BarHadborME.^uxvenm*cunanrmooarch,mwtowem
should moplaced 5oumeters (/s4ufeet),mabout athird o/amile, away mnnschools, hospitals and lots m
sleeping peoplemdense
7. Require notification clause, such for those people who live within 2^OUOfeet of the proposed facility,
or a community meeting ofall those impacted otleast two weeks prior tothe planning commission
hearing nnthe use permit.
8. Ensure FCC compliance both when installed and at all times thereafter. Strictly regulate the radiation
output. "Despite open threats by the wireless industry, responsible local governments across the United
States have been enacting measures to ensure that RF radiation levels remain within the FCC's MPE
limits, not only at the time of a wireless facility's initial installation, but for the entire period during which
a respective wireless facility is thereafter being operated within the respective jurisdiction" Many local
governments are now enacting ordinances that provide for the random testing of wireless facilities
using an independent contractor at the expense of their owners, and substantial fines and/or permit
revocations when facilities are found to be emitting excessive levels of RF radiation. (Burbank, Berkeley
and Davis, CA all have random testing in their ordinances)
9. If an FCC compliance report claims, or an RF engineer testifies, that the radiation which a proposed
facility will emit will be "within FCC limits", local governments should require them to identify which set
of limits they are referring to (i.e., general population exposure limits vs. occupational exposure limits).
"Simply stated, in representing that their maximum exposure levels will be within FCC limits,
companies often refer to the occupational limits, rather than the general population limits, so
that when the facility is installed, they can be exposing members of the general public to
radiation levels as much as 500% to 600% higher than the maximum levels deemed safe by the
FCC. The occupational limits can only be applied in situations where the facility prevents members of
the general public from reaching an area in close proximity to the facility. In an effort to misapply the
occupational standard, representatives of wireless companies can, and do, falsely represent how close
people will be able to get to their facility:
10. In providing calculations of the radiation levels, applicants must be required to clearly disclose "the
minimum distance" upon which such calculations are being based, and to justify how they determined
that such distance is, in fact, the closest any member of the public will be able to get to their installation.
"As the distance between a person and a transmitting antenna closes, the level of RF
radiation exposure increases exponentially, rather than proportionally. To prepare calculations that
falsely reflect that a proposed antenna will expose the public to radiation levels considerably lower than
what the actual levels will be, all an engineer has to do is start their calculation with a false minimum
distance factor. This tactic is simple, effective, and commonly employed."
11. Require annual recertification. Example: 'Each year, commencing on the first anniversary of the
issuance of the permit, the Permittee shall submit to the Town an affidavit which shall list all active
small cell wireless installations it owns within the Town by location, certifying that (1) each active small
cell installation is covered by liability insurance in the amount of $2,000,000 per installation, naming the
Town as additional insured; and (2) each active installation has been inspected for safety and found to
be in sound working condition and in compliance with all federal safety regulations concerning RF
exposure limits.'
12. Comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The United States Access Board recognizes
"that multiple chemical sensitivities and electromagnetic sensitivities may be considered disabilities
under the ADA if they so severely impair the neurological, respiratory or other functions of an individual
that it substantially limits one or more of the individual's major life activities."
13. Require post -installation redress in cases of stealth installations of wireless facilities.
14. Ensure that the applicant conducts a NEPA review, now allowed due to Keetowah v FCC (Aug 2019):
"We rule that the Order's deregulation of small cells is arbitrary and capricious because its public -
interest analysis did not meet the standard of reasoned decision -making." "Local governments can
condition approval for new 5G cell construction upon compliance with state and federal requirements
for environmental review. While a local government cannot add new requirements for environmental
review, it can require proof that the necessary federal review has been done." "Localities are within their
rights to require the sponsors of densified 4G/5G facilities to provide evidence that the FCC has
conducted a NEPA review prior to approving any request for construction. Consequently, it is not lawful
for any such facilities to be constructed without prior NEPA review." According to the three top NEPA-
specializing attorneys at FCC: "Every new [wireless telecommunications facility (' WTF")] must undergo
NEPA review", and WTF applications cannot be batched for such
purpose. https:Hscientists4wiredtech.com/action/
15. Require that applicants list the real entity behind the facility (e.g. Verizon) — not a shell company —
along with a list of its Board members.
16. Include fall -zone requirements in order to mandate that wireless facilities are maintained at a sufficient
distance from other structures and the general public, to ensure their safety in the event of a structural
failure or fire at a wireless facility. The rule of thumb which seems to be taking hold across the United
States is that most local ordinances provide for setbacks of at least 100% to 200% of the height of a
proposed tower Example: Huntington NY town code: "It shall be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the
Town Board that the proposed facility is set back adequately to prevent damage or injury resulting from
ice fall or debris resulting from the failure of a wireless telecommunications facility, or any part thereof
and to avoid and minimize all other impacts upon adjoining properties."
17. Include a clause setting an upper limit of noise from the equipment. Example: Mill Valley, CA requires
50 dB.
Note: The town could do a study determining the true cost of applications. If "reasonable", we can charge
higher fees than the FCC 2018 'limits". These costs could include time spent by staff, legal counsel, IT costs,
contractors, etc. to review permits for completeness; ensure compliance with local, state, and national laws;
conduct field inspections before and after installation; public notice processes, and so forth.
Paulette Rosa
From: Lisa BertLJZZi <harumini@grnail.com>
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2020 4:48 PM
To: Paulette Rosa; Bill Goodman; Rich DePaolo; Pam Bleiwas; TeeAnn Hunter; Eric Levine; Pat
Leary; Nick Goldsmith; Rod Howe; Susan Ritter; Chris Balestra
Subject: US Senator Blumenthal Raises Concerns on 5G Wireless Technology Health Risks at
Senate Hearing. Wireless Industry Confesses: "No Studies Show 5G is Safe"
In early February of 2019, U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal grilled wireless
industry representatives, who admitted the industry has done ZERO health &
safety studies on 5G technology. Watch the video on YouTub ' e ... here: US
Senator Blumenthal Raises Concerns on 5G Wireless
"If you go to the FDA websitel there basically is a cursory and superficial
citation to existing scientific data saying 'The FDA has urged the cell phone
industry to take a number of steps, including support additional research on
possible biological effects of radio frequency fields for the type of signals
emitted by cell phones.'I believe that Americans deserve to know what the
health effects are, not to pre judge what scientific studies may show,, and they
also deserve a commitment to do the research on outstanding questions. "
"So my question for you: How much money has the industry committed to
supporting additional independent research --I stress indepen den t- -research?
Is that independent research ongoing? Has any been completed? Where can
consumers look for it? And we're talking about research on the biological
effects of this new technology. "
ll �11 11 1111
"So there is really no research ongoing. We're kind of flying blind here, as far
as health and safety is concerned. "
12117118 Response from FCC Commission Carr to Senator
BIN, "i
acI44ni
20re%20RF%2OSafety,pdf
TO
215 NORTH TIOGA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850
www.town.ithamny.us
CORRESPONDENCE LISTING
Please review the following correspondence and indicate, by placing your initials in the right-hand column
adjacent to the correspondence that you wish to receive a copy. We can forward a copy to you via e-mail or
make a hard copy. Please indicate your preference next to your name at the bottom of this form.
Correspondence — Item
Please place your
initials here if you wish
to receive a copy
Retention: Permanent
1. Letter re: Flashing Speed Limit Sign on Warren
....................
2. Letters re: 5G
3.
Retention: Six -Year
1. NYS Development Grant Notification — Near Prime LLC
Retention: One -Year
Paulette Rosa
From: Irina Peress <peressirina@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2020 2:51 PM
To: Paulette Rosa; Bill Goodman; Susan Ritter, Chris Balestra; Rich DePaolo; Pam Bleiwas;
TeeAnn Hunter; Eric Levine; Pat Leary; Nick Goldsmith; Rod Howe
Subject: Save the Town of Ithaca from 5G
As a Town of Ithaca resident, I urge you to stop 5G from coming to Ithaca.
You can stop 5G the same as other municipalities have done by adopting stringent design guidelines and
requiring Verizon to prove that there's a gap in cell phone coverage. NY Attorney Andrew Campanelli, who is a
legal expert on wireless facilities and who has helped many municipalities say no to 5G, says:
Ithaca can refuse Verizon with no legal implications.
Require that Verizon to give proof that the new cell antennas are necessary for a gap in cell phone
coverage.
Require that everything submitted by Verizon is done so under oath and penalty of perjury.
Require proper protection - Require General Liability Insurance without a pollution exclusion.
If a town says yes to Verizon's 5G antennas, they also will be forced to accept T-Mobile's and AT&T's antennas
too. The result is hundreds (thousands?) of cell phone antennas -- as powerful as a cell tower, as close as every
100 feet, as close as 8 feet from children's bedrooms, as close as 12 feet from passersby below, constantly
sending out microwave radiation.
Over 500 cities in Italy have passed resolutions to halt 5G until safety research has been completed. Let's have
Ithaca be on the right side of history and say no to 5G.
Sincerely,
Irina Peress
From: REBECCA 14OLLAND <rholland940@grnail.corn>
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2020 2:58 PM,
To: Paulette Rosa <PRosa@t.own.ithaca.nyA1S>
Subject: Town codes regarding wireless facilities (4/5G)
Dear Town official,
As a resident of the town of Ithaca, I heard that the town is currently revisiting their codes
around wireless facilities. Recently the city of Ithaca went through a similar process and have
hired an expert lawyer that works with cities all over NY state to incorporate key restrictive
codes on cell facilities to maximize local control and minimize redundancies. Here is a copy of
the email that the lawyer sent to me in response to my concerns as a resident of Ithaca and the
possibility of the city adding 4/5 G small cell facilities to the already 3/4 G radiation we have in
Ithaca already. This is the same lawyer that is currently working with the city of Ithaca in regards
to small cell facilities. Thank You, Rebecca Holland (315) 567-9502
Andrew Campanelli <ajc,@Pcarn,)aoeIli �)ccon�p Fri, May 29, 11:09 AM
Hi Rebecca:
In handling cell tower, small cell and DAS system cases both across the State of New York and
the entire Country for more than two decades, I have become acutely familiar with the inability
of local governments to exercise the powers that have been explicitly preserved to them by
Congress under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (TCA), to control the placement of such
wireless facilities within their jurisdiction.
The fact is, local governments typically don't know what powers they possess under the federal
Act, how to exercise them, or how to avoid the pitfalls of violating the simple limits placed upon
those powers under the TCA.
When handling zoning applications seeking approvals of wireless facilities, most local zoning
boards are not provided with any guidance as to what factual determinations they are required to
make, or how to make them, if they do not want their local zoning decisions to be challenged by
a federal lawsuit Linder the TCA. Nor do they know how to recognize when an applicant has
Submitted false or misleading evidence to them, (such as false propagation maps, false FCC
compliance reports, misleading visual impact analyses, etc.) which will typically occur in as
many as 90% of the zoning applications which will come before them.C�
As a result, site developers are able to install facilities virtually anywhere they wish, which, with
the current 5G rollout, results in telephone calls to my office on a nearly daily basis, where the
caller laments that they woke up to find as wireless facility 13 feet Outside of their daughter's
bedroom window, and their Town is saying that "their hands were tied" and that there was
nothing they could have done about it, which is simply false.
Having been dealing with these issues across the entire United States for years, and having
provided training sessions to local government officials as to how to regulate the installation of
wireless facilities within their jurisdictions, I now perform federal -law basis analyses of local
zoning ordinances to analyze, among other things:
(a) the extent to which the Ordinance maximizes the local government's ability to exercise
the powers which Congress explicitly preserved to state and local governments under Section 47
U.S.C.A. §332(c)(7)(A) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (hereinafter "the TCA"), to
regulate the placement, construction and modification of personal wireless service facilities;
(b) the extent to which the Ordinance encompasses provisions that ensure the appropriate
County boards and/or representatives will not violate the constraints of the Telecommunications
Act of 1996, which are set forth within sections §332(c)(7)(B)(i)(I), §332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II),
§332(c)(7)(B)(ii), §332(c)(7)(B)(iii) and §332(c)(7)(B)(iv) of the TCA, and which thereby
minimize the risks of federal litigation to challenge any decision of the relevant County Board
pertaining to an application seeking permission to install a wireless facility;
(c) the extent to which the Ordinance vests any relevant Local Boards with essential fact-
finding functions, and sets evidentiary standards, which are critical for the County to make
decisions wherein the County can actually assert control over the placement of wireless facilities,
within the powers vested in the County under
47 U.S.C.A. §332(c)(7)(A) of the TCA; and
(d) the extent to which the Ordinance empowers the municipality to protect its citizens
against illegally excessive levels of radiation emanating from Non -FCC compliant wireless
facilities that are not registered with the FCC. This is of critical import because, as a practical
matter, the FCC has no idea where the vast majority of wireless facilities are, or to what levels of
radiation they are exposing members of the general public. This is because wireless facilities
under 200 feet in height do not have to be registered with the FCC, and unless the FCC receives
a complaint that a facility is emitting levels of radiation which exceed the FCC's limits, the FCC
never tests them and never requires their owners to test them. As such, local governments are
their citizens first, and only, line of defense against exposure to illegally excessive levels of
radiation from such facilities.
The memorandum provides federal legal authority for each recommended change to the local
ordinance, and a detailed analysis of the adverse impacts which the municipality, and of greater
import, its citizens will likely sustain, if the recommended changes are not implemented.
This ranges from local boards being deceived by applicants seeking approvals for wireless
facilities who submit false FCC compliance reports, false propagation maps, misinterpretations
of what the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and/or the FCC "requires" a local zoning board to
do, to local boards rendering decisions which are then followed by a federal lawsuit, because the
board failed to make a factual determination which was required of it.
Finally, the Memorandum addresses how the local government can enforce its "smart planning
provisions", to the greatest extent possible, to control the placement of wireless facilities during
the pending "5G rollout", without violating the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
I hope this sufficiently answers your question.
Andrew J. Campanelli
(516) 746-1600
Paulette Rosa
From:
Nick Goldsmith
Sent:
Wednesday, October 7, 2020 3:45 PM
To:
Joyce Campbell
Cc:
Paulette Rosa
Subject:
RE: Limit or Bari 4/5G Antennas
Hi Joyce,
Thank you for your comments. I am not involved with the 5G discussions. I am forwarding Your email on to Our Town
Clerk (copied), who is Our Records Management Officer,
Nick
Nick Goldsmith
Sustainability Planner
Town of Ithaca
Y I 1 0
www town. ithaca. y,�L,? �Liqtgin��ility
n �L _ _
ww.w.,facebook corn/IthacaSUStainability
it (." nr")t our f'h")( (/A"I(Yti"' h" to A
Z on'"6-' //'VtC'4 �/ Ycv/" "'1"lIcl
From: Joyce Campbell
Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2020 2:15 PM
To: Nick Goldsmith <NGoldsrnith@towti.itliaca,tiyus>
Subject: Limit or Ban 4/5G Antennas
'DcarTow'n Board Member:
encourage You IL0 work to limit or preferably ban any tug thcr 4/5G cell
antennas in o i L r arc, a. There are significant scientific studies and research that
show considerable negative health effects of this techi'I g olo, y affecting not
only humans but also animals, insects, and plants. I do not fecl that most
ordinary people really need this technology, but it certainly provides very
large dividends for big tech cornp,4-1nies! I apl-.)rcciatc any assistance you can
provide in liti'ittit.ig or outright banning 4/5G antennas in the town of Ithaca.
thank you, Joyce Campbell, 14'.covillage
R
Paulette Rosa
From: Lucas Adam Matheson < lucasadammatheson@gmail.com >
Sent: Thursday, October 8, 2020 10:57 AM
To: Paulette Rosa; Bill Goodman; Susan Ritter; Chris Balestra; Rich DePaolo; Pam Bleiwas;
TeeAnn Hunter; Eric Levine; Pat Leary; Nick Goldsmith; Rod Howe
Subject: Please Stop Further Small Cell Development in Ithaca
Hello,
I am a grateful 10-year resident of Ithaca.
I love this city for its commitment to social justice and to honoring the (sometimes progressive!) values of its citizens.
Ithaca is a leader among municipalities in its supporting the health and welfare of its citizens, even when its decisions to
do so is not "mainstream". Thus, Ithaca leads others towards a sustainable future by its example.
The case of 5G small cell antennas is again calling Ithaca to honor the will of its citizens, to act in their best interest, and
to listen to them as they request action in honor of their own health and welfare.
This technology is potentially very dangerous, to humans and nature, in its yet -untested state. The Town Board DOES
have the legal right to act in this case and stop 5G in Ithaca, following the lead of other municipalities in the United
States and around the world. And Ithaca's citizens are asking for this action NOW.
Do not decide for your citizens that they should be subject to dangerous electromagnetic radiation. Listen to their voices
and decide in their best interest now, even if this issue is to be reconsidered in the future upon further, safer,
technological development.
Please adopt codes that restrict further small cell development!
Thank you for keeping us safe and well, and respecting Ithaca's history of social virtue, it's citizen's wishes, and its
community's health.
Sincerely,
Lucas Matheson
Paulette Rosa
From: Danny Fox <foxlair3@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, October 9, 2020 1:27 PM
To: Paulette Rosa; Bill Goodman; Susan Ritter; Chris Balestra; Rich DePaolo; Pam Bleiwas;
TeeAnn Hunter; Eric Levine; Pat Leary; Nick Goldsmith; Rod Howe
Cc: Ithaca For Responsible Technology
Subject: codes for wireless facilities
Attachments: Impact of EIVIF exposure on health oct 9, 2020.docx
Risks to health of installing small cell antennas in Ithaca's Neighborhoods
I live in the town of Ithaca (306 Tareyton Drive) and am a part of the group " Ithacons for Responsible Technology",
which is concerned about the possibility of the installation of wireless radio frequency -transmitting small cell
antennas in Ithaca's neighborhoods. My understanding is you are currently revisiting codes regarding wireless
facilities in the Town of Ithaca. For the health of ourselves, our neighbors, and their children, we must not allow this
technology to be installed in Ithacos neighborhoods.
A prominent building biologist has been measuring Radio Frequency Radiation (RFR) power densities of up to tens to
hundreds of thousands of microwatts/meter squared (uWIm') in their client's homes in neighborhoods where these
small cell antennas have been installed (Lillp:1 Accumulated research shows these
levels of RFR exposure are dangerously high! The consensus of scientists, medical professionals, and building
biologists is the maximum exposure to RFR should be less than 10 uWlm-for sleeping areas and 100 uWlm'for other
areas. Why has the dramatic increase in exposure to RFR from wireless technology been allowed to
happen? Wireless technology companies use the current Federal Communication Commission (FCC) guidelines for
Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) to power densities of electromagnetic fields, which for RFR converts to 10
million uWIm'. An appeal to the United Nations signed by 253 scientists from 44 nations calls for protection of
people from RFR (httfa, �fl ., ,yyyyw.ernfscientistorF,'
I know from experience what the effects of exposure to RFR are. I have a condition called electromagnetic sensitivity
(EMS) which cannot be cured and can only be managed by reducing exposure to RFR. To survive, I reviewed
published research to understand the impact of RFR on our bodies and how to reduce my exposure to it to safe
levels. Accumulated research shows that RFR from wireless antennas and wireless devices is biologically active in
humans and causes serious human health problems if the power density is too high and exposure is too long. I used
my EMIF meter to measure the strength of the RIF radiation coming from each of the small cell antennas on opposite
corners of the Fall Creek School; peak values were as high as 18,000 uW/m' and average values were as high as 2000
uW/m'. Within 10-15 minutes of exposure, I had symptoms of EMS, including tinnitus and burning of my airways,
and interrupted sleep. That area of Ithaca would be unlivable for me.
The attached paper contains more information on the effects of radiation from wifi on human health.
Paulette Rosa
From: Jeff Zorn <jrz3@cornell.edu>
Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2020 6:45 AM
To: Paulette Rosa; Bill Goodman; Susan Ritter, Chris Balestra; Rich DePaolo; Pam Bleiwas;
TeeAnn Hunter; Eric Levine; Pat Leary; Nick Goldsmith; Rod Howe
Subject: Concerns About 5 G R000 Out in Ithaca Area
Dear Ithaca Town Officials,
Some people say that politicians really only care about phone calls. I hope that is not the case
for Ithaca's leaders. Personally, I hate having to listen to a long phone message (or CNN news
video). I much prefer a text I can scan for the information of interest to me. Also, an email like
this has the benefit of creating a paper trail.
The reason I am writing is that I am extremely worried about the planned rollout of a 5G
system in Ithaca. I am worried because the effects of the energy produced at such close range
to people (towers every 100 feet or so) has not been thoroughly studied yet. Not by those who
want to roll out the system, and not by independent scientific investigators. And some of the
testing that has been done has raised serious concerns.
That should give everyone pause. Do you really want a tower outside your home beaming
around waves that may be affecting you, your children, or other members of your family in
unknown ways? I know I don't. I also don't want to be Verizon's free guinea pig as they
experiment with this new technology.
As you know, many communities across the USA have similar concerns. Entire countries have
held off on the 5G rollout because of such worries. Shouldn't a community like Ithaca, home to
a premiere research university, have similar concerns and be willing to also delay such a
rollout until all the effects of the system are known? This may be Tom Reed's district, but we
don't have to be in the pockets of major corporations.
I am not against new technology. I have most of the gadgets of the modern world and I use
them every day. However, I am happy to continue with 4G until everyone has a better idea of
what 5G will do to us. Once the towers are in place and operating it will be much harder to get
Verizon to turn them off. That's why they have armies of lawyers.
So, please do what is best for the human beings living in this area. Maybe once Ajit Pai himself
spends a couple years with a 5G tower within 100 feet of both his workplace and home we can
roll it out here.
Sincerely,
Jeff Zorn
202 Pine Tree Rd.
Ithaca, NY 14850
H:607-273-3168
C:607-339-7328
jrz3@comell.edu
Paulette Rosa
From: Sheila Out <sheilaout49@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2020 7:47 AM
To: Paulette Rosa
Subject: Please proceed very cautiously with 5G
From my family's research, there are sufficient reasons to expect health risks from SG, and to approach SG cautiously. It
hasn't been proven safe, and I don't want my family or any of us subjected to this risky technology. I'm especially
uncomfortable with the idea of having 5G cell radio stations on every city block (a necessity due to the limited range of
5G).
On top of that, I just don't believe 5G is needed. We can already stream high bitrate video anywhere we are in the City,
and my son, who's a techie, can't understand why we might need to have higher mobile bandwidth.
Sheila Out
247 Valley Rd
Ithaca
Paulette Rosa
From: Lisa-margaret Baker <41isamargaret@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2020 8:04 PM
To: Paulette Rosa; Bill Goodman; Susan Ritter; Chris Balestra; Rich DePaolo; Pam Bleiwas;
TeeAnn Hunter; Eric Levine; Pat Leary; Nick Goldsmith; Rod Howe
Subject: Ithaca Town Board Concern
Dear All,
Ithaca has been a wonderful home and place to live for my family, and I would like to keep it a healthy safe place to live.
Scientists have already proven the harms of the higher EMF levels of 4G and 5G. Please let us work together against
further 4J5G cell antennas and to adopt restriction codes that reduce or ban any new cell antennas. We have all had
many challenging months due to the pandemic. Let's make sure we don't have any other problems at this time.
Thank you for listening,
Sincerely,
Lisa Margaret
Rachel Carson Way
Ithaca, NY 14850
Paulette Rosa
From: m blodgett <mblodgett93@yahoo.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2020 8:35 PM
To: Paulette Rosa; Bill Goodman; Susan Ritter; Chris Balestra; Rich DePaolo; Pam Bleiwas;
TeeAnn Hunter; Eric Levine; Pat Leary; Nick Goldsmith; Rod Howe
Subject: SG Rollout
5G rollout is, simply put, not safe. It carries major long term health risks, at a time when we need to be minimizing our he
alth risks, not maximizing them. Let's keep Ithaca safe, until and unless the risks have been addressed!
Marty Blodgett
Paulette Rosa
From: Lisa Bertuzzi <harumini@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2020 4:32 PM
To: Paulette Rosa; Bill Goodman; Susan Ritter, Chris Balestra; Rich DePaolo; Pam Bleiwas;
TeeAnn Hunter, Eric Levine; Pat Leary; Nick Goldsmith; Rod Howe
Subject: 5G Considerations
Dear Ithaca Town Board Members,
I have been continuously grateful for the 5G Educational Forum that was made possible by you last Summer. It was
greatly needed and a wonderful educational resource. I was hoping for a more interactive setting, where constituents
would be able to ask questions and interact, but the speakers were excellent and informative.
First, I want to clarify 5G is a term referring to small cell antennas placed nearly every block in towns. These antennas
usually also hold 3g and 4G technology - wavelengths all over the microwave radiation band. The increase of antennas
yielding the large increase in radiation exposure is what is centrally concerning to so many people.
Here are some of my thoughts regarding 5G in my five months of being involved in the movement to raise awareness of
the negative impact of 5G in Ithaca (and around the world). I've learned that it is possible for a municipality to resist if they
so choose to, but Verizon and the FCC will make you think that you can not. I support and urge you to take your time to
examine these options and to consult experts, such as Andrew Campanelli, in your deliberations. In the meantime:
Require Verizon to prove a gap in coverage. Andrew Campanelli shared that for federal preemption to apply there
needed to be a gap in coverage. The FCC classification of internet services, including mobile broadband, has
changed back and forth between unregulated Title I and regulated Title II several times, it is currently back in Title
I, meaning that the gap in coverage refers only to voice. I ask myself over and over again, that if there is no need,
then why are municipalities being pressured? What is Verizon doing or trying to prove?
Therefore, please require Verizon to provide a detailed map of the "gap areas" and documentation of such gaps
causing an inability for a user to connect with the land -based national telephone network or maintain a connection
capable of supporting a reasonably uninterrupted communication. As a part of this, require 'In -Kind Testing' so
that "if an applicant claims to suffer from a significant gap in its in -building coverage, then they should not be able
to conduct testing outside, and then purport to calculate what the signal strength 'would be' inside.
If the following have not been covered, I am respectfully asking you to require Verizon to:
Sign an affadavit under oath and penalty of perjury on all communications and MLA and add a clause that gives
the Town of Ithaca the right to void or modify the agreement to take advantage of potential future changes in FCC
regulation so that the Town of Ithaca would have the ability to implement such improvements, such as pole rents.
Carry General Liability Insurance without a pollution exclusion. Pollution exclusion excludes liability coverage for
those harmed from damages from cell towers. This is how other cities are writing their codes to protect
themselves. There will be no more safe spaces for our children outside. Would you as a parent, consent to an
invisible threat to your children? Think for a bit. Electromagnetic Fields are defined as a "pollutant" by insurance
companies and often require special coverage as a "pollutant" in policy enhancements. The FCC is not tying your
hands on this. Not understanding or agreeing with the proven health hazards of non -ionizing radiation, does not
release you from your responsibility to your constituents to exercise their right to protect their welfare in the case
of adverse health repercussions.
Alarmingly, the danger of these antennas is clearly seen by the universal agreement by insurance companies
that they are in the technical class deemed "HIGH RISK". Because they are high risk and categorized as a
"pollutant", insurance companies WILL NOT COVER TELECOM COMPANIES for wireless activities. Whether you
understand or believe in the riskiness of 5G or not, this alone should be compelling. A quote from CFC, a large
underwriting firm: "The Electromagnetic Fields Exclusion is a General Insurance Exclusion and is
applied across the market as standard. The purpose of the exclusion is to exclude cover for illnesses
caused by continuous long-term non -ionizing radiation exposure."
Finally, the high risk and danger ofcell technology is clear from the telecom companies themselves.
FhrmNerizon "our wireless business also faces personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits relating toalleged
health effects of wireless phones or radio frequency transmitters .... We may be required to pay significant
awards oreett|omonm.^
From FMobVeUS: "governmental investigation results could require us to pay significant amounts or lead to
onerous operating procedures" "Our business could be adversely affected by findings of product liability for
health and safety risks from wireless devices and transmission equipment, aawell oobychanges o»
regulations and radio frequency emission standards.
From At&T "In the wireless area, we also face current and potential litigation relating to alleged adverse health
effects on customers or employees who use Such technologies including, for example, wireless devices. We
may incur significant expenses defending such suits nrgovernment charges d may berequired ^opay
amounts or otherwise change our operations in ways that could materially adversely affect our operations or
financial results. "
^ Finally, wa
small cells at Ithaca High school as well as one next to Fall Creek Elementary, which most families are
still unaware of. Currently Verizon can place an antenna as little as 8 feet from homes and buildings. Your
decisions now will apply to AT&T and T-Mobile in the future, so upper limits and placements are
essential. This could end up very bad, with 1 00's of visible towers and possibly antennas into the
thousands. Exercise caution and thoroughness in your codes review.
As an RN and Infant Care Specialist, |'m deeply concerned that the FCC does not have any safety guidelines
for exposure limits for infants or children, or even pregnant women. According to an FCC report: Irradiated —A
comprehensive compilation nfsources cd RFRadiouion Exposure and Its Effects, "Embryos, fetuses, infants
and children are especially vulnerable 0npulsed wireless oigna|e.which punetm�direodythmughtheir mpid|y
dava|opingbodieeandbna|na." Aasome ofyou are
parents, were you aware of this? Have you apprised parents in our community of this so they can weigh in?
There are several lawsuits against the FCC for its aggressive tactics against cities to hasten the 5G process and refusal to
update its safety guidelines.m/am.mmuoxoutmeuuuntmoommunman.auchaonxuua.a,eauingmeFoc.v°,izonnan
not verify that aGworks inu^demamourural areas, and fails mdeliver satisfactory home itet statingthat cable or
IDSL are better alternatives. Ithaca already has an excellent fiber optic system, which its taxpayers have been investing in
for years with the prornise of an upgrade. It's green and can bring money into the community.
In dneing, please keep in mind that 5G ianot for broadband intomeL It does not penetrate walls and go into
houses and it has failed to solve the digital divide for those out of coverage areas. Fiber optics is a much better
option for this, and |tissafe.
I'm deeply grateful for the opportunity to share my thoughts with YOU, Thank you very much for your hard work and
leadership.
Yours truly,
Lisa Bertuzzi
Paulette Rosa
From: Neil Golder <neilhgolder@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2020 12:37 PM
To: Paulette Rosa; Bill Goodman; Susan Ritter; Chris Balestra; Rich DePaolo; Pam Bleiwas;
TeeAnn Hunter; Eric Levine; Pat Leary; Nick Goldsmith; Rod Howe
Subject: 4G/5G regulation: be careful
Dear Members of the Town Board,
I am sorry to have to write to you as a group, even though I do know some of you personally. But I do want to get this
message to each of you.
I understand that you are revisiting the Town codes on wireless facilities. I would ask you to be very cautious about
allowing 4G/5G cell antennas in the area. Actually to prohibit them. I ask this out of concern for the possible harmful
health effects of these antennas.
I have begun to do some research on electricity and life. A really good book is Arthur Firstenberg' s The Invisible
Rainbow. This well -researched and copiously documented book shows that there are definitely links between human
health and electricity, especially the powerful electrical waves sent out by 4G and 5G antennas. As we know from
COVID-19, just because you can't see something, it doesn't mean it can't hurt you!
Some communities have banned or severely restricted these new antennas/transmitters. I ask that you take a very close
look at the research and at people's concerns.
Thank you,
Neil
Paulette Rosa
From: T Myers <myerst55@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2020 2:46 PM
To: Paulette Rosa; Bill Goodman; Susan Ritter, Chris Balestra; Rich DePaolo; Pam Bleiwas;
TeeAnn Hunter, Eric Levine; Pat Leary, Nick Goldsmith; Rod Howe
Subject: Against further 4G/SG cell antennas in the area
Dear Town of Ithaca,
I am a resident of Etna, very close to Ithaca. My dog & I are extremely sensitive to 3G & 4G, so I can't imagine how much
worse it could get with 5G. Whenever I turn on my cell phone my dog, who is my shadow, will leave the room until I
turn my phone off. When on the cell phone for any amount of time I develop a migraine. So, I only turn on my cell phone
to check for messages, or if I am expecting a call. I usually make phone appts so I don't have to stay on for long. I mostly
use emails & portals to communicate. So please, my dog & I are an examples of the ill effects of cell phone waves. Please
do not roll out 5G until more studies can be made regarding the ill effects.
This is why I am against further 4G/5G cell antennas in the area. Please adopt restrictive codes that reduce if not ban any
new cell antennas.
Best regards,
Sherri Bennette
607-738-8770
Paulette Rosa
From: |saSea «basea333@gnmai|zonn>
Sent: Monday, October 15\2O201(l59AK4
To: ashennan@citvofthaca.org;Paulette Rosa
Subject: Crucial information regarding 5G
To whom it may concern:
Regarding the harmful effects of 5G, first ofall, the Common Council ofHawaii has postponed the installation of 5G
towers and opted for fiber optics (which |currently know little about) until SG can beproven safe. However, that will be
impossible, because it is not safe. Birds and bees drop dead out of the sky in proximity to the towers. In some areas
where 5G has been activated the radiation levels are being measured at 1000 times what the FCC regulations allow for.
This technology is completely unregulated and untested. There are zero tests of biological safety involving 5G that
demonstrate it is at all safe. It is actually military grade weaponry according to underground CIA sources. NASA
published an absolutely disgusting article in 3013 detailing plans to literally kill most ofhumanity using biological
weaponry. Nobody even noticed. The free electrons orbiting the oxygen molecules inour bodies that are responsible for
uptaking hemoglobin to the bloodstream aka crucial for our respiration begin to oscillate in the presence of 5G and
make it impossible to absorb proper levels of oxygen. At least tens of thousands of medical doctors have come out in
past months to say that the Coronavirus is not a virus at all but is caused by 5G, including various local doctors who have
told me this in person, I knew immediately however because my intuition could be referred to like a book, not that I
expect anybody to believe that without seeing, which is why I am providing you with detailed evidence of this impending
genocide. Doctors say what they're seeing in sick people is degradation of the lungs, which they believe was caused by
5G and not a virus. They say these forces have tried to manipulate humanity in this way at least four times in the past.
The CDC itself said recently they have not isolated a sample of the virus which means there is no evidence that it exists
as they claim it does and raises further questions regarding vaccinations, as trials are being fast tracked, yet there is no
virus sample for them to extract for use in their vaccinations, because that is how they're made. Yet it is impossible that
what they're making is truly a vaccination and is theorized to be further biological warfare. Every year the flu vaccination
has a4O96chance at best of containing the correct strain ofthe mutating flu. | bring itupbecause these matters are very
much connected.
| would gladly discuss this more deeply with anybody who has the wisdom tolook into bfurther. | hope you can all call
upon your inner wisdom considering the health of the entire community is in critical danger.
Sincerely
ba
Paulette Rosa
From: Walter Hartman <walterhartmanworks@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 1:05 PM
To: Paulette Rosa
Subject: SG, 4G, Telecom, and Verizon
Please listen carefully. No more 5G nor further 4G. We see the industry has been doing what they want ahead of
decisions with installations. A massive amount of evidence exists clearly showing the deleterious human health effects
of 3G and 4G? SG is exponentially more powerful, focused, developed by the military, and harmful to biological cells.
Listen to veterans of foreign war, those who are well read, and who have worked on the inside of government, military,
and banking. I have worked with military weapons experts, befriended more since, and studied the science. These are
not theories but rather fact and reality proven by empirical evidence and compelling data. Are you just going to take the
money Telecom and Verizon are throwing at you? Do you think this is a wise decision? Money and convenience over
health and wellness? The industry will tell you it is safe. We are holding you liable for personal injury, harm, and
illness. Do not vote for this. Don't go down on the wrong side of history from a misguided and misanthropic decision
and then hold your head in shame and guilt as to what you've done to your community and family? We have good
reason to be opposed and there are more of us not being counted nor represented.
Paulette Rosa
From: Irina Peress <peressirina@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 5:32 PM
To: Paulette Rosa
Subject: Public comment for meeting today
Hi, my name is Irina Peress, and I am a Town of Ithaca resident. I want to participate in tonight's meeting by
expressing my concern about 5G cell phone antennas and towers.
I would like to urge all the town board members to protect our town from hundreds of unnecessary and
dangerous 5G antennas and towers. Hundreds of towns, cities, and countries around the US and the world
have successfully stopped telecommunications companies from installing 5G. They know that wireless
radiation like 5G is dangerous for human and environmental health. It has been shown to be carcinogenic for
humans, and it kills bees, trees, and birds. Scientists around the world are calling for a moratorium on 5G.
Further, 5G does not offer us anything new because we already have good cell phone call capacity, so any
new towers or antennas would be redundant and a waste of electricity, which would increase our carbon
footprint. Some people have the mistaken impression that 5G offers home internet, but this is not true, and
Verizon admits on their website that 5G only offers cell phone reception.
Other municipalities have kept 5G out of their towns by adopting proper codes to protect their town. For
example, it is important to require that telecommunications companies prove that there is a gap in cell phone
voice coverage. I urge the town board to hire Andrew Campanelli, 5G expert and lawyer, for advice on how to
protect our town from 5G.
Thank you for your work on this urgent issue.
Sincerely,
Irina Peress
Paulette Rosa
From: Carmel Rome <canneionme15@ymai|ozm>
Sent Monday, October 15\2O2O6:3BPK4
To: Paulette Rosa
Subject: Fwd: NO 5G IN Our TOWN
---------- Forwarded message -----
Fnmm:Paulette Rosa
Date: Mon, Oct 19, 2020at6:14 PM
Subject: RE: N[)5G|NOur TOWN
To: Carmel Rome
Thank you, your comment will go to the full Board
From: Carmel Rome
Sent: Monday, October 19,2O2O6:D8PM
To: Paulette Rosa
Subject: NOSG|NOur TOWN
Good evening toaUU
My name is Carmel rome I leave in Ithaca for 15 years and have 2 kids in Ithaca schools, I'm a home owner and love my
town!!
I object strongly to the installment of 5G and extra small antennas in our town!!
ofus-specio|k/young It is being proven buy over hundreds of INDEPENDENT Scientific researchers to be a danger to all
childrenM childern are 10 times more vulnerable to EMF, And for the environment. There are plenty of other towns -and
g and protected there communitiesH it is possible and your hands are NOT tide by the FCCHI 5 countries that stoped
Please join Ithaca city council members in the wise decision to hire the expert lawyer on SAFETY Guidelines ' urge you to
so you are not being pursued buy the fcc and big telecommunication cooperation like Verizon and alike that obviously
motivated by its own profit and not by the safety and the well-being ofour community ourchiNrens and our
Paulette Rosa
From: Nina Kethevan <ninakethevan@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 6:19 PM
To: Paulette Rosa
Subject: 5G
Please inform yourself as to the monumental harm 5G will have on every living thing, With best regards, Nina Sent from
myiPhone
Paulette Rosa
From: Lisa Bertuzzi <harumini@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 6:21 PM
To: Paulette Rosa; Bill Goodman; Susan Ritter; Chris Balestra; Rich DePaolo; Pam Bleiwas;
TeeAnn Hunter, Eric Levine; Pat Leary, Nick Goldsmith; Rod Howe
Subject: Comment for Monday Oct. 19, 2020 Mtg
Dear Town Board Members,
I'm Lisa Bertuzzi and I'm a long time Ithaca Resident.
As town leaders and policymakers, I wish to share my thoughts to help protect your
constituents and ensure the integrity and well-being of the environment in your 5G codes
deliberations.
In reviewing the codes, please include these vital components:
Require Verizon to sign an affadavit under oath and penalty of perjury on all
communications and MLA.
Add a clause that gives the Town of Ithaca the right to void or modify the
agreement to take advantage of potential future changes in FCC regulation so
that the Town of Ithaca would have the ability to implement such improvements,
such as pole rents.
Require Verizon to carry General Liability Insurance without a pollution exclusion.
Pollution exclusion prohibits liability coverage for those harmed from damages
from cell towers. This is how other cities are writing their codes to protect
themselves. There will be no more safe spaces for our children outside. Would
you as a parent, consent to an invisible threat to your children? Think for a
bit. Electromagnetic Fields are defined as a "pollutant" by insurance companies
and often require special coverage as a "pollutant' in policy enhancements. The
FCC is not tying your hands on this. Not agreeing with the proven health hazards
of non -ionizing radiation, does not release you from your responsibility to your
constituents to protect their own welfare. This should not be your decision, but
theirs.
Robert Becker is an MD who was twice nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. As an
expert in cell radiation he says, "The greatest polluting element in the earth's environment
is the proliferation of electromagnetic fields. I consider that to be a far greater threat on a
global scale than warming, or the increase of chemical elements in the environment. All
life pulsates in time to the Earth, and our artificial fields cause abnormal reactions in all
organisms. Increasing electro-pollution could set in motion irreversible changes leading to
our extinction."
Finally, place an upper limit on antennas as well as proper placement rules, especially,
but not limited to homes and neighborhoods, schools, parks, playgrounds and child care
centers, natural habitats, and food producers. Your decisions now will apply to AT&T
and T-Mobile in the future, so upper limits and placements are essential.
This could end up very bad, with 100's of visible towers and possibly antennas into
the thousands if thoroughness and caution are not exercixed in the codes review.
Yours sincerely,
Lisa Bertuzzi
Paulette Rosa
From: AUisonDeSaho <desahoaUison@gmai|zom>
Sent: Tuesday, October 2[\2O2O1Z37PK4
To: Paulette Rosa; Bill Goodman; Susan Ritter; Chris Ba|es na; Rich DePam|o;Pam 8|ekwas;
TeeAnnHunter; Eric Levine; Pat Leary; Nick Goldsmith; Rod Howe
Subject: Restrictive codes for SG implementation
Mvname isAllison and | have been Uvngin Ithaca for two years and hope tocontinue living here for a long time. | am
against adding4G and bringing 5G infrastructure into our town and | have some suggestions for you while updating your
codes to keep in mind.
One of my main concerns with bringing 5Gtechnology into our town 1sthat this isSuch anew technology that has very
little independent research being conducted on the potential heaith risks- as admitted by representatives of wireless
companies inanexchange with Senator B(umenthaiin2Ol9 <
). | urge you aUtothink
more obiectivek/than just Ithaca^s 5G and iookgiobaKy' entire countries have hatted progressing the
implementation of 5G to du more research on potential health impacts. As such, one guideline thatshouid beinciuded
in the updated codes is proper protection for the Town. As part ofany licensing agreement, Genenai Liability insurance
without apollution exclusion should berequired bvthe telecom company.
Another issue | have with this technology isthe increased energy usage adding aU of the proposed antennas' batteries,
and transmitters wilt cause. Reducing infrastructure is one of the top values in the Green New Oea( and | don't believe
that this Lechnm[ngyis in anyway necessary enough to go against thaLva(ue. Another guideline that | think should be
considered inthe codes isavoiding unnecessary redundancy. To do this you can require telecom companies to prove
that there imagap invoice coverage prior toadding new technology.
|think the town shoutcl have adausevoiding the agreement orrequiring its modification inthe event of a regutatory
change. It is important to understand that the FCC is directed by 5 commissioners appointed by the President, FCC
reguiadonscan be changed, but contracts signed wiK continue to be binding per the terms ofthe contract.
You as the Board members have the power to require that any wireless (acititymust be at least 1500 feet away from
another wireless facitity ANas
recommended by recentk/ pubhshed research from February ZOZD. "Given the current research, oy// towers should be
placed 500 meters (1640 feet), or about a third of a mile, away from schools, hospitals and lots of sleeping people in
dense neighborhoods nrhigh r/ses."
Lastly, integrity isa top concern for me when examining other cases of 5G instaibaLons in communities around our
country. There shoutd be a code requiring that everything submitted by the appticant is done SO Linder oath and
peno|tyofperjury,
Thank you for taking my suggestions into consideration.
Best wishes,
TOWN OF ITHACA
215 NORTH TIOGA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850
www.town.ithaca.ny.us
CORRESPONDENCE LISTING
November 9, 2020
Please review the following correspondence and indicate, by placing your initials in the right-hand column
adjacent to the correspondence that you wish to receive a copy. We can forward a copy to you via e-mail or
make a hard copy. Please indicate your preference next to your name at the bottom of this form.
Correspondence — Item Please place your
initials here if you wish
to receive a copy
1. Letters re: 5G
2. Letter re: Short Term Rentals (STR)
3. Letter re: Shooting Range
4. Letter re: Public Recognition for Kevin Markwardt
5. Letter re: Protect right to peaceful protest
6. Letter re: Driveway deterioration due to frequent public turnaround
7. Letter from Concerned Citizens for Rural Preservation (CCRP)
Retention: Six -Year
1. Rotary charitable gaming consent
2. Letter from Charter Communications re: Ithaca Studio PEG Equipment
Paulette Rosa
From: Allison DeSaho<desarioaUbon@gmai|zom>
Sent Tuesday, October- 2O,2O2O1237PK4
To: Paulette Rosa; Bill Goodman; Susan Ritter; Chris Balestra; Rich DePaolo; Pam Bleiwas;
TeeAnnHunter; Eric Levine; Pat Leary; Nick Goldsmith; Rod Howe
Subject: Restrictive codes for SG implementation
Dear Board members,
N@name isAllison and | have been living in Ithaca for two years and hope to continue living here for o k)no time. | am
against adding 4G and bringing 5G infrastructure into Our town and I have some suggestions for you white updating your
codes to keep in mind.
One of my main concerns with bringing 5G technology into our town is that this is such a new technology that has very
littte independent research being conducted on the potential health risks- as admitted by representatives of wireless
companies inanexchange with Senator Blumenthal. in2U19 (
bturnenthat - raises- concerns- on- 5g: wi retess- tech nolopv- heat th- risks- at- senate- hea ri ng.1y >. | urge you aKtothink
more objectivety than just Ithaca's instattation of 5G and took gtobatty- entire countries have hatted progressing the
impiementation of5G to do more research on potential, health impacts. As such, one guideUnethat should beinciuded
in the updated codes is proper protection for the Town. As part of any Ucensing agreement, General UabiUtyinsunance
without apollution exclusion shouidberequired bvthe teiecomcompany.
Another issue | have with this technology is the increased energy usage adding a\( of the proposed antennas, batteries,
and transmitters will cause. Reducing infrastructure is one Vfthe top values in the Green New Deal and | don't believe
that this technniogyis in any way necessary enough to go against that vaiue. Another guideline that | think should be
considered in the codes isavoiding unnecessary redundancy. Todothis you can oequireteiecom companies to prove
that there isagap invoice coverage prior toadding new hachnoiogy.
| think the town should have ctausevoiding the agreement or requiring its modification in the event ofa regulatory
change. |tisimportant tounderstand that the FCC isdirected bv5commissioners appointed bvthePnesident' FCC
regulations can be changed, but contracts signed will continue to be binding per the terms of the contract.
You asthe Board members have the power torequire that any wireless facility must beat(east 1500 feet away from
another wireless facility AND as
recommended by recently pubUohed research from February 2020. "Given the current research, cell towers should be
placed 50Ometers (764O/eed, orabout othird ofomile, away from schools, hospitals and lots oysleeping people in
dense neighborhoods orhigh r/ses."(
Lastky, integrity is a top concern for me when examining other cases of 5G installations in communities around our
country. There should be a code requiring that everything submitted by the applicant is done so under oath and
penalty ofperjury.
Thank You for taking My Suggestions into consideration.
Best wishes,
Allison DeSario
Paulette Rosa
From: AUisonDeSaho <desahoaUison@gmaiicom>
Sent: Monday, November 2'2O2O1O:3OAM
To: Paulette Rosa; Bill Goodman; Susan Ritter, Chris Ba|estna; Rich DePao|q Pam B|eiwas;
TeeAnn Hunter; Eric Levine; Pat Leary; Nick Goldsmith; Rod Howe
Subject: New Hampshire 5G report
Dear Board members,
I wrote to You all on October 20 and have yet to get a response from anyone regarding my concerns and restrictive code
recommendations. 8e|ovv | am linking a newly published reporthnm the state of New Hampshire from a Commission to
study the environmental and health effects of5G technology. In it, they explain their failure to get anyone from the FCC
or other federal agencies to testify before them on the topic. They also outline their recommendations after countless
hours ofresearch,
I hope you will take the time to read this clocurnent and assimilate some of this information.
Have agood day,
From: RichDePao|o ^RDePao|o@town.hhaca.ny.us>
Sent Monday, November 2,ZOZO71OPK4
To: AUisonDeSaho
Cc: Paulette Rosa; Bill Goodman; Susan Ritter; Chris Ba|estra PomB|ehwas TeeAnnHunter;
Eric Levine; Pat Leary; Nick Goldsmith,, Rod Howe
Subject: Re: New Harnpshire 5G report
Thank you for Your foUow-up. Sorry that noone has replied. Please beadvised that vvehave been receiving quite abit
of correspondence and material related to SG, and that it would be difficult to respond in detail to each contact.
|tismyunderstanding that the Town mfIthaca, inconjunction vvhhovergovennmententhies,bcons|dehngdhe
engagement ofalegal expert tuhelp usnavigate the regulatory landscape. The SGissue will bevisited |nupcoming
meetings, and nodeterminations have been madeastohow toproceed.
Rich Dclluoo
(Iv|nci}permzn` 1}zwn w[ldzcx
2l5North TiogaStreet
Ithaca, NY 14850
607.273]721(ofMcc)
Town Committees
P|uoniogCommi/mc—Cbuir
Puh|icWorks Coomnbmc
Internitinicipal Committees
Cable Access Ovmsigh|Commk/,o—C|mir
Ithaca College Cummuoity\VmkGxonp
scwcrJoiu/[mmmirteuo[|bc[,bacuArea WmumnuterTmu,mcmF'aciQ/y
Cayuga LoLcWatershed iwumomicipuiQr,undzu,inu—Abumu/c
Economic DCvukgnuen/Cnmmhler
Shpu-TeunRentals Commiucc
Sidewalks l"nmi/uc
Paulette Rosa
From: Deserie Quinones <deserieq@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 7:56 AM
To: Paulette Rosa
Subject: 5G
To whom this may concern;
I am not in support of the SG. It has been used as a military grade weapon and this is not meant for public use.
There's a lot of science behind it's dangers, which you may or may not be aware of period but how can they roll out 5G
and act as if there's nothing dangerouswith it? It's more dangerous than the coronavirus yet they are rolling it out
unbelievable and unacceptable!
Sincerely
Deserie Quinones
Dear Rich,
We are responding, in both this email and as an attachment, to the letter that you sent to
Mia Slotnick on September 14, 2020.
In addition, we are copying our response to other concerned parties for the following
reason. We asked at an earlier meeting whether the concerns we expressed to the STR
committee would be reported to the Town Board. In response, we were told that the STR
committee would convey information about concerns that the Committee felt were
relevant. However, perceptions of relevance can vary; therefore, we thought it prudent to
insure that our concerns, as well as the concerns of the STR committee, were reported.
Below are the specific items from Rich's letter along with our responses:
From Rich: "I find it curious that you would be pushing back on a proposed 29-day limit
on unhosted rentals, considering that there is no limit at all imposed by current zoning."
Our reply: The reason for our concern is straightforward: the STR committee is in
the process of deciding what the limit should be in the future. It is in this context that
the STR committee has proposed 29 days —for future limits.
The current situation with no legislation governing STRs and no limit on the number of
days is unsatisfactory, as it provides no guidance for potential "hosts".
From Rich: "To your main metric of the "success" of the Cayuga Heights ordinance... our
proposals would also foreclose on the practice of people "buying up residences and using
them exclusively as STRs." We have a principal -residence requirement in most zones,
including yours, with an adjacent property exception under consideration."
Our reply: The Cayuga Heights ordinance does substantially more than simply
restrict buying up residences for exclusive use as STRs. Your response does not address
those other aspects. We would appreciate your doing so.
Here is the rest of the reply from Linda Woodard in which she mentions other
aspects of the Cayuga Heights ordinance:
"I think we have been successful. We have kept people from buying up residences and
using them exclusively as strs. When there have been complaints from residents, we have
a law we can enforce beyond just a noise complaint and have used it a number of
times. Our residents view their houses as their homes, not businesses.
"The biggest issue is making sure all abide by our laws. Airbnb continues to make
that a challenge. We don't have the administrative resources or sophisticated software to
monitor compliance. That is why I am so encouraged by the county willing to pay for the
basic service and hope the Town of Ithaca will pass their laws soon, so we can partner
with them to know who is renting out their homes and for how long. With that
information we can be proactive about compliance. Cayuga Heights is a small village;
word gets around.
My best suggestion for you is to keep things simple. Much easier for residents to
understand and less problems with enforcement."
From Rich: "It would seem, simply based on the relatively low number of complaints,
that the practice is not considered objectionable in the vast majority of occurrences."
Our reply: Laws are typically written to address events that are relatively low in
number (e.g., robberies, homicides, etc.), so that when violations do occur, there is a
mechanism for dealing with them. That is why some form of enforcement when
violations do occur is necessary. In addition, note Linda Woodard's comments that the
Cayuga Heights law has been used "a number of times."
From Rich: "That said, a balancing test must be applied to try to address the needs and
concerns of all stakeholders." (emphasis added)
Our reply: We agree that, as we previously stated, the number of days allowed for
both hosted and un-hosted rentals should be a compromise, a balance, if you will,
between those who want to operate STRs and those who want to limit them in their
neighborhoods. To be sure, 29 days is fewer than the current 365 days, but it is not clear
to us why 29 days is the compromise, the "balance". Why was that number of days
chosen? Put differently, why were fewer numbers of days rejected?
In addition, in terms of the concerns of all stakeholders, we would remind the committee
that one group of stakeholders might well include some of the members of the STR
Committee, as some of them might host AirBnB guests. At one of the STR meetings, we
asked explicitly who on the STR committee is either currently renting STRs or planning
to do so in the future. We asked this question because of a concern about a potential
conflict of interest. When we asked for this information, we were told that our request
was "divisive." On the contrary, it was a request for transparency, which governing
bodies —however local —ought to be happy to provide. In this particular instance,
transparency would be highly relevant to the question of what criteria were used to
decide on 29 days and, perhaps more importantly, whose concerns were given priority.
This issue is especially salient given that 4 of the members of the Town Board are also
STR committee members.
Finally, in terms of the needs of all stakeholders, including us, we would remind the
committee that, for many of us, our house is our primary investment. In addition, we
bought our houses in a residential neighborhood (not, for example, in College Town,
though that would be more convenient for many of us who teach at Cornell), not only for
the quality of life that a residential neighborhood provides, but also for the value of our
houses, when they are eventually sold. Like the residents of Cayuga Heights, "Our
residents view their houses as their homes, not businesses."
We look forward to receiving your response to the other issues that we raised in our
letters of September 8 and September 14, especially the issues that deal with enforcement.
Sincerely,
Barbara Koslowski
Richard N. Boyd
Michael McAnanny
Luisa McAnanny
Maralyn Edid
Lawrence Blume
Mia Slotnick
Kenneth Simpson
Paulette Rosa
FVV Shooting range
Attachments: [a*e—[oun|yofMonroe balancing test [tApp1988.df
From: Rich DePao|o<RDePaolo @tovvnj\hacaoyus>
Sent: Tuesday, October 2O,2D2U1O:Z1PM
To: Rod Howe <RHowe@tovvnjthacaoyus>
Cc: Paulette Rosa <PRosa @townjthaca.nyus>
Subject: Rmd:Shooting range
Begin forwarded message:
From: Rich DePao|o
Subject: Fvvd:Shooting range
Date: October 19, 2020 at 11:05:23 PM EDT
Jennifer -
Please be advised that Rod forwarded your email to me (see below), because I have been trying to
instigate Town action regarding the gUn range for quite some time, and he thought I Would be best
qualified torespond,
As a courtesy to him, I arn responding to you, and also including (farther below) an email chain (in
reverse chronological order) between Rod and I that includes a reply from Dan Cogan at the City in
response toinquiries made bvthe Town. YOU Will also find anattachment from the Town Attorney,
which elucidates the balancing test courts have established for municipalities attempting to hold other
municipalities tozoning requirements. VVehave begun investigating several potential avenues that |am
not atliberty toexplain. Thanks toYour inquiry, | will ne-focusonthis.
Please keep in mind that correspondence between us regarding this matter is potentially a matter of
public record.
Thank you, and I'm sorry about the nuisance posed by the gun range. It can be quite disconcerting.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Rod Howe
Subject: FVV: Shooting range
Date: October 19,2OJOat]:31:33PMEDT
To: Rich DePao|o
Interested in responding?
Rod Howe
--- Original Message -----
Frorn: Jennifer Karius
Gent: Monday, October 19,2O3O3J33PK8
To: Rod Howe
Subject: Shooting range
How are you?
I hope you're enjoying your new role as supervisor.
Could you tell rne more about the police shooting range near Burns Rd? Apparently it's a
site being used bythe City. |amayear long resident wnthis side ofthe town.
Can you tell me its purpose and benefit, what the agreernent has been with the town,
and ifthe town plans totake any actions concerning it?
I understand there may be environmental concerns, too, next to the obvious sound
disturbance.
Kind regards,
]ennUerKarius
Will get sorne reaction tomorrow while with Susan.
Rod Howe
SuperviaOr^'Fon/nofUhucu
From: Rich DePao|V
Sent: Tuesday, June 23,2O2O9:44AK4
To: Rod Howe
Cc: Bill Goodman
Subject: Re: Information about Firing Range
Yes | rememberseeing this back in December. It corroborates my anecdotal experience for the most
part. What it tells me is that there is a fairly active firearms training range within earshot of many
residences that probably didn't exist when the range was built decades ago. |t\sused bvmultiple law
enforcement agencies, and isavailable for private use byofficers, for uptV 13 hours day during large
segments ofthe year.
Unlike the wastewater treatment plant, for example, which can't be moved as result ofnuisance
complaints, an Outdoor firing range can most certainly be relocated to a less densely populated area. As
you can see from the attached aerial picture, it is not a particularly elaborate, sophisticated or expensive
facility. At a rninimum, we should investigate our zoning and other authority regarding use, noise,
hours/days wfoperation, etc. Likewise, the potential impact nflead bullets, slugs and shot within close
proximity toSix Mile Creek has not been investigated tomyknowledge.
Regarding Dans characterization of automatic weapons use, I have actually received, via a friend of the
shooter, video of a local FBI agent firing a fully automatic weapon at the range. Hewas there ona
weekend with his son, for recreational purposes. |tishighly unusual, but |thas happened,
From my standpoint, it would be helpful to get at least a cursory legal opinion, kzget an idea of options,
before continuing discussions with the City.
Rich,
/ could not remember what Dan had sent back mDecember mwent back mfind it. You
may have done the same. mcase you did not his email isappended below,
What doYou propose mfurther explore options?
Best, Rod
KodBovu
Supc,vi^n,.7hpnn{|/bucu
From: Dan Cogan
Sent: Thursday, December z9,zozez:4apM
To: Rod Howe Bill Goodman
Cc: Svmntewvhck
Subject: Information about Firing Range
Dear Rod and Bill,
nwas avery productive meeting yesterday. Looking forward u,continuing Our work
together mthe new year.
Below please find some information about the firing range from our Training Sergeant:
Typically the range use isvery light from the end ofNovember until mid -
March. During these rnonm,the swat team will train out there vnthe first
Wednesday orThursday vfeach month depending vnwhat i`onthe training
calendar. Our snipers utilize itonthe third Wednesday ofevery month. Our
beadcnalso use uone day quarterly for their training.
Starting inMarch webegin scheduling spring firearms training for our agency
and most other agencies throughout Tompkins County. This will run until the
middle toend ufJune. During the months of July and August wegenerally try to
keep the range reserved only for /pn'suse i^case wcwant moffer some open
range days for officers orifweneed mrun additional training. From the end of
August tothe beginning ofNovember iswhen fall firearms training is
scheduled. Again this i,for /roand most agencies throughout Tompkins
County. During these months the range i^being used almost daily, with the
exception ufthe weekends.
Primary agencies that use Our range include /po.Ithaca College, Cornell
University, Dryden po'Tompkins County Sheriff's Office, and Tompkins
Corrections. Agencies that request the range for one tvtwo days per year
include the Office ofthe Inspector General, usMarshaos'and the FBI.
Automatic weapons are nvlonger something that most Law Enforcement
agencies use. There are ^oagencies inTompkins County that use mem'this
includes the swat t,am(we took ours Out oservice over uyears amu).vmay
sometimes sound like automatic gunfire when several officers are firing
weapons at the s,mctime during acourse vffire. mLaw Enforcement mcuse
Clock semi -automatic pistols, and Colt v,avariant thereof patrol rifles that are
also semi -automatic. Cornell does still use shotguns aswell.
westrictly enforce the time ofday that weallow firing vfweapons t^take place
onthe range. Weapons can only hefired between the hours ofoamand e
pm.vvemust have the hours set toypmbecause this allows usmtrain officers
in low light settings during the fall months. This training is critical for officers to
experience as around 7o%orall office, involved shootings happen in low light
environments. Also, w,dvnot allow the range mteused for the firing of
weapons onSundays, and seldom schedule its use onSaturdays.
Also, I confirmed that ours is the only firing range for law enforcement agencies to use '
for training mTompkins County.
| hope this information ishelpful. '
_- Thanks
Dan
^ ,
Chief of Staff
City mrIthaca
108EGreen 5t
Ithaca, NY 14850
I
Matter or City of Rochester, 72 N,Y,2d 338 ('1988)
530 N.E.2d 202, 533 N,Y.S.2d 702
KeyCite Yellow Flag, Negati,e Treatment
I)Mincd to Blend by Central School
Oistriel V. Town ofirelfilehem, NNAD. 3 Dept., November M, 2017
72 N.Y.2d:338
Court of Appeals of New York.
In the Matter of the" County of Monroe's
Compliance with Certain Zoning and Perillit
Re(li I I re to ents oftlic City of Rochester in
Connection with the City/County Airport
J'APalisiOrl.
(TIYOF ROCHEISTEIR, Appellant;
COUNTY OF M ONROE', Respondent.
Oct. 20, 1988.
Synopsis
City and county sought declaration regarding application
of' city colic to propose(] improvements and expansion of
county airport. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division,
Green, J., 131 A.D.2(1 74, 520 N.Y.S.2d 676, held for
county, and appeal was taken. The Court of Appeals,
Bellacosa, J., held that expansion of"airport by county was
not sulticct to site plan approval requirements of' city in
which property to he improved was located.
Affirmed.
Attorneys and Lim Firms
*339 **"'702 **202 Lours N. Kash, Corp. COLII)SCI (131len
A. Anderson, Rochester, of counsel), for appellant.
Patrick M. Malgicri, Co. Arty. (Ann M. Kerwick,
Rochester, of counsel), for respondent.
*340 OPINION OFTHE COURT
BELLACOSA, Jut:h,e,
Should the expansion, with accessory uses. of the Greater
Rochester International Airport by the County of Monr )c he subject to the site plan approval requirements of (Z
�01
City of Rochester? Based oil General Municipal Law §
350 and on the balanciin, of public interests, we agree
with the result at the Appellate Division that it should not,
The Facts before the Appellate Division, pursuant to
CPI,R 3222(b)(3), are that the airport is owned and
operated by the County and is located substantially in the
City. Between 1984 and 1986, the County proposed and
approved amendments to its inamer plan for the, airport,
illdlldillg expansion of the main terminal, improvement of
the runway apron, and addition of an enclosed parking
garage, an air freight facility, Et hotel and a temporary
parking facility for Use during, construction of the,
enclosed parking, facility. All improvements Were oil
properly located wholly within the City,
The County initially suhmitted a site plan application to
the City in February 1987, for all of the planned
improvements except the temporary parking facility, the
air freight facility, and the runways. The City requested
additional information concernito, file improvements and
compliance with the State Envil'011MCIltal Otrality Review
Act. The County responded that the planned uses (with
the exception of the hotel, Which is not in iSSLIC in this
case) were (,overnmernal and in)[TILIDe 1'10111 (.try Site plan
oversight, and that its prior practice of keeping the City
apprised of airport ***703 proposals had been only a
courtesy, not an acquiescence to City review, The City
asserted review jurisdiction based on the ptoprietary
classification test,
*341 'flic Appellate Division unanimously declared that
the "Roclies(er City Code § 115-30f)(7) and ('try permit
requirements **203 (to not apply to tire expansion" (1.31
A.D.2d 74, 80, 520 N.Y.S.2d 676) based on the traditional
governmental versus proprietary categorization.
Alternatively, it note(] that since -(he governmental versus
propric(ary distinction is of ancient vintage- and "may he
unconvincing" (id., at 7), 520 N.)',S,2(l 676), the
Rochester ordinances were nonetheless inapplicahle
because the Slate enabling legislation, General Municipal
Law § 350, irnplicdly frees the (.',OLII)ty operation of the
airport from City control. While tire parties' arguments
concentrate on tile gt)\,ei-iiiiiciitail-I)rol)t,ictaty
classification. both acknowledge that the test may have
01-11liVed its usefulness.
We C011CILKIC that the little has come lot retiring this
Libeling device, In its place, a "balancing (if pUbIiC
interests" analytic approach Will he substituted.
Talismanic application of the Old test 11CgJSJ tile critical
question of which governmental interest should prevail
",[tell there is a conflict between the zonint, ordinance of
Matter of City of Rochester, 72 N.Y.2d 338 (1988)
530 N.E.2d 202,533 N.Y.S.2d 702
One political unit and the statutory authority of anathcr
unit to perform it designated public. function" (Note.,
Governmental Immmrit� Jima Local Zoning Ordinances,
84 Harv.L.Rev. 809 119711 ).
The ,overnmc!mal-proprietary Ruiction test, as
traditionally applied in this State to land use, was
borrowed from the field of tort liability as derived from
tyre absolute soverchm inununity doctrine (Nehrbas v.
Incorporated Vil. of Llo)rl Harbor, 2 N.Y.2d 190, 194,
159 N.Y.S.2d 145, 140 N.1 .2d 241: compare, Counts of
Westchester o. Village of'Mamaroneck, 22 A.D,2d 143,
148-149, 255 N.Y.S.2d 290, a/fcf. 16 N.Y.2d 940, 264
N.Y.S. 925, 212 N.1.2d 442). Under tyre Of(] test, a
municipality is immune frorr7 zoning regulations if the
uses (lualify as governmental (see, Nelirbas v.
Incorporated Vil of L loyd Harbor; supra [village immune
from own zoning ordinance]; Village of Larchmont v.
Town of' Mamaroneck, 239 N.Y. 551, 147 N.E, 191
[village imrturrrc 1rorn town ordinance]; Omvld v.
Westchester OnmrY Park C"omnm., ;slip. 23.1 N.Y.S.2(1
465, (lffd. 18 AA).2d 1139, 239 N.Y.S.2d 862 (county
immune from town ordinancel ). (-However, a municipality
has been subject to such prescriptions when it acts in a
corporate or proprieta q capacity (Little Joseph Realti n.
Town of"£iab'vlr, n, 41 N.Y.2d 738. 742, 395 N.Y.S.2d 428,
363 N.E2d 1163 (operation of asphalt plant] ).
The test has surely been on shaky grtnmd for it long time.
"Gwen during its heyday, the distinction between
"governmental" and `proprietary' functions ol' government
was subjected to a *veritable landslide' of criticism and
was labeled an `enigma' 'r342 and an `absurdity'
(citations omitted]. The abandonment of the, rule of
sovereign itmmIAllity has virtually destroyed the only real
basis for the creation of the distinction" ((ounrV of
Nassau v. South Farmingdale Water Dist., 62 AJJ.2(1
3W '187, 405 N.Y.5.2d 742, ct fd. 46 N.Y.2d 794, 796,
413 N.Y.S.2d 921, 380 N.F1.2d 832 [in affirming, this
coturt added, "the demarcation between governmental or
proprietary interests in property owned or operated 1)),
govermnent or its subdivisions no longer is as clear as it
wets in the past"] ).
The Supreme Court itself noted in Garcia v. San Antonio
Metro. Tr. Auth., 469 U.S, 528. 531. 105 S.O. 1005.
1007. 83 L.Ed.2d 1016, overruling National Leach+nrr of
Cities t,. U.ser-p, 426 U.S. 833, 96 S.Ct. 2465, -19 L.Ed.2d
2,15, that an .'attempt to draw the boundaries of state
regulatory immunity in terms of `traditional governmental
function' is not only unworkable but is also inconsistent
with established principles of 1'edcrahsrn". The carat
observed that the governmental function rationale of
National League of (:'hies v. Users' ('id.) had been
construed as laroviding immmtity from regulation in tl'ie
govcrnrrrcntal operation of a municipal airl�turt.
(A nc i Arch v. C"itt, of Cleveland, 598 h'".2d 1033,
1037..1038 l6th C;ir.] ), but not for the regulation of air
transportation (Hughes An' (:orp. v. Public Utils. Cmmmi.,
644 p.2d 1334, 1340--1341 19th ('it-.] ). C'onsistcnt with
our own court's observation in Nehrbas v. Incorporated
* *704 Vil. of LIoYd harbor, 2 N.Y.2d 190, 194, 159
N.Y.S.2d 1.15, 140 N.I;.2d 241, supra, the Supreme (:ourt.
in Garcia (supra) concluded that an or; anizing principle
behind the test's application was not apparent and, thus, it
dtscarcicd the governmental -proprietary function label in
the field of **204 regulatory immunity under tyre
Commerce Gause.
Contradictions in governmental function dc>signation.s
have even cropped up within traditionally provided
municipal services. In O'Brien v. Town cif Greenburgh
(239 App.Div. 555, 268 N.Y.S. 173, gffd. without o1m.
266 N.Y. 582, 195 N.E. 210), for example, we iffirla d
<tn Appellate Division Iroldimt that the collection and
disposal of garbage was at proprietary l'unction.
'twenty-two years filter, we distinguished that holding;,
concluding that disposal of rubbish was a governmental
I'LlaCtiOn, and allowed the storage of garbage trucks in it
residential area contrary to Village zoning restriction
(Nehrbas v. Incorporated Vil. of`Llo,yd Harbin, 2 N.Y.2d
190. 195, it. I, 159 N.Y.S.2d 145, 140 N.E.2d 241,
copra). Such contradictions unmask fire illusory benefit of
tine litmus governmental -proprietary distinction (see,
Township of Washington r. Village of Ridgewood, 26 NJ.
578, 584, 141 A.2d 308, 311; Oty of Pittsburgh v.
C`oamonu-calth Cif penns,viva n`o, 468 Pa. 174, 178_.179"
n. 4, 300 A.2d 607, 609-610, it, 4). " ['T Il e reasoned
balancing of tire competing public and private interests
essential to an earyuitable resolution *343 of such conflicts
has been l'orsaken for it mechanical application of
convenient labels" (Note, Governmental Immunity pom
Local Zoning Otdinances, 8.1 hHarv.L.Rev. 869. 872
11971 ]; Blackstone Park Improvement Assn. v. Rhode
Lslarml Bd. ofStds. &, Appeals, 448 A.2d 1233, 1238 IRA.)
). One often cited denunciation of the imprecision of the
governmental -proprietary function test contends that "no
salisfactory hasis for solving the problern whether the
activity lalls into one class or other has been evolved
[andl ltlhc rules sought to be established are as logical as
thtssc governing FrenchFrenchrrtcgtdar verbs.. (Scasungr,7od.
Municipal ('orpmraNmns: Objections to the Governmental
or hoptiefarp Trust, 22 Va.l,.Rev. 910, 938).
The American Law Institute, and it great many States have
adopted a balancing of public interests approach to
resolve such land use disputes (.see, 4 Rathkopl'. Zoninsa
and Planning, at 53-48. n. 17 loth cdj] Model Land
Matter of City of Rochester, '72 rJ,Y,2d 338 (1988)
530 N.E.2d 202, 533 N.Y.S.2d 702
Dev.Code §§ 7301, 7 304, 12-201). This balancing
approach subliects the encroaching governmental unit in
the first instance, in the absence of an expression of
contrary legislative intent, to the zoning requirements of
tire, host governmental unit where the extraterritorial land
use would be employed (Riagers State Univ. v. Piluso, 60
NT 142, 152, 286 A,2d 697, 702), Then, among the
sundry related factors to be weighed in the test are: "the
nature and scope of the instrumentality seeking inullftillity,
the kind of function or land use involved, tire extent (,,)f the
public interest to be served thereby, the effect local land
use regulation would have upon the enterprise concerned
and the impact upon legitimate local interests" (i(L, 60
N.J. at 153, 286 A.2d, at 702). In Orange 'Ounry v. City
qf'Apopka (299 So.2d 652, 655 [Fla.App.] the catalogue
of potential factors q) be considered by tire reviewing
court was expanded to include the, applicant's legislative
grant of authority, alternative locations for the facility in
less restrictive zoning areas, and alternative methods of
providing the needed improvement (see, Lincoln County
v. lohnson, 257 NM,2d 453, 458 [S.D.]; Blackstone Park
Ini,twovement Assn. v, Rhotle Island Bel. of ,Sleds. &
Appeals, 448 A,2d 1233 JR,Ij, supea), Another important
factor is intergovernmental participation in (lie project
ject
development process and tit opportunity to be heard.
Realistically, one factor its the calculus could "be more
influential than another or may be so significant as to
completely overshadow all others", but no element should
be "thought of as ritualistically required or- controlling"
l
(Rtilger-s State Univ. v. Piluso, 60 N.J. 142, 153, 286 A.2d
697, 703, supra).
*344 Dealing first with the legislative intent. factor in the
instant Case., Our Legislature did riot expressly provide that
the operation of the airport should be illlull.111C front all
land use oversight by the City of Rochester. ***705
General Municipal Law § 350(1) provides, in Part,
however, [w]hen (lie airport Or landing field is to be
located tit whole or tit part outside the boundaries of the
municipality seeking to establish or construct the facility,
the approval 11*205 of' the local legislative body of file
city, town or village within which file, facility will he
located shall be obtained [emphasis added]." Here. the
airport is, of course, SuLKned within the County and, also
concentrically, within the boundaries of two separate
townships and the City. Moreover, General MUlliCipal
Law § 350 is a provision dedicated to the estahli slit) lent
and operation "of* a city, cotaity, village or town" airport,
and the restrictive
1)0111011 I)rCVlOUSIy (ILlOted, by its terns,
(toes riot sub , ject a '*Count)"' to the kind use JVOViSi011 Of
lesser municipalities. Thus, the L,qgiSlaull-C, by reasonable
and natural interpretation of' the entire section, excrilpted
the County from the preapproval requirement cif the (., I ity.
Finally, competing land rise restrictions and policy
choices among these various Municipalities could
otherwise foil the fulfillment of the greater public purpose
of'promoting
infra- and interstate tit- commerce.
Equally significant Under (lie new test are these additional
C,
public interest factors in this case: the dispute, involves a
( I �011luy plan which seeks to expand an existing use,; giVC11
the existing land use, there is no other practical location
for the proposed rise; the expansion was subject to County
land use oversight approval, including public hearings and
a comment period in which the City could have
participated; there is no express ('try oversight, authority
in tire State enablitiv legislation; no detriment to ad' ' '
L_ Z:7 joining
landowners, as opposed to competing political interests, is
alleged; and the nature of watt international municipal
airport, serving interstate and intrastate commerce goals,
is tit both file local and greater public interest.
']'flat a portion of the planned improvements will be leased
out for operation does riot, in the context of this airport
expansion case, affect the result. The Legislature
expressly Coll ternplated leases by a County for the
operation or use of gill or part of the County airport "for
aviation purposes and for other purposes required for or
necessary to (lie CiTiCiCut kind SUCCCSSfUl operation of' an
airport" (General Municipal Law § 352151 ).
*345 Sonic 60 years ago, well before the congested,
common air and space age of today, Chief Judge Cardozo
presciently Captured the public importance of 1111.1niCipal
airports in llt,sse v. Rath, 249 N.Y. 436, 438, 164 N.F.
342: "A city acts for city purposes when it builds a dock
or a bridge or a street or a subway (Stin P. & P. Assn. v.
Alavor, 152 N.Y. 257 146 ME,". 4991 ). Its purpose is not
different when it builds all airport (City Of WiChitel 11.
Clapp, 125 Kans. 100 1263 P. 121 ), Aviation is today art
established method of transportation. 'I I lie future, even the
near I'lullrC, Will make it still more general. 'Fire city that is
without the foresight to build file ports for the new traffic
imly Soon be left behind in the race of competition.
Ch,alcedon was called the city Of the blind, because; its
founders rejected
jected the nobler site of Byzantil,1111 lying at
their feet. The need for vision of tire future in the
governance of' cities has not lessened with the years. The
dweller within the gates, even more than the stranger front
afar, will pay, the price Of blindness."
We thus hold that the expansion of the Monroe Count),
Airport is free of land rise oversight from the City of*
Rochester. The airport terminal, parking facilities, and air
freight facility are embraced within the illlll]Lllli(y front
tire lV(]LlirCluCutS of the City's land use laws because they
constitute aCCCSSOry uses customarily incidental to an
airport operation (see, Matter o ' De Mott v. Notev, 3
RAaHer of City of RocImsftn, 72 PCY2d 338 ( 1988)
530 N.E.2d 202,533 N.Y.S.2d 702
N.Y.2d 116, 164 N.Y.S.113W 143 N.F2(1804: Great,S. Al.FXANDFR.TIT(NE and HAN(Y)CK. JJ- concur.
Bav Mar. Corp. v% Norton, Sup., 58 N.Y.S.2(1 172, a(fil.
272 App,Div, 1061), 75 N.Y.S.2d 304). Order aft ii med, with costs.
Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division ShOUILI
be affirmed, with costs. All Citations
72 MY.2(1338, 530 N.1"'.2d 202, 533 N,Y,S,2d 702
WACHTLER, C.J., and SIMONS, KAYE.
�11
K8atterofCity ofRochester, 72KY.2d33Q
History(3)
Direct History (3)
1. Matter of Monroe County's Compliance With Certain Zoning and Permit Requirements of City of Rochester in
Connection With O4/CountyAirport Expansion
I3I4.D.2d74'N.Y.A.D.4Dept. , Oct. 2O'1987
Appeal Granted by
I Matter ofMonroe County
71 N.Y.2d806, N.Y. ' W1ay03, 1988
AND Order Affirmed by
]. Matter ofCity ofRochester, r�
|
| 72N.Y.2d]]8,N/i3Oct. 20,1988
Reed Dewey
203 Roat Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
October 23, 2020
Tompkins County and Ithaca Area Community Governance and Leadership Agencies
Re: Public Recognition Request for Kevin Markwardt
Dear Tompkins County and Ithaca Area Leadership Agencies and Boards:
I write to request your bodies — individually or collectively — consider public recognition of Kevin Markwardt
for work on behalf of our community's members during the COVID-19 crisis. I have worked and volunteered
in our community as a teacher and swim coach for three decades. That involvement has provided me first-hand
knowledge of social -emotional needs of thousands of youngsters and families in our area. Appropriate, logical
address of those needs has never been in greater demand than during the current pandemic. After a late winter
and spring that left our most vulnerable socially isolated and deprived of typical sporting and recreational
activities, youngsters and their families looked ahead to the summer 2020 with justified concern they would
face more of the same. Community staples like Cass Park, Alex Haley Pool, The Y, and summer recreation
programs remained shut down or cancelled outright. Families had very few options to pursue social health and
physical wellness. Kevin stepped -up to provide an incredible resource for hundreds of people in our
community.
Kevin is the Head Coach of Men's Swimming at Ithaca College. He also manages two outdoor pools — The
Ithaca Swim Club and Ellis Hollow Pool — in the Ithaca area during summer months (typically spanning the
period of Memorial Day Weekend through mid -September). With the summer season in doubt for both
facilities, Kevin, with the help of lifeguard staff at both facilities, worked with the Tompkins County Health
Department to develop safe and effective plans to open both facilities. Using evolving NYS Department of
Health COVID-19 Safety Guidelines, Kevin and his staff safely opened — and kept open — each facility for
local families and individuals to take advantage of throughout the summer. Kevin and his team designed traffic
patterns, installed plexiglass barriers, developed a reservation system to maintain proper capacity, extended
(6:00 A.M.-8:30 P.M.) and staggered hours of operation around regular full -site sanitation periods, etc., to
keep patrons safe. Zero cases of infection occurred because each facility was so effectively managed and
maintained. Kevin's efforts, in concert with those of his well -trained staff, opened the door for hundreds of
local families to enjoy safe outdoor recreation and socially -distanced community gatherings. As opportunities
for such venue access and activities remained inaccessible due to COVID-19, these two facilities remained
operational with extended hours maintained through bolstered staff, effectively providing much -desired access
for community members to lap swim, enjoy recreational exercise, and socialize safely. Kevin and his staff
provided further outreach to the local Swim Ithaca USA Swimming Club by offering them some limited use of
the Ellis Hollow Pool for team training purposes. Kevin helped the club design equally effective safety
protocols to ensure success of use for team members. Kevin's efforts were exceptional.
This was an amazing feat of determination and effort entered into for the benefit of our community members.
It would not have been successful without the steadfast, creative efforts of one person: Kevin Markwardt. I
sincerely hope you will publically recognize Kevin for his service to our community.
Thank you.
Reed Dewey
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Paulette Rosa
Friday, October 23'2OJO2:49PM
Rod Howe (rhowe@0ownjthaca.nyus)
FVV: Public Service Commendation
Kevn_Markwardt oub|ic_recognition1etteL1O_23_2O.dorx
From: Reed Dewey <naedewey69@gmaiicom>
Sent: Friday, October 23,2U2D12:1ZPK4
To: Dominick Recckio<drecckio@tompkins-co.mrg>
Cc: Paulette Rosa <PRosa@ town. khecaoy.us>;ibankttc@tonnpkinsOnandaicom;kadtnne||o@#nuoiiconn
Subject: Re: Public Service Commendation
Hello, Everyone.
Attached you should find rny letter outlining the incredible efforts of Kevin Markwardt to bring happiness to hundreds of
members Vfour community during the O]V|D-19pandemic.
Thank you for your suggestions and advice regarding how best to facilitate public recognition of Kevin and his work for
our community.
Should you need to contact Kevin directly, his email address is: kmarkwa dt ithaca.edL1.
Please feel free to reach Out to me for anything you may need.
Thank YOU.
Reed Dewey
Thanks, Domenick.
Paulette also responded asking for information, so I'm planning on penning a letter to email to this group bythe end of
the work day tomorrow. If you have other groups and associated ernail addresses in mind to further potential
recognition, I'd love toinclude them onthe email | send out tomorrow.
8heHy, the individual was instrumental in safely opening - and keeping open - two facilities for local families and
individuals tVtake advantage ofthroughout the summer. His work, |nconcert with that ofhis well -trained staff, opened
the door for hundreds of local families to enjoy safe, outdoor recreation. As opportunities for such venue access and
activities remained inaccessible due to COVID-19, these two facilities remained operational with extended hours
maintained through bolstered staff, effectively providing much -desired access for community members. it was an
amazing feat and one that Would not have occurred Without the determined efforts of one person.
Hi Reed,
This may be something that could be done through a proclamation or something similar. What is the nature of the
individual's work? I'd be happy to help connect you.
Additionally, the Ithaca Rotary club does a "Pride of Workmanship" award and they might be a good candidate for
that recognition,
Best,
Dominick
Dominick Recckio
Coiitiitunictitioiis Director
Tornpkiris Cotuity Administration
125 E. Court St
Ithaca, NY 14850
Cell: 315-730-1189
drecckio&oii- pkhis (:,() of
- —1---....---.. ---------- 1
�Y!,yAyj rLI
From: Reed Dewey e
Si
g,[Eqjl_. , �Li2>
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 11:14 AM
To: PRosa.Cc7LowLl.,iLliaca,rr}.,Grs-ecclkiof 1 Dominick Recckio <di i
Cc: Reed Dewey n " ail ` cq�i ' ' i>
Subject: Public Service Commendation
Hello, Everyone.
I'd like to nominate an individual for Public recognition by the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, and key institutions
in the Ithaca area for service performed during the COVID-19 crisis. Candidly, this individual has been amazing and
wholly, positively irnpactful in the lives of many individuals and families.
Would you please advise regarding how best to proceed?
Thank you.
Reed Dewey
203 Roat Street
Ithaca
3
Paulette Rosa
From: Patricia Leary «p|17@corne|edu»
Sent Saturday, October, 24,2O2O11:24AM
To: Paulette Rosa
Subject: Fwd: Protect people in Ithaca and NY
How many of these mass mailings do you want?
Sent from my Wad
Begin forwarded rnessage:
Resent -From:
From: Christine lone
Date: October 24, 2020 at 8:40:00 AM EDT
To:
Subject: Protect people in Ithaca and NY
To Pat Leary,
I'm writing tmYou today asyour constituent and ahuman rights supporter todemand that you do
everything in your power to protect the right to peacefully protest -- and that you take special measures
to keep your constituents and communities safe from violence and armed intimidation, including around
the elections.
Everyone has the right to peacefully dissent. Free speech, peaceful assembly, and anindepenclent press
are vital freedoms. They are rights -- not privileges. But these rights are under attack. Arid as our elected
leaders, You must pull out all the stops bodefend them.
I call on my mayor and governor to respect, protect, and fulfill these human rights by doing the
1. Protect and facilitate the right to peacefully protest:
-|nstructymurpo|kedeperbnent tofollow Amnesty International's best practices nnthe policing of
demonstrations, and immediately send them(and city council members) this guidance:
- Demilitarize your police departments. Do not equip them in a manner more appropriate for a
battlefield.
- Do not use excessive force military -grade weapons. Chemical agents like tear gas can result in serious
injury or even death. They should only be used as a last resort, with advanced oral warning, sufficient
time to disperse, and all precautions taken to protect those at high risk and avoid harm,
- Do not deploy the National Guard for the policing of protests, unless trained on these protocols.
2. Denounce racism, discrimination, and hate -- and take special measures to protect individuals and
communities from armed groups:
- Publicly denounce racist, xenophobic rhetoric and incitement to violence, and condemn armed
private groups using hateful rhetoric and threatening intimidation and harm. Make it clear that such
armed private groups are NOT authorized to protect the public, and that they pose a risk to the human
rights and public safety of others.
- If you haven't already, institute an immediate ban on firearms at and around polling locations, to
ensure the safety of voters and poll workers and ensure no voter intimidation occurs.
- Temporarily prohibit the open and concealed carry of firearms in public, including parks, recreational
areas, and other gathering spaces.
I urge you to hold your police departments accountable especially in the coming days and weeks --
excessive force must NOT be used, and police MUST allow protests to proceed peacefully as required by
both U.S. and international law.
I, along with thousands of other concerned people, am calling on you to step up and ensure that
individuals are safe in their communities ALL of the time.
Your constituents are watching. The world is watching.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Christine lone
Paulette Rosa
Fronm:
RichDePao|o <RDePoo|o@townj(haca.Ily.us>
Sent:
Monday, November 2'2O2O9:26AM
To:
Paulette Rosa
Cc:
Joe Slater
Subject:
Fwd: 126 Rich Rd
Begin forwarded message:
From: kB[eDada[OS
Date: NOVenlh8[ 1, 2020 at 0:48:50 PyVI EST
To: Rich OeP@OlO<
Resent~From:<
To
Rich DePaolo
From:
Karen Adams
Re:
Driveway 126Rich Rd,Ithaca
Date:
October 31, 2020
The driveway for 12GRich Rd. is the usual and frequent turn around for all sorts of vehicles that reach the top the hill
onthis dead end street, Vehicles enter the driveway and travel LIP (o50'into the driveway; vehicles big and
small, light and heavy. While some vehicles back in, thus making the load on the drive closer to 25' mark, vehicles
also come inhead-first approaching the GO'mark.
The driveway needs repair. Ithas been evaluated bytwo local business. The deterioration ismost intense skthe
Rich Rdend cdthe driveway.
The attached images are examples c6usage.
img.52S7
Example of commercial vehicles
1093
Example cdemergency vehicles
1042
Example cfoccasional damage tolawn
5374
Example ofTown oYIthaca service vehicles
This one isthe "leaf sucker"
1368
Front entry
Gemicevehic|ee-commaoia|vehioles
Thanks for helping me look into this matter,
„�umio0us Dui �,� � w i � � i � � Ills `
I.,
From: CCRP<nyconcernedchizens@gmai|zom>
Sent Thursday, November 5.2O2O9:34PK4
To: supervisnr@townofcau)Une.ong;derk@townofcaro|ineorg;
jgagnon@townofdanbyny.org;to*nderk@townufdonbynyorg;
supervisor@dryden,nyus;tovvnc|erk@drydenoy.us;s-redmond@townofenfieN.org;
1owoderk@townofenfie|d.org; tmvvnderk@grotVntown.com; Rod Howe; Paulette Rosa;
e|avigne@|onsingiown.com; tovvnderk@|ansingtownzmm;supervisor@new5e|dnyorg;
tmwnderk@newfie|dny.nrg;supen/isor@u|yssesoyus;derk@u|yasesoyus;
|mcbean@tompkins-co.org
Subject: Recent Changes toNYSRegulations (Land Use)
Attachments: NYStowns need toknow_2.pdf
There have been recent changes to New York State's renewable energy siting regulations that we need to share with
you. Concerned Citizens for Rural Preservation is a group of ordinary citizens who continue to work with our towns to
develop and strengthen local laws to protect residents from the harmful effects'ofimproperly sited industrial wind,
solar, and battery storage facilities.
The attached short document is the result of thousands of hours studying and compiling experts' research in the areas of
noise, infrasound, health concerns, safety, ecosystems, wildlife, funding, and more. We are sending it to notify you that
these draft renewable energy siting regulations were released inSeptember. Formal comments, public meetings, and
deadlines are all due and occurring THIS month, and the regulations could become law as early as December.
If your town does NOT have local laws covering industrial wind, solar, and battery storage projects, 1hestahe's
regulations would dictate what is built in Your community, whether you like it or not, This is a threat to home rule and
local control over the -future of land use in rural and suburban areas.
PLEASE, take the time to review this document and forward this email with attachment to all of your local town board
members and concerned community members. VVeformally request that you place this topic onyour agenda for your
next board meeting, read this correspondence into your minutes, and research the information provided. Time isVfthe
essence.
Respectfully,
Concerned Citizens for Rural Preservation
[T' rvation, a volunteer group
about Industrial Wind and Solar
of hours of research. When we were
a proposed industrial energy project called North Ridge Wind, our
neighbors came to help LLS. Now we are coming to you to share information we
have gained about industrial energy development,
We have prepared this document to alert you to the new draft siting regulations
established by the state for all future industrial wind, solar, and batterystorage
facilities. This is our attempt to breakdown and help you explore one topic at a
time, enabling you to better understand industrial renewable energy, Use the
source links to view videos, read documents, and explore websites for more
information. Of course this is not a complete unraveling of these particular
topics and we encourage you to conduct further research to better educate
yourself, your friends, and family.
We know it looks overwhelming, but we are hoping you will look through the
information to become familiar With what could becoming to yourtown soon.
Our reason for sharing this information is to emphasize the importance of
creating and passing local laws that refectyour town's vision for the future
before the state or a developer does it for you. If a developer (or in the near
future, NY State) begins signing leases in your community, they are planning a
fundamental transformation of yourtown withoutyour knowledge, and they
will be using the new state's Sedion 94c re(DWions to accomplish this.
The most importantfa(AYOU need to know is that your town board LOSES the
ability to issue a permit for any project over 25 megawatts. Instead that will be
rec , ded by the NY State Office of Renewable Energy Siting (ORES).Your local law,
or lack there of, may determine whether or not yourtown will be tffgejqc for an
industrial power plant to be built there.
To maintain Home Rule you need local laws.
Our caution is, the state and the developer have the right to take advantage of
any unintended shortsightedness if details are left out of your laws. Creating
strong protections NOW, allows your board and your citizens to consider any
relaxation of the requirements later, if arid when you are presented With a
specific project by a developer In the next few months the state will be
implementing new diminished standarcisforsifing and you will be required to
accept them. Time is of the essence,
Since2011 majorelectlicgenerating facilities largerthan25 MWweie sited
according to NewYork%te'sAdide 10 law. But now, in 2020, the new fast
trackirxj law arid regulations of Section 94c will be implemented, greatly
reducing Municipal Home Rule (M�J).
Wind and solar energy "fames" are not agriculture.
We argue, allowing a property owner to do what they want with their property is
different from a developer doing what they want with the leased property.
An industrial energy lease and so called "good neighbor"agreements; give the
wind or solar developer control of the property and excludes the property owner
horn any say in the developer's planned use. Grouped togetherthese leases
allow a corporation, not individual property owners, to control a very large tract of
land in a town.As a result; yournew "small town" neighborwill nowbe a
large corporate tenantandan industrialpowerplant Beware, there is always
an expansion to push ufmith taller wrh(nes and out to adja(ont propmies and
towns. There is never "one" project phase and 'done."
This dooms our communifies to permanent ineligibility for more appealing
economic development possibilities due to the state's inappropriate setbacks
and dangerous vibtaftm and noise This essentially creates
trr.,%az, mnn(.restricting ALL OTHER property owners'land use rights,
not the developers'. In addition, large scale wind and solar projects have
proven to be unwilling to
Regardless of where yourtown stands on the issue of renewable
energy resources, you need to make sure that siting requirements
do not harm your citizens.
We area vol umsef9rourn of citizens who joined together in a effort to renwids, Information
aboutthe indusaWWrid projeathat has been proposed in HopWntm and Paddliville, NY,
We beirevothatAtimembers of the communtryshould be probsned and fully informed
when industrial energy projects am underconsiderabonVesnumhuipport the prindpal
of HOME RULE in our NewYork State Constitution, and mrasturian our right to ountrnrf the
future of ourtowns and munues. We hope you vn0joln us to educatocommunicare, and
advocatew keep out homes rwable, our townisfriendlyandourfunimiusal,
VbRus on the web:: wow r
0 find us onfacebo*
Considerthese important details about an
industrial energy project:
Noise,Vibration (Inftasound), and Shadow Flicker
Over the past decade there has been an emerging track record of negative
impacts to local peoples and wildlife in and surrounding industrial energy
projects. No��,,-,g, shadow Mcker, and infrasound (vibration) arejust some of the
problems associated with large spinning turbines; and yes, solar project noise is
also real, emanating from ii ivedefs and HVAC systems. The new ORES setback
and noise limits are frightening and will negatively impact your citizens.
Safety
You should understand that water resources can be adversely affected by
construction practices. There are fire, blade, and structural fii B u r esthatoccurto
industrial wind turbines, 'e ' chtnica ' R fires
s related to Battery Energy Storage
Systems (BESS), and contamination from leaching solar panels. All projects are
designed to include a-cce,ss, l,o_,i,(fsto the turbines and solararrays, along with
electric collection lines, a substation, and other facility structures.
Decommissioning involves disposal of components like huge turbine blades
and solar panels containing hazardous materials.This dispo.sol is currently
problematic
Wildlife
Thousands of 1b_i..e_ds._a.n.d1.b..a..t.s are killed each year by spinning industrial
wind turbine blades while large solar arrays create ec.o!4 " rA fi,m; for birds
and insects. Developers will be granted 'take" permits to kill species such as the
American Bald Eagle. Funds in exchange forthe destruction of wildlife in your
communitywill be paid to organizations chosen bythe state.
Generating inefficient electridty
Wind and solar energy are not reliable despite what the state and the industry
promotes. To prevent power outage, there must bea stable back up power
plant available to pick up the generation that is lost when wind fluctuates and
the sun doesn't shine. For example, the backup power must be regulated -
revved up or down -in sync with the wind, causing I neffidency and adding
to operating cost. Battery technology provides no more than four hours of
On average, indUStdal wind ener, y%i i opatlrt_etjatsl�w��rf,oftheir
capacity and sr)W is even less, averaging under 15% (capacity factor). Both must
be backed up by more reliable forms of energysuch as fossil fuel, natural gas,
and even hydra (cii 4pjitdng an already reliable source of green energy).
Subsidies - Your Wages, Paid as Taxes
The Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act has set New York's target
of obtaining 70% of its energy from green sources by 2030 and 100%
renewables by 2040. Yet, in 2019 a significant amount of N " YsitNj "" w�n " d flowed
out of NewYorkto meet New England RPS mandates.
This means an increase in electricity prices because of mancia " ted - 11pyg1tqq from
you to fund the projects. NewYork's SBC and federal FTC and ITC subsidies are
yourwages, paid as taxes. Developers have a history of partnering with NYState
agencies to win funding fortheir projects, with the State purchasing up to 95%
of the renewable electricity so the developer does not have to compete with
other producers.
PILOTS (Payment In Lieu Of Taxes)
large scale wind and solar are invasive industries unwilling to pay taxes.
f I�Qj'agreements provide significant propenytax relief to developers of large
scale projects verses them paying full property taxes on their a.s�e.s.,slP.ent
like otheiis do.
Negotiating a PILOT is a whole different animal.
For example on solar, a NYSERDA document states: "NYSERDA's research
indicates that PILOT rates should be negotiable between 1 %and 3% of the
compensation solar developers receive for the electricity their projects generate."
But solar projects in New York are onyrxMLe(j.tct_arqdu ce 11,39% of their
promised "nameplate capacity"
Translation: If you negotiate a portion of production/energy generation as
payment you will receive 1-3% of 13.39*/o as noted above (capacity factor) not
1-3% of 100% which is promised (nameplate capacity).
There are many othertopic details you should be aware of, so we urge you
to become familiarwith the new renewable energy regulations and what
impacts they will soon have on yourtown.
1) Adopt renewable energy laws as soon as possible BEFORE
the state regulations take effect. These new regulations will not
go into effect until the 60-day formal comment periods have
ended (currently slated for November 16 and December 6).
2) Contact the Associali on of Towns, the ORES Office, and your
county and state representatives to request an extension of the
formal submission comment period on the draft regulations.
3) Submitformal comments on the draft regulations using an
ORES on4ine ornis orsubmit in wrifing to:
ATTN: Houtan Moaveni
Office of Renewable Energy Siting
99 Washington Avenue
Albany, NewYork 12231
bythefollowing dates:
900-7 900-1 .4juntil November 16,2020: and the
draft uniform standards and conditions 0aPter-XVM_Tifl_e.J--9.
until December6,2020.
4) Attend one of five paL4� ' ic " I ' i ' ea " r ' ' ng across the state ortwo
virtual public hearings.Take note of registrations dates for
participation.
creation of new
Off ice of Renewable Energy Siting (ORES)
Some History...
Governor Cuomo's updated green energy goals wiUfast track the ctatei
energy production coming from renewable Sources 6y204U.Tho
Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA),which was
passed bythe legislature and signed byGovernor Cuomo in2D19.has
set NewYo6ttarget ofobtaining 70%o(its energy from renewable
energy sources by203Dand seeks toba1OU%emission free by2D4O.
The governor believes these goals will not bemet without speeding up
the process ofinstalling industrial scale wind projects like Hnpkinton's
North Ridge Wind, Wa|one's9SOacre Franklin Solar project, and
industrial -sized battery energy storage facilities like the one slated for
Chateoogay,NYTheprevious process known aaArticle 1Dtook towns,
citizens, property rights, and the environment into consideration when
siting potential industrial energy facilities, respecting Home Rule.
However..
GmmmorAn6ew[unmoincluded the Accelerated Renewable
Energy Growth and Community DeooGtAct(AREGCB4)azpart ofa
3D-daybudget amendment (known asArticle 23)which was passed
into law onApril 3rdn(this year. Now, called Section 94cthis creates
anew, separate environmental review and permitting regime for
renewable energy projects, 4new Office ofRenewable Energy Siting
(ORB)has been established toset the uniform standards forsibng'
design, construction, and operation ufrenewable energy facilities 6y
consolidating the environmental review and permitting nfmajor
renewable energy facilities inNewYurk State.
The Public Service Commission (P5Qisessentially removed from
siting authority, bypassing the mnentArtide1Oregulations for
industrial wind and solar projects,
Within one year dthe Art'spassage, the Office ofRenewable Energy
Siting 0R2Qisrequired topromulgate regulations toimplement
the Accelerated Renewable Energy Growth and Community Benefit
Act (AREG[BA),and that time has come.
On September 16,2020,the Office issued draft regulations
and uniform standards and conditions for public comment.
The draft regulations and draft uniform standards and conditions are
available online ot the Office ofRenewable Energy Siting
"Regulations" page, and are downloadable PDF documents:
They are:
Draft Regulations Chaper08UTitle 19(Subparts 9O0-1-900-5;
900-7-90014):
Draft Regulations Chapter XVIII Title 19 (Subparts 900-6): iMlps-U
Wind facilities - new draft ORES siting regulations
(excerpt from page 23 and 30)
Table 1: Setback Requirements for Wind Turbine Towers
Structure type I Wlnd fchosTurbine or;- I
setback"
1_5�times '
Gaswei (unresswaivedleylanclownerand
1.1 times
Ras well _operator)
,lintilk, Roads i 1�1 times
Property Lines i 1.1 time
Non,par6cipating, eon ,residenhan i LS times
Structures .. ...... ... ..
Non-particirithert Residences
1 .0 HosmWind Turbete lowers setbackis equal to the Total Height of
nee Wind i (at mblade masimurn de tip heighti
**operated at 100 kV or higher, and as defined by North American
Electric Reliability Contharaucin thils, Electric System Definition
Reference Document Version 3, August 2018 section 900-
of this Part)
Wind facilities set back
Wind facilities shall meet the setback requirements in Table 1
or manufacturer setbacks, whichever are more stringent.The
setback distances shall be measured as a straight line from the
centerline or mid- point of the wind turbine tower to the
nearest point on the building foundation, property line or
feature, as applicable.
(front page 23 of draft regulations)
Wind facilities noise and vibration
(1) For wind facilities
CHART FOR COMPARISON
new draft Your current laws
State Regulations noise setbacks : noise
----- ---- - ----- � .................................
40 dBA at residence
.....................
? times : ? dBA
.55.dBA .at.night (property li.n!j I times : ?dBA
------------
55 dBA (f
RTRftqM9R) ..... . Ilnnes ? dBA
...........
45 to 65 dBA ..times....?dBA
................................. I ............ L ...........
example:
proposed towers in Burke - 724 ft tall
proposed towers in Hopkinton - 600 ft tall
tallest existing tower in Bellmont - 500 ft tall
note: The fact is, there are some municipalities with
existing projects whose officials now courageously
express regrets about generous setback and noise limits
they allowed (and are now recommending 30 dBA), yet
the new ORES regulations are even more lenient.
(i)A maximum noise limit of forty-five (45) dBA Leq (8-hour), at the outside of any existing mar-parfiripating residence, and fifty-five (55) cRA Lecl (8.
hour) at the outside of any existing participating residence;
(ii)A prohibition an producing any audible prominent rings, as defined by using the constant level differences listed uriderANSI S12.9-200511"art 4
Annex C (sounds with tonal content) (see section 900-151(a)(1)(i(i) of this Part), at the outside of any existing non• participating residence. Should a
prominent tone occur, the broadband overall (dBA) noise level at the evaluated nonparticipating position shall be increased by 5 dBAfoi evaluation
of compliance with subparagraph (i) and (v) of this paragraph;
(iii)A maximum noise limit of sixty-five (65) c18 Leg- (1-hour) at the full octave frequency bands of sixteen (16), thirty-one and a half (31.5), and sixty-
three (63) Hertz (Hz) outside of any existing non -participating residence in accordance with Annex D of ANSI standard
S12.9-2005/Part 4 Section 0.2.(1)(Analysis of sounds with strong low -frequency content) (see section 900.151(a)(1)(iii) of this Part);
([v) Not producing human perceptible vibrations inside any existing non -participating residence that exceed the limits for residential use
recommended inANSI/ASA Standard S2,71.1983 (R August 6,2012)"Guide to the evaluation of human exposure to vibration in buildings'(See
section 900.15.11(a)(11 Xi) of this Part);
(v)Amaximum noise limit of forty (40) LIM Leg (1-hour) at the outside of any existing non participating residence from the collector substation
equipment; and
(ii maximum noise limit of fifty-five (55) dBA leg (8-hour), short-term equivalent continuous average nighttime sound level from the facility across
any portion of a non- participating property exceptfor portions delineated as NYS-regulated wetlands pursuant to section 90013(e) of this Part and
utility ROW.The applicantshall demonstrate compliance with this design goal through the filing of noise contour drawings and sound levels
evaluated at the wousircase discrete locations. No penalties for prominentknes will be added in this assessment.
(from rare 30 of draft amulatiring)
*Solar project noise is real, emanating from inverters and HVAC systems.
(inverter noise! id,e,p.-J.., and
e Wind projects produce i_nl_rasoulrod as well as audible noise
Wind Turbine Noise Complaint Predictions Made Easy - Part I
Acousticians have known for decades how to predict me community reaction to a new noise source. Wind
turbine consultants have chosen not to predict the community reaction as they have previously done for
other community noise sources. If they had, there would be far fewer wind turbine sites with neighbors
complaining Loudly about excessive noise and adverse health impacts,
In 1974, the USEPA published a methodology that can predict the community reaction to a now noise. A
sirnple chart can be used that shows the community reactions (y-axis) versus noise level (x-axis). This
short was developed frorn 55 cornmunity noise case studies (black squares), The baseline noise levels
Include adjustments for the existing ambient, prior noise experience, and sound character. Tito predicted
wind turbine noise level is plotted on the 'x-axis' and the predicted community teacher% Is dete"nined by
the highest reaction, indicated by the black squares. Here are some examples: 32 dBA no reaction and
sporadic complaints, 37 dBA widespread complaints, 45 dBA strong appeals to stop noise and 54 dBA
vigorous community action, the highest,
Predicted Community Reaction For Wind Turbines in a Quiet Area
Villo'chis
hit,
Community
Action
Auirithi Noio.Ci
Strong appost,
to to It o 0 is 0
as 00,11hr—en—dird ky,
4111,•
He", 10,K-4 ii—P 2006
On. Voscorl talewidespread
s96�
R.MlAmb 40JO
Complaints
Sh-1104i 200
Sporadic
cdripiroftwkirvanf
isonphiints
— — — Kleve-111J.— 2009
001 20 30 3"i 40 so 60 70
Predicted IVVT Noise Level in d8A
1111.tl I'll, il 11 t1111 - 1 AN 1 . , I KJ 111
The international Standards Organization (ISO) drtlermined trial 25 dBA represents a rural nighttime
environment. The World Health Organization (WHO) found that noise below 30 dBA tied no observed
effect level (NOEL) and 40 ILBA represented the lowest observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) for no
sources first excluded wind turbines, Wind turbines produce Strong low frequency energy that may reduce
the WHO cautionary levels by 5 d6, thereby showing closer agreement with the 33 ci
recommendations,
Pederson & Waye (2004) research found that when wind turbine noise levels reached 35 dBA, 6% of the
population was highly annoyed, and this rapidly increased to 25% at 40 dBA, Independent researchers
recommend that noise levels should not exceed 33 dBA, which is near the upper lont for sporadic
complaints, or a maxprTurn increase of 5 do, whichever is more stringent.
here to download full rcPo,rt,d9f1lI!benj
Solar facilities - new draft ORES siting regulations
(excerpt from page 24 and 31) `
AnotherArgument r Full Taxes,
Fanners and solara elop e t
CHART FOR COMPARISON
Solar energy ofar so are not agriculture.
Table 2. setback Requirements for Solar Facility Components new draft Your current laws
State Regulations noise
tlnceasolarleaseissigned,that e gowneriSnolon era
" rof°
p
setbacks noise
Setback Type solar Facility Setback
farmer, they are now a landlord and their new tenant is an electric
Non -participating residential property tines 100 feet 55 dBA property line ? feet ? dBA
_..:..................
generating plant.
.................................. ................
Centerline of Public Roads 5o feet
...._ _ 55 dBA (if at property line) ? feet ? dBA
Non participating property lines (non- 50 feet (can it ever be developed)
• Farmers are hardworking people who produce our food and we
residential) ................................................................. .
Non participating occupied residences 25o feet 40 substn, 45 to 55 dBA res. ? feet ? dBA
... _ ._ ...... .,,.
j
have all supportedthem,The proof ... Weall make upthe property
.................•............._...............
tax de6dencymade byarea farmers inorderforthem totake
advantage of theirgg property tax exemption.
Solarfacilities setbacks
Solar facilities small meet thesenaacxretluirementssetfoithonlabVn2
»Noone isobjecting toany person'slucrative land lease deal, but
(from rage 24 or dealt regulations)
the taxpayers of the town should not be asked to subsidize a
commercial solarenergy plant by allowing a PILOT orally other
Solar faditfes noise and vibration
property tax discount for the landlords or their industrial tenant,
(2) For solar facilities:
the developer:They must be required to pay full propertytaxes on
(i) A maximum noise &omit of forty five (45) (IRA led (&hour), at the outside of any existing nonparticipating residence, and fifty live (55) dBA led (8-hour)
their assessmentjust like other businesses and property owners,
at the outside of any existing participatlmy iesidencei
(ii) A maximum noise limit of forty (40) d8A last (1-1hout) at the outside of any existing non participating residence fiom the collector substation
• Allowing a property owner to do what they wantwith their'
equipment;
property is different than allowing a developer to do what they
('ill) A prohibition on producing any audible prominent tones, as defined by using tine constant level differences listed underA1451 S12.9 2005IPart 4
wdntwttfl the leased property.
Annex C (sounds with tonal content)(see section 900�15.1(ax1xiii) of this f"art), at tire outside of any existing nom participating residence, Should a
"good
prorment tone occur, the broadband overall (d8A) noise Bevel at the evaluated nonparticipating position shall be increased by 5 dBA for evaluation of
An industrial energy lease and So called neighbor'°
compliance with subparagraph (i) and (ii) of this paragraph; and
agreements gives the solar developer control of the propertyand
(iv)A maximum noise limit of fifty-five (55) dBA Led (8-houn), shortterm equivalent continuous average sound level from the facility across any portion of a
excludes the property owners from any say in the developer s
nonparticipating property except for portions delineated as NYS regulated wetlands pursuant to section 900-1.3(e) of this Part and utility Row to be
'in
planned use. Grouped together, these leases allow a corporation,
demonstrated with modeled sound contours drawings and discrete sound dvds at worst -case Vocations. ldo penalties for prominent tones will be added
not individual owners, to control a very large track of land
this assessment,
property
(from page 31 of draft regulations)
in ourtowns.Yournew small town neighborwill now be a large
corporate tenant operating an industrial potwerplant If you have
any problems with your new corporate neighboryou will now be
required to telephone 1-800 complaint hotline located
elsewhere to speak tosomeoneyou do not know.
New Regulations will allow 55 decibels (dBA)
of noise at your property line, being emitted
from your neighbor's 600 ft. tall industrial wind
turbine or solar project. New York State is
writing laws allowing this noise trespass to
occur on your property at the request of
renewable energy developers, possibly
making your property undevelopable
in the future.
Essentially, New York State is requiring
you to give up your property rights
to an industrial energy developer.
You now probably experience
25 decibels (dBA) of noise on your
entire property, right up to the
property line, without any noise from
wind turbines, or industrial solar
inverters or HVAC systems.
I
New York State is writing shorter
setback laws. A 600 ft. turbine
setback measured from the
center of tower will place the tip
Will New York State or a developer's
"Good Neighbor Agreement"
weaken your town's law
and hijack the town's future?
How it's done.
For example, an owner of adjacent vacant
land signs a developer's "Good Neighbor
Agreement" making them a "participating
property" and allowing turbines to be sited
closer than the local law's required
setback distance. This removes the
intended spirit of the local law, possibly
making that property undevelopable in the
future. The property owner is giving up
property rights to the developer; and, as a
result, the developer is taking control of
future development in the town.
Attention non -participating
Attention
property owner - Good Neighbor ic Setback distance required in
Agreements allow the electric plant 0 1
t t the local town law is removed
o be sited closer to your property G
b x pti your
ig or from
when c
y exempting your neighbor from when Good Neighbor
gr mc
the local setback law. Agreements are signed.
Typical language from wind lease:
Waiver of Nuisance
f
r
"Landowner has been informed by Lessee and understands
Redliningpractice
that the presence and operations of the improvements on
that grants open season
the Permitted Area and on adjacent property will potentially
. for developers to target
result in some nuisance to landowner, such as: (i) Yrigher
noise levelsthancurrently occur atthePermitted Area and
�r certain economically i
the surrounding area; (i1)visual impact; (iii) 'flickering'
Challenged upstate areas-
reflections and/or shadowingfromthewindturbinerotors.
areas where the power
Landowner hereby accepts such nuisance and
waives any right that Landowner may have to
generation is already
object to such nuisance (and Landowner releases Lessee
clean and not needed
from any claims Landowner may have with respect to any
such nuisance). Lessee will exercise reasonable efforts to
keep such nuisances, if any, to a minimum."
When you take a close and careful look at the land mass of New York State it is clear to see that the potential for
large scale wind development is very limited. We persist with aggressive efforts under state renewable energy
excerpt from North RidgeWind Option and Wind Energy
goals to build out wind power in the State. But when you consider honestly where that is likely or even possible
Lease Agreement (Hopkinton/ Parishville)
to happen, much less fair, it is realistically very constrained, and highly suspect from the standpoint of
environmentai justice.
For both commonsense and fairness we should start by looking atwherein New York additional electric power
generation is needed, and particularly where clean power is needed. The answer to that question is clearly
downstate.
Should not then all open space in downstate areas be utilized first for new generation sites? If the State is
This document is best viewed
reluctant to override what it knows will be intense local opposition in the New York City area, Long Island and the
electronically as a PDF avail l
Hudson Valley, where the power is needed and where existing generation is primarily fossil fueled, then it is
indisputably the case that the State has essentially accepted the reality of a redlining practice that grants open
online at
season for developers to target certaineconmicallychallengedupstateareas -areas where the power
morn
generation is already clean and not needed, and where the populace lacks the economic power to fight back
.nn
convincingly against development of those projects.
for ease to navigating links to view
This is de facto energy redlining of New York -marking off for unprecedentedly intrusive (big, loud and ugly)videos,
read supporting
industrial development, areas of the State that have marginal political clout based on soda/economic factors
documents, and explore
more than anything else. rc rcl inwe
for more information.
TOWN OF ITHACA
215 NORTH TIOGA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850
www.town.ithaca.ny.us
CORRESPONDENCE LISTING
November 23, 2020
Please review the following correspondence and indicate, by placing your initials in the right-hand column
adjacent to the correspondence that you wish to receive a copy. We can forward a copy to you via e-mail or
make a hard copy. Please indicate your preference next to your name at the bottom of this form.
Paulette Rosa
From: Vanessa Lynn Wood <vness.wood@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2020 4:19 PM
To: Paulette Rosa; Bill Goodman; Rich DePaolo; Pam Bleiwas; TeeAnn Hunter; Pat Leary; Nick
Goldsmith; Rod Howe; Susan Ritter, Chris Balestra
Subject: Please reconsider 5G
Hello,
Thank you for all of the work you do to serve our community.
I have lived in the Ithaca area for 15 years and work right downtown. I live seven minutes from the commons. I love this
community.
I do not want 5G to come to this area, simply because it is new, has mixed science, and - very importantly- we don't
need it. It's not worth the risk. And folks can't opt in or out, so we need you to decide conservatively for us and be
careful. Please reject 5G or at least wait until there is more fully independent science behind it.
Thank you.
Best Regards,
Vanessa Wood
Vanessa Wood, MS
She/Her
Subject: FW: Sg Protect our Children
From: Carmel Rome <carmeI.rome15@gmaiI,com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 9:04 PIVI
To: Paulette Rosa <P Rosa @town. ithaca . ny. us>
Subject: Re: 5g Protect our Children
Ok, I understand, thank you Paulette
On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 6:08 PM Paulette Rosa <PRosg a town.ithaca.nvus> wrote:
Committees do not have "Persons to be heard" portion of their meeting. Or any requirement to "read
anything into the minutes or record". Committees are advisory in nature and make no final decisions for the
town. That is done at the Town Board level. They are of course open to the public to listen.
Your email will be forwarded to the Committee members and their staff support as well as the Town Board
and filed as permanent correspondence.
In future, it is simpler to send such correspondence to me singularly so I can send it to the appropriate boards
and committees and not have them receive duplicate emails.
Regards,
Paulette Rosa
Paulette Rosa
Town Clerk
On Nov 18, 2020, at 5:53 PM, Carmel Rome <,cari,nelrot,iie15(@PrTiail.coiii> wrote:
My name is Carmel I live in Ithaca town over 15 years I'm home owner and raise 2 children
at the Ithaca schools,my daughter is at LACS at this time,me and many other mothers and
family's are extremely concern about the possibility of hundreds of small antennas 4g and
unfortunately 5g right in our neigh borh ood, right next to our schools,play ground sand our
Beautiful outdoors According to scientific research. Childrens body's contain much more
water than those of adults which is why their heads tend to absorb up to two times more
radiation exposure compared to adults and why their bone marrow absorbs up to 10 times
more radiation. our children will be constantly exposed to highly dangerous EMF at there
own homes,streets and schools!! U are responsible to make sure our children well being is
more important then the mega telecommunication companies profit! U are committed to
serve this Community not Verizon!! Please do your job and make sure our children health
and all Ithaca community well being is the most and Uncompromised issue in this matter
Paulette Rosa
From: Paulette Rosa
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 6:08 PM
To: Irina Peress
Subject: Re: PLEASE READ THIS COMMENT INTO THE RECORD for the 11/18/20 Codes and
Ordinances Committee meeting
Committees do not have "Persons to be heard" portion of their meeting. Or any requirement to "read anything into the
minutes or record". Committees are advisory in nature and make no final decisions for the town. That is done at the
Town Board level. They are of course open to the public to listen.
Your email will be forwarded to the Committee members and their staff support as well as the Town Board and filed as
permanent correspondence.
In future, it is simpler to send such correspondence to me singularly so I can send it to the appropriate boards and
committees and not have them receive duplicate emails.
Regards,
Paulette Rosa
Paulette Rosa
Town Clerk
On Nov 18, 2020, at 4:19 PM, Irina Peress <peressirina@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Bill and Paulette,
My name is Irina Peress, and I am a Town of Ithaca homeowner. I would like to urge
the Codes and Ordinances Committee to adopt codes to protect our town from
predatory corporations like telecommunications companies pushing 5G.
Despite their attempts to persuade the public over the years, telecom companies are
NOT true Public Utilities. True public utilities are controlled and/or regulated by the
public. Telecom companies are private companies that exist solely to make a profit.
The radiation from Telecom wireless activities is not monitored or enforced by the
FCC or any other public entity. So, as private utilities whose sole function is to earn
money, we should not assume they are looking out for our well-being - that is the role
of the Town Board.
For this reason, we need to protect our town from unneeded, dangerous 5G radiation
that has never been proven safe. Thousands of studies show the dangers of wireless
radiation, and it's up to you to protect the Town of Ithaca from this danger that 5G
poses to us.
Paulette Rosa
From: Lisa Bertuzzi <hanumini@gmoi|zom»
Sent Wednesday, November 1E\2O2O6i3DAK4
To: Paulette Rosa
Subject: Re: PLEASE READ THIS COMMENT ALOUD ATTC}DAY'STOWN CODES MEETING (WED.
NOV. 18, 2O2O @530)
Thanks Paulette!
OnWed, Nov l8 3O2O,G:12AK8Paulette Rosa wrote:
Good morning,
Committees do not have "Persons to be heard" portion of their meeting. Or any requirement to "read anything into the
minutes orrecnrd". Committees are advisory in nature and make no final decisions for the town. That isdone atthe
Town Board level. They are ofcourse open tothe public Lolisten.
Your email will be forwarded to the Committee members and their staff support as well as the Town Board and filed as
permanent correspondence.
In future, it is simpler to send such correspondence to me singularly so I can send it to the appropriate boards and
committees and not have them receive duplicate emaib.
Paulette Rosa
Town Clerk/RMO
grnail.com> wrote:
K����� ~�[lVy� Co des ����r���'f�����~
���.��` .��.~.. ���'������ ����.........����
� VV^U ��� ��� ��|�� f�� �f��M� f[)�^��f/� |'��� [�����'�� �U�� f�
^ ^^''` '^~~^^~~~ ~=~~'~~ `-^ -~`�~~''-~ ^`~'^%�'^^^~ ^~~~ '''~~~~~''�� ~^`~^~ ^~~
VV�lr� �rl��MU'f�����f� ��|������ ���r� f4'� �|��D,�
`~~~''~~^~~''^'^`'''~~''^-~^ Please '~~~~— `'''~~ ~^'~~~~~~^
�W'f� �[)�1M�[�'��'[1M
vv'�/ / appreciation,
�r' -- �^ 'r
Lisa BertUzz`
My name is Lisa Bertuzzi. I live in the city of Ithaca and work in the Town as a
child care professional, advocating for the health and well-being of our young
children and families.
1
The telecom companies say 4G/5G/other wireless radiation is safe, but WHERE ARE
THE STUDIES definitively proving this? In front of the Senate last year,
representatives from telecom companies admitted that they have done NO
studies to prove the safety of 5G and cannot guarantee it is safe. On the flip
side, thousands of studies have shown the harm. It is the most important duty
of a local government to keep its citizens safe. If you are not doing this for us
and our children, who will?
Indeed throughout the Town of Ithaca code, including the section on
Telecommunications, it is made clear that a main aim is "to protect and
promote the health, safety and welfare of the community." Please take a
stand and do all of the research possible until you can definitively say this
technology is safe beyond a shadow of a doubt. and until then, pass codes
with restrictive wireless technology guidelines to protect our community.
Thank you.
19
Paulette Rosa
From: Paulette Rosa
Sent Tuesday, November lT2O2O3:23PK4
To: Allison DeSahczLori KofuictBill Goodman; Lori KofnictBecky Jordan
Subject: RE: PLEASE READ THIS C[)K4k4ENT|NK]THE RECORD 11/10CODES MEETING
Hello Ms. DeSario,
The Chair of that committee is on this list so it will be on file for the Subject; but committees do not necessarily have
"pecmnsto be heard" or items subm/tted to be "read into the agenda."
I will also forward to the Town Board and it will become part of permanent Town Correspondence,
If You have any questions, feel free to contact me.
Regards
Ph(MA7)273-l72l ex\ l\A
From: Allison DeSaho<desahnaUbon@gmaiicom>
Sent: Tuesday, November 17,202D31qPK4
To: Paulette Rosa <PRosa @Lovvnjthaca.nyus>;Lori Kofoid<LKbfoid@tovvn.ithaca.ny.us>;Bill Goodman
<BGoodman@tovvn.ithacaoyus>;Lori Kofoid<LKofoid@tovvnjthaca.ny.us>;Paulette Rosa <PRosn@tovvn.ithacaoyus>;
Becky Jordan <EUordan@townjtheca.ny.us>
Subject: PLEASE READ THIS COMMENT INTO THE RECORD 11/18CODES MEETING
I cannot make it live to attend the meeting and speak my comment so I Would like it to be read into the agenda.
My comment is attached
Thank you very much,
4UisonOe5ario
Town of Ithaca Codes Meeting comment 11/18
Hello my name is Allison and I am an Ithaca resident. I want to talk about a recent report
published by a Commission for the state of NH who was tasked to research the environmental
and health effects of 5G technology. The commission made recommendations after countless
hours of in-depth reading of peer -reviewed and federal government publications. One
recommendation was that the FCC should be required to "commission an independent review of
the current radiofrequency standards... as well as a health study to assess and recommend
mitigation for the health risks associated with the use of cellular communications and data
transmittal." The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was adopted in the year I was born and "the
majority of the NH Commission believes that the FCC has not exercised due diligence in its
mission to manage the electromagnetic environment by not setting exposure limits that protect
against health effects." The only country with radiation thresholds higher than those in the U.S.
is Japan "and a large number of independent scientists have concluded that the thresholds for
Japan and the U.S. are unsafe." The World Health Organization classifies wireless radiation as
a Group B "possibly carcinogenic to humans"- a group that also includes lead, thalidomide and
others AND "some experts who sat on the WHO committee in 2011 are now calling for it to the
placed in the Group 1, which are known carcinogens."
Ultimately, I don't believe the standards set by our government reflect the current science, which
has come a long way since 1996. Experts in the fields of physics, epidemiology, toxicology, and
public policy all "acknowledge the large body of peer -reviewed research that shows that the type
of RF-radiation generated by wireless devices can have a deleterious effect on humans,
especially children, as well as other animals, insects, and vegetation." All this to say, I think the
town should do everything in their power to update the codes to reflect what current, peer -
reviewed research shows about the health and safety of 5G and other wireless technology. We
are relying on you to protect the health of us and our children. Thank you.
Paulette Rosa
From mariea nd rew93 @gmaiLcorn
Sent: Monday, November /6,zoao2uepm
To: Paulette Rosa; Bill Goodman; Rich DePaolo; Pam Bleiwas; TeeAnn Hunter, Eric Levine; Pat
Leary; Nick Goldsmith; Rod Howe; Susan Ritter; Chris a^|estra
Subject: New Hampshire State Commission officially raises the alarm onss
Attachments: wnssfinal eport.pdf
H000,
An official Commission for the State of New Hampshire has released its extensive report on 5G (attached), and it echoes
many of the points and concerns that we've shared with you over the past few months. Some highlights:
"To become acquainted with the issues relevant to 5G radiation exposure and health, the Commission heard from
ten recognized experts in the fields of physics, epidemiology, toxicology, and public policy. All but the presenter
humans, especialIV children, as well as animals, insects, and vegetation ... There is mounting evidence that
DNA damage can occur from radiation outside of the ionizing part of the spectrum .... The World Health
Orclanization and the whole insurance industrV are hedcling their bets against RF-radiation because of
potential harm."
radiation is safe and the findings of thousands of scientific studies was one of the major issues that the
Commission sought to address. The Commission is not alone in wrestling with this issue as many others (see
Appendix E) have challenged the radiation thresholds specified. It is to be noted that the only country with higher
radiation thresholds than the U.S. is Japan (see Appendix F), and a large number of independent scientists
"The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was adopted
the human were fully known tothe scientific community *owell anthe public, The majority of the Commission
believes that the FCC has not exercised due diligence in its mission to manage the electromagnetic environment
uvnot setting exposure limits that protect against health effects .....
manV Other ailments, been Ignored bV the Federal Communication Commission (FCC)? ... A likely explanation
as to why regulatory agencies have opted to ignore the body of scientific evidence demonstrating the negative
impact of callphone radiation is that those agencies are 'captured' —whose Commission members come from
the industry they are overseeing."
"The Commission believes that it is important to prioritize citizen safety, particularly as
5G is an up -grade, rather than the provision of wireless service to unserved areas. "
While weunderstand you may not have the time o,interest mpour through the entire repor�our hope isthat this
Andrew and Marie Molnar
State of New Hampshire
Cif 'NFRAL COURT ---- --------
CONCORD
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 1, 2020
TO: Honorable Christopher T. Sununu, Governor
Honorable Stephen J. Shurtleff, Speaker of the House
Honorable Donna Soucy, President of the Senate
Honorable Paul C. Smith, House Clerk
Honorable Tammy L. Wright, Senate Clerk
Michael York, State Librarian
FROM: Representative Patrick Abrami, Chair
SUBJECT: Final Report on Commission to Study the
Environmental and Health Effects of Evolving 5G Technology
(RSA 12-K:12-14, HB 522, Ch. 260, Laws of 2019)
Pursuant to RSA 12-K: 14, 111, enclosed please find the Final Repoli of the Commission to Study
the Environmental and Health Effects of Evolving 5G Technology.
If you have any questions or comments regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact
Me.
I would like to thank those members of the commission who were instrumental in this study. I
would also like to acknowledge all those who testified before the commission and assisted the
commission in our study.
Enclosures
cc: Members of the Commission
Final Report of the
Commission to Study
The Environmental and Health Effects of
Evolving SG Technology
(HB 522, Chapter 260, laws of 2019, RSA 12-K:12-14)
Membership
Name
Rep. Patrick Abrami (Chair)
Rep. Kenneth Wells
Rep. Gary Woods
Sen. James Gray
Sen. Tom Sherman
Denise Ricciardi
Brandon Garod, Esq.
Carol Miller
David Juvet
Kent Chamberlin, PhD
Bethanne Cooley
Michele Roberge
Paul Heroux, PhD
Organization/Representing
NH House of Representatives
NH House of Representatives
NH House of Representatives
NH Senate
NH Senate
Public
Attorney General's Office
Department of Business and Economic Affairs
Business and Industry Association
University of New Hampshire
CTIA —wireless communications industry
Department of Health and Human Services
McGill University Medicine
November 1, 2020
TOWN OF ITHACA
215 NORTH TIOGA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850
www.town.ithaca.ny.us
CORRESPONDENCE LISTING
December 14, 2020
Please review the following correspondence and indicate, by placing your initials in the right-hand column
adjacent to the correspondence that you wish to receive a copy. We can forward a copy to you via e-mail or
make a hard copy. Please indicate your preference next to your name at the bottom of this form.
Correspondence — Item Please place your
initials here if you wish
to receive a copy
1. Letter re: Open Meeting Law
2. Smart City LED Lighting Grant Award
3. Letters re: 5G
4. Spectrum Cable access
5. Biggs Memorial Hospital Cottage listed on Natl Register of Historic Places
6. Letters re: Streetlights
7. Letters re: Short Term Rentals
8. Letter re: COVID-19 mask complaint
1.
Ph(807)273-1771nxi1|U
www.towri. it haca,nv. Lis
From: MikeMacAmanny
Sent: Monday, November 23,2O2O4:4GPM
To: Paulette Rosa
Cc: Rod Howe
Subject: Re: Open Meetings Law
Hello Paulette,
Thank you for your response.
|nlooking atthe OMLkrequires advance notice bothe public ofmeetings, advance
posting of laws to be discussed, and the resulting minutes to be published. I know you
are busy and you have always been helpful to us at the meetings by kindly providing
such materials, and we thank You. However I don't think advance notices have always
been made to the public at large, laws posted in advance, or minutes made public.
Perhaps these are all available to the public at the Town Office(?) and that that is
considered tobeincompliance with the OML
With regard to Executive sessions we are puzzled. The OML is fairly clear on what is
permitted to be discussed in Executive -only, non-public sessions. Minutes ofExecutive
sessions, if taken, are also to be made public if they do not contain discussions of those
non-public subjects. | do not think discussions with counsel are automatically reason
for Executive session- unless, the subjects are among those listed in the applicable
section ofthe Law. SV|amnot sure the Chairman can simply empty the room bv
declaring Executive session, when no one but the Chairman knows what topics are to be
discussed (those topic* permitted by the CIVIL).
Please comment onthe above when you have amoment. Hope you are all well and
looking forward to the holidays.
Mike MacAnanny
OnNov I6,2O2O,at1O:2OAM, Paulette Rosa
Hello Mr. K4ao4nannK
Rod forwarded meyour question regarding Open Meetings Law
adherence. Asthe Town Clerk and Records Management officer for the
Town, |amusually the one that deals with these types ofquestions.
The Town does follow OMLinall instances and levels ofmeetings with
noexceptions orinterpretations unique tothe Town.
Is there a specific aspect or concern You would like an answer to?
Sincerely,
Paulette Rosa
R4o}cVcRouu
Town Clerk
Town o[Ithaca
215 N.TiO(1uSt.
Ithaca, NY 14050
Pb(hA7)273-l72\cx< ||O
Paulette Rosa
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Good Afternoon Mike,
Paulette Rosa
Tuesday, November 24, 2020 4:16 PM
Mike MacAnanny
Rod Howe
RE: Open Meetings Law
I just got off the phone with Kristen O'Neill from the Committee on Open Government to double check my answers to
your questions.
Public Body under OML
The Short Term Rental Committee (STR), is a sub-committee/ad hoc committee consisting of 3 Board members and staff
(regardless of how many attend).
The STR has no authority to make any binding decisions nor were they granted any legislative authority (like the
Planning Board, for example) to do so.
The STR serves as an advisory committee to the Town Board and therefore does not fall under the definition of a public
body under Open Meetings Law (OML)
That said, the Town does conduct many of their committee level meetings under the same basic intent of the OML
whenever possible.
The STR Chair and I have tried our best to keep your group and others informed on the progress of the task.
Advance notice and materials
We have tried to establish a set date to aid in letting the public, and especially your group, know when it is meeting;
though not required.
We have sent out the draft legislation and materials or made them available during the meeting whenever possible;
though not required.
In the beginning I took some simple notes but they are no longer taken. When they were, I made them available to you;
though not required.
Executive Session or Closed session
Again, this committee does not fall under the OML, but, even if it did, the instances where they have closed the meeting
to the public have actually been done as if they were.
I can say that even when they have closed the meeting to the public, they have followed the intent of the rules of
Executive Session / Closed session guidelines and not wavered into aspects of the topic that could have been discussed
in open meeting if they so wished.
The meetings, once they began via zoom, may or may not have been recorded. I did not routinely record them and
actually have not attended quite a few. Recording is not needed nor required. That said, I could look into that for you if
you would like and see if the committee wishes to release them, Again, at this level, those recordings would be
considered Intra-Agency, and not necessarily a record that must be made public, but that M�/ be made public.
Speaking to the Committee
The Chair has allowed/invited discussion at many committee meetings, though not required.
Next Step
When this draft legislation is moved out of Committee to the Town Board level and scheduled to be heard, there will be
a public notice and the draft legislation posted and any and all requirements met under OML for that public body.
I have included the link to the Committee on Open Government for your convenience. Ms. O'Neill isvery responsive
and there is an entire library ofpast opinions on every possible subject both for FOIL arid OK4L.
If you have any further concerns, please let me know and I will be happy to research and respond.
Regards,
Paulette
Ph(6O7)273-|72lux(]l0
wv/vv.toxanl.i!liaca.Nv.Us
From: Mike K4acAnanny<macananny@gmeiicmm>
Sent: Monday, November 23,2O2O4:46PM
To: Paulette Rosa «PRosa@townjthaca.ny.us>
Cc: Rod Hovve<KHmvve@novvnjthacaoyus>
Subject: Re: Open Meetings Law
Hello Paulette,
Thank you for Your response.
In looking at the OML, it requires advance notice to the public of meetings, advance posting of laws to be discussed, and
the resulting minutes to be published. I know you are busy and you have always been helpful to us at the meetings by
kindly providing such materials, and we thank You. However I don't think advance notices have always been made to the
public at large, laws posted in advance, or minutes made public. Perhaps these are all available to the public at the Town
Dffice(?)and that that isconsidered tobeincompliance with the OK4L
With regard to Executive sessions we are puzzled. The OML is fairly clear on what ispermitted tVhediscussed in
Executive -only, non-PUblic sessions. Minutes of Executive sessions, if taken, are also to be made public if they do not
contain discussions of those non-public subjects. I do not think discussions with Counsel are automatically a reason for
Executive session- unless, the subjects are among those listed in the applicable section of the Law. Su|amnot sure the
From: Paulette Rosa
Sent: Tuesday, November 24,2O2O5:5OPK4
To: KxikeK4acAnanny
Subject: Re: Open Meetings Law
I'm sorry, maybe I wasn't clear... the recordings of the regular sessions is what I was talking about.. Closed or executive
sessions are never recorded and would not begiven out.
Paulette Rosa
Town Clerk
Paulette- Thank you for your very comprehensive response and offer to research whether any of the
closed session recordings (and minutes) can be made public. If they can be made public we would very
much like tVexamine them ifyou can help ustoobtain them,
VVemay have some other points toraise with Ms. [/NeU|-thank you for providing her contact
information.
Please have a nice and safe holiday.
Mike
On Nov 24, 2020, at 4:16 PM, Paulette Rosa <ERosa(
A) wrote:
Good Afternoon Mike,
I just got off the phone with Kristen O'Neill from the Committee on Open Government
todouble check myanswers tmyour questions.
Public Body under OML
The Short Term Rental Committee (STR)iaasuL-committee/adhoc committee
consisting of 3 Board members and staff (regardless of how many attend).
The STR has no authority to make any binding decisions nor were they granted any
legislative authority (like the Planning Board, for example) 1odoso.
The STR serves as an advisory committee to the Town Board and therefore does not fall
under the definition of public body under Open Meetings Levv /OK4L\
That said, the Town does conduct many of their committee level meetings under the
same basic intent ofthe OK4Lwhenever possible,
The STIR Chair and | have tried Our best /vkeep your group and others informed nnthe
progress mthe task.
Advance notice and materials
We have tried to establish a set date to aid in letting the public, and especially your
group, know when itismeeting; though not required.
vvehave sent out the draft legislation and materials ormade them available during the
meeting whenever possible; though not required.
mthe beginning | took some simple notes but they are nolonger taken. When they
were, / made them available myou; though not required.
Executive Session u,Closed session
Again, this committee does not fall under the VML,but, even Jitdid, the instances
where they have closed the meeting mthe public have actually been done as if they
were.
I can say that even when they have closed the meeting to the public, they have followed
the intent of the rules of Executive Session / Closed session guidelines and not wavered
into aspects ofthe topic that could have been discussed inopen meeting ifthey m
wished.
The meetings, once they began viaomm'mavo,mavnot»a"eueenremnded. | did not
routinely record ,xrm^ndactua|lyhavenotaurndednuneafew. Recording isnot
needed nor required. That said, | could kmxinto that for you Jyou would like and see if
the committee wishes torelease them. Again, atthis level, those recordings would ue
considered mtra-Agency,and not necessarily arecord that must bemade public, but
that may hemade public.
Speaking tothe Committee
The Chair has allowed/invited discussion atmany committee meetings, though not
required.
Next Step
When this draft legislation i`moved out ofCommittee mthe Town Board level and
scheduled tourheard, there will beapublic notice and the draft legislation posted and
any and all requirements met under oMLfor that public body.
/ have included the link u,the Committee unOpen Government for your
convenience. Ms. O'Neill i,very responsive and there isanentire library nfpast
opinions unevery possible subject both for FOIL and oML.
if you have any further concerns, please let me know and I will be happy to research and
respond.
Regards,
pau|cuc
STATIE OF
OPPORTUtflTY
ANDRBWh8. CUOM()
5ovemnr
Nick Goldsmith
5ustainabi|iLyP|anner
Town of Ithaca
215 North7loga Street
Ithaca NY1485O
0��m � ��
m�Power
Authority
J0HN R, KOELMNEL
[hm/mao
Dear Sustainability Planner Goldsmith,
G�L C. WAMW4ES
The New York Power Authority (NYPA)bpleased to award the Town ofIthaca a Smart City Grant of
$20000. This Smart Street Lighting NY program was created to help communities convert their street
lights to LED technology. The program has agoal to convert 5OO,OODstreet lights state-wide by 2025,
which aligns closely with the Reforming the Energy Vision's (REV) sustainabi|ity goals to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions as well as help municipalities save tax payer money on energy costs.
The purpose ofthis funding btnhelp municipalities explore and implement Smart City technology tm
leverage their existing street lighting infrastructure, enhance their operational efficiency, and improve
public service.
This grant can only be used towards the implementation of Smart City technology including hardware,
software, and labor. The money cannot be used for any other aspects of the turn -key street lighting
project. At final completion, all excess funding will bereturned toNYPm. |nthe event the project cos1s
exceed the budgeted amount, then the municipality will beresponsible for the additional costs. Also,
this funding is only eligible for communities that utilize NYPA's full turn -key service to convert their
street lighting system to LEDs and must be used within 18 months of the approval date. NYPA reserves
the right to modify the parameters of the program at any time, For additional Smart City Grant
requirements please refer toSmart City Grant Application.
The New York Power Authority is proud to support you through this program.
Sinoerehy,
JosephRende
Senior Director, Key Account Management
The New York Power Authority
Paulette Rosa
From: nia riea rid rew93 @g niai Lcom
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 5:23 PM
To: Paulette Rosa; Bill Goodman; Rich DePaolo; Pam Bleiwas; TeeAnn Hunter; Eric Levine; Pat
Leary; Nick Goldsmith; Rod Howe; Susan Ritter; Chris Balestra
Subject: The science recommends a substantial distance between cell towers and homes/schools
ZM
As you continue to consider the installation of hundreds of wireless small cell towers into our
community, we urge you to reconsider the current (shocking) proposal of only 8 feet distance
between cell towers and buildings. There are many studies showing that the negative effects,
increased symptoms and complaints, intensify the closer one lives from a tower. Because of this, as
highlighted in the recent New Hampshire state report on 5G, many communities have adopted codes
that keep them between 500-1500 feet from residences and schools, distances backed up by
scientific studies. From the Feb 2020 issue of Environmental Research:
"There is a large and growing body of evidence that human exposure to RIF radiation from cell
phone base stations causes negative health effects including both i) neuropsychiatric
complaints such as headache, concentration difficulties, memory changes, dizziness, tremors,
depressive symptoms, fatigue and sleep disturbance; and ii) increased incidence of cancer
when living in proximity to a cell -phone transmitter stations. In epidemiological studies that
assessed negative health effects of mobile phone base stations ... 80% reported increased
prevalence of adverse neurobehavioral symptoms or cancer in populations living at
distances less than 500 m [1640 ft] from base stations....
Your charge as local representatives is to devise codes that protect the safety and welfare of your
constituents. Given the mounting evidence of harm from cell towers, as well as the increasing
resistance to 5G around the US, we hope you will courageously stand up to the telecom industry by
enacting the strictest codes possible, including this one concerning the maximum possible distance
for safety.
Thank you.
Andrew and Marie Molnar
From: [hrb8a|asUa
Sent: Thursday, December 1O,2O2O1O:47AK4
To: Bill Goodman; Bill King; Chris 8a|estm; Eric Levine; E HVffmannContact; Marty Moseley;
Pat Leary; Paulette Rosa; SandyPo|ce; Susan Brock; Susan Ritter; Yvonne Fogarty
(asia@|ighdinkzom)
Subject: FW: 5G comment - Fiber optics information
FYI
From: Allison DeSaho<desehoaUison@gmaiicom>
Sent: Thursday, December 1\2O2O1O:3BAM
To: Chris Ba|es\ra<CBa|estra@tovvnjthacaoyus>;Paulette Rosa <PRosa @Lown.ithaca.ny.ua>;Bill Goodman
<BGnodman@tovvnJthacaoyus>| Rich DePao|o<ndepoo|o@tovvnjthace.ny.us>; Pam B|pivvos
<pb|eivvas@townjthaca.ny.us/; TeeAnn Hunter<Lhunter@townjthacaoyus>; Pat Leary <p|eary@townjthaca.ny.us>;
Nick Goldsmith <NGo|dsmith@tovvnjthacaoyus>; Rod Howe <RHovve@town]thaco.ny.us>; Susan Ritter
<SRit1er@hmvxnjthacaoy.us>;Eric Levine *e|evine@Uownjthacany.us>
Subject: Fiber optics information
Dear Town of Ithaca officials,
This brief video features a Verizon representative on why Verizon hasn't installed - and has no intention of installing -
FIOS (fiber optics) as they had promised. (Remember that Verizon FIOS, as it was originally called, along with other
telecoms, was charging fees on your phone bill since the mid-1990's for the future build-OUt of a complete nationwide
fiber optic network system.) It is a solid reminder that telecorn companies are not public utilities serving the public
interest, but rather they are private companies for whom commercial profits, not the well-being of a community, is the
bottom line. And as with any private developer the City Council and City Staff are charged with safeguarding the citizens'
The Irregulators court case earlier this year decided against these telecoms, who had been charging
extra fees Onconsumers' phone bills since the mid 1990'BtOfund future fiber optic systems .... but
then refused t8build out the fiber optic system and used this money [Ofund more lucrative wireless
infrastructures. Now, because of this court decision, municipalities have the opportunity to get
money from these companies for fiber optics. [ hope Ithaca does this, installing the promise Of
fiber optics and leaving behind the empty promises Of5G.
Thank you,
Allison [}eSBriO
Paulette Rosa
From: Rich [>8P8DlO
Subject: "Channels 3`5 andB"
Date: [}Bcenlbe[ 1. 2020 at 8:20:45 PM EST
To: "KellV^Lauren E"
Cc: "MDDheG8nO. Mike []"
Greetings -
Following up on K4ad^ Meyerhofe/s question regarding the availability of channels 3, S and 9 on the
Spectrum App, please inform him that they are available without a set top box.
Franchise language at Section 15.1 is clear that PEG channels "shall be made available at no charge to
any usec° Please reiterate to Mark that all promotional and gateway materials related tothe Spectrum
App indicate that PEG channels are available on the app, and that I have access to virtually every other
channel inmysubscription via the app,with the exception ofPEG channels. Currently, the only way to
acquire access to PEG channels is to spend an additional $7.99 per month for a set top box, which, by
any reasonable definition, constitutes a"charge."
Thank you,
Rich DePuolw
Councily#rsun.Town ofIthaca
2\5North 1lo�uStreet
Ithaca, N`y|4@5O
Paulette Rosa
Subject: FVV Follow -Up Questions
Attachments: RESOLUTION NEXUS.doc; RESOLUTION Amended PEGASYS Policies and Procedures
Manual Sections III and |\(doc
From: Rich DePao|o
Subject: Re: Follow -Up Questions
Date: December2, 2020at2:05:07 PM EST
To: "Ke|kyLauren E"
Cc: "K4nntesan4Mike D"
OnDec 2,2020, at11:BAM, Kelly, Lauren wrote:
am
I have just a few follow-up questions for you regarding last night's meeting.
Atyour earliest convenience, could you please send rneacopy Vfthe resolutions that
were adopted, specifically the resolution concerning the equipment replacement? Since
the December8m date is fast approaching, | want to be sure to send this to those who
need itinternally.
| believe there were two resolutions passed /be|qvvi and another discussed but not moved or voted
upon.
With respect to the separation of production vs. playback, can you please identify the
franchise language that addresses this distinction?
The distinction is referenced at 16 CRR-NY 895.4(c)(7), which states:
"The designation of PEG access facilities shall include the provision by the cable television
franchisee of the technical ability to play back prerecorded prograrnming and to transmit
programming information consistent with the designated uses of PEG access channels."
We are endeavoring to reconcile the difference in our respective interpretations Ofwhat that
language requires of the counterparties.
With regard to the conversation concerning Section 15.9 of the franchise agreement
and the information provided on an annual basis, can you please clarify what you meant
when you referenced access facilities? Were you asking if we would provide annual
information regarding the studio location/studio hours? I am looking into your question
regarding channel lineup.
Section 15.9states:
"The Franchisee, at a minimum, shall provide each subscriber information on the availability of the access
channels, production equipment, training and the Franchisee's address and telephone number on an
annual basis"
It seems fairly literal to me. Charter is required to inform subscribers, at least annually, of the existence of
PEG channels, and the availability ofequipment and training. |nour case, | would assume the latter
applies Vosubscribers within the 3participating PEG municipalities. | brought upthe annual "channel
lineup" disn|oouna, thinking that would be ononvgnient way hmfulfill the requirement without needing a
separate communication.
Thanks.
DRAFT Resolution
Access Oversight Committee
Tuesday, December 1, 2020
Playback System Replacement
WHEREAS the PEGASYS's Playback System (the "Nexus") crashed on May 6,
2020 and could not be repaired; and
WHEREAS, PEGASYS' staff could continue the programming of Channel 13 by
using the City of Ithaca's Nexus until September 30 when it was disconnected by
the City; and
WHEREAS, on June 15 the Access Oversight Committee ("AOC") received a
Sales Quote for the replacement of the Nexus for $29,320.00 that was prepared by
Audio Video Corporation at the request of Charter Communications ("Charter");
and
WHEREAS, a review of the Quote found that it included equipment for the i-Net
and transmission services that cable companies themselves must provide pursuant
to the Franchise Agreement of 2003 and Section 16 CRR-NY 895.4(c)(7) of the
New York Codes, Rules and Regulations; and
WHEREAS, the discussion of these issues between Charter and the AOC is
ongoing, and
WHEREAS, Channel 13 has been off the air since September 30; and
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca has donated its Nexus to the AOC;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the AOC accepts the City's Nexus to
be installed at PEGASYS to restore Channel 13's programming, and to be used
until a permanent solution is reached; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the AOC requests Charters assistance to install
the NEXUS at PEGASYS at their earliest convenience, but not later than 12/8/20,
after which time, AOC will investigate hiring a qualified installer.
DRAFT Resolution
Access Oversight Committee
Tuesday, November 10, 2020
Resolution of Approval to amend Sections III, IV, VII and VIII of the Policies
and Procedures Manual of March 3, 2020
WHEREAS, the current Policies and Procedures Manual ("Manual) for the
PEGASYS Community Media Center ("PEGASYS") was approved by the Access
Oversight Committee ("AOC") on March 3, 2020; and
WHEREAS, the AOC wishes to amend Sections III, IV, VII and VIII of the
Manual;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the AOC approves amending the
Policies and Procedures Manual of March 3, 2020, as described further in the
attached document, "Policies and Procedures Manual — Amendments of
December 1, 2020".
Policies and Procedures Manual — Amendments of December 1, 2020
Ill. RULES WITHIN THE PEGASYS CUMMUNITY MEDIA CENTER ("PEGASYS")
111.1 Hours of Operation
PEGASYS has the following hours of operation:
5:30 PM - 9:30 PM Monday, Tuesday and Thursday
1:00 PM - 5:00 PM Wednesday.
PEGASYS will be closed at certain holidays. Hours may change during staff
vacations. Notification of closings or changes in hours of operation will be posted on
the PEGASYS Notice Board and forwarded by Email to all producers as well as the
members of the AOC.
IV. THE PRODUCTION PROCESS
IV.1 Production Planning
Staff is available to help Producers get the most from PEGASYS' production
facilities. It is best to make an appointment for time -intensive production
consultations. This is mandatory for New Producers.
IV.2 Production and Equipment Reservations
Production time and equipment will be allocated on a first -come, first -served
basis.
To reserve studio, editing or portable facilities or equipment you must:
a. be a Certified Producer;
b. have a current Public Access Cablecast Agreement and Producer Responsibility
Contract on file; and
c. have an individual or series project profile created by Staff.
Cancellations of reservations must be made no later than one week before the
scheduled date.
Producers are responsible for assembling their own crew. All technical crew must
have completed PEGASYS training. Although producers may not expect PEGASYS
Staff to serve as crew on their productions, Staff may serve as crew on productions,
at the sole discretion of Staff.
Reservations for non-PEGASYS related projects will be possible on a short-term
basis and only when the requested equipment is not reserved or used for PEGASY
projects. Such rentals are subject to the Rental Fee Schedule, attached at Section
VIII-9. Staff will determine if the renter's prior training on the PEGASYS equipment
is sufficient. Disputes should be brought before the AOC for a final decision,
The Community Bulletin Board (CBB) is an electronic calendar of upcoming
community events, running on the Public Access channel when local programming is
not scheduled. It is available at no charge for non-commercial events. Space is
limited to a few lines of text: what, when, and where the event will be held, and
contact information, if desired. Items for the Community Bulletin Board should be
Emailed to PEGASYS Staff at Laureii.Stefarielli@chatler.com.
The Governmental Bulletin Boards runs on the Governmental Access and are
administered by the Tompkins County Clerk and the City Clerk.
VIII APPENDIX
9. Commercial Rentals
Commercial Rentals
PEGASYS facilities are available for commercial rental during hours not designated for
PEG access use. Facility rentals do not include Staff. Pre -requisite for use is prior training
on PEGASYS equipment or equivalent experience. Reservations for studio or editing
facilities must be made at least one week in advance. Reservations for portable equipment
is available on very short-term basis only. Confirmation can be made no more than 48
hours in advance in order to preserve priority for access use. Payment is required at the
time of rental.
Current Rates are:
Main Studio
$110 / hour
Non -Linear Editing Computer on -site $50 / hour
[Adobe Premiere CS6]
JVC GY150U Digital Camera
[including tripod, AC adapter,
mic and 2 batteries] $60 / up to 24 hours
Sony NX5 Digital Camera
[including tripod, AC adapter,
mic and 2 batteries]
GoPro Hero 2 Digital Camera
[including 1 battery and 1
mount of choice]
$75 / up to 24 hours
$25 / up to 24 hours
Accessories Type A: [per item] $10 / up to 24 hours
[individual lights with stands/reflectors,
Mics [wired or wireless], tripods,
other smaller items]
Accessories Type B: [per item] $40 / up to 24 hours
[multiple light kit, Premiere edit laptop,
Video switcher, digital audio recorder]
Parks, Recreation
—fl-3NEWYORK
5 STATE OF
E0KKULLESBD
Commissioner
Honorable Rod Howe
Supervisor, Town ofIthaca
215North TioQoStreet
Ithaca, NY1485O
Re: Biggs Memorial Hospital Cottage
4O2Harris BDates Drive
Ithaca, NY14G5O
Tompkins County
Dear Rod Howe:
|ampleased to inform you that the above referenced property was listed November 23, 2020 on the
National Register [fHistoric Places. Aeyou may know, the National Register iethe nation's official list of
properties worthy ofpreservation. Listing Onthe National Register recognizes the importance ofthese
properties to the history ofour country and provides them with a measure of protection. /n addition, owners of
income producing properties may qualify for federal andlor state income tax benefits. Homeowners in
qualifying census tracts may qualify for state income tax benefits for approved work, Propertieomwned
by municipalities and not-fopprofitorganizations are eligible toapply for state historic pnaeemadVn matching
grants.
We encourage you tolearn more about the registers from our website.
where you will find more information about the criteria for listing,
frequently asked questions about the registers, and information about incentive programs for designated
properties.
|fyou would like more information about any ofthese programs, please contact your field
representative, inthis case, Virginia Bados. at the Division for Historic Preservation et(518) 268-2161.
Division staff maintains e continuing interest in all oagishansd properties and will be happy to answer any
questions you may have.
Sincerely,
R. Daniel Mackay
Deputy Commissioner for Historic Preservation and
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation
QMsionfor HistohoPemematimn,Peab|eaIsland, PQBox 189.vVatedani.New York, 12188-Q18S
0518-237'88430 0
Vfhat is a preservation tax credit?
It is a set percentage of the final historic rehabilitation costs subtracted from tile amount of
federal and/or state income taxes owed.
0
1 0 0 0 0 0 a
A
0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
Owners of historic commercial, office, induor strial, afederal gricultural or
residential rental properties may be eligible f20% and 20%
state historic preservation income tax credits for rehabation projects.
M You must own an income -producing property.
• The property must be listed on the New York State and National Registers of Historic
Places individually or contributing to a listed historic district; or in the process of listing
• All the work must be approved by the Division for Historic Preservation before you begin.
• To apply for the state preservation tax credit, the property must also be located in an
eligible census tract as well as qualify for the federal credit.
The rehabilitation work must follow the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for
Rehabilitation (visit ni)�,�s.gov/tps�/ltandards.htm), which focuses on repairing historic
materials, retaining character -defining features and preserving important interior spaces.
The credit does not cover new construction outside the existing footprint of the historic
Contact the division for assistance early in the project planning process before you begin
work.
• Projects are reviewed by the division prior to submission to the National Park Service,
which is responsible for final tax credit project approval.
• The tax credits are a dollar -for -dollar reduction in federal and state tax liability.
• The cost of the rehabilitation must be equal to or greater than the adjusted basis of the
property; basically, the adjusted basis is the value of property minus the value of the
land.
• The three part application includes: 1. Evaluation of the property's significance; 2.
Description of the proposed rehabilitation; and 3. Certification of completed work.
QUICK TIPS
• Thoroughly photograph the inside and outside of your building to document its existing,
pre -rehabilitation condition.
• Historic windows, significant interior spaces and original floor plans are important,
character -defining features that require careful consideration and appropriate treatment
during project planning and construction.
New York State Historic Preservation Office YORK Parks, Recreation
Division for Historic Preservation F, TY and Historic Preservation
parks.ny.gov/shpo L4 Sn"IEROT"
Q A,r" 1010
If I want to apply for the credit, what should I do?
For more information, the application, or to find out if your house is eligible, please visit
hftps://parks.ny.gov/shpo/tax-credit-programs/ or call 518-268-2213 to speak to the DHP staff
member who covers your municipality.
2➢
1 I'=TF
7
ll," X11 ' "
Yes. As long as the work does not alter the house's overall historic appearance. High efficient
heating systems, solar installation, insulation, and other weatherization projects may be eligible
expenses. Please note that existing wood windows can be made more energy efficient with
proper repair, including the installation of weather stripping and interior or exterior storm
windows, which are additionally eligible expenses.
Window replacement is an eligible expense if the existing windows are not historic or cannot be
repaired due to severe deterioration. You must provide photographs of the windows to show
their condition and the proposed replacements must be approved by the division. Vinyl or vinyl
clad windows are generally not acceptable. If you are approved for replacements, staff will
request the product information for the proposed windows.
Can I Install vinyl siding on my house?
Replacing repairable historic material is never recommended; however, if the historic material
cannot be repaired because of the extent of the damage., we recommend that the material is
replaced in -kind. The use of modern materials over existing wood or masonry may lead to future
moisture damage to the structure and will diminish the historic appearance of the building.
171111711MME
Yes. Generally, only the work associated with the homeowner -occupied portion of the house is
eligible. There is a formula to include repairs of the property to areas of the home that are shared
with your tenants. Please contact your DHP representative for more information. Additionally,
your house may be eligible for historic preservation tax incentives for commercial properties.
���
This historic tax credit is taken in the year that the owner receives a Certification of Completion
from the Division for Historic Preservation; the certificate is issued when work is completed and
Part 3 of the tax credit application is submitted and approved.
The credit can be carried over to subsequent years until it is used. If your household adjusted
gross income is below $60,000, the unused credit will be issued as a refund.
Yes. If you receive certification for the completed work, or approval of Part 3 of the application,
and want to pass the entire credit on to the first purchaser, you may. The buyer needs to live in
the house, and needs to claim the credit within five years of certification. This can be useful if
you are selling the house or for an organization that does not pay taxes to rehabilitate historic
buildings and improve neighborhoods.
11� 1111111liq 11
=1 r7,TTTF3?,r7 TMV41 &
A
krill,
a You must own and live in the house.
The repair costs must exceed $5,000 and you
must spend at least 5% on exterior work.
All the work must be approved by the Division
for Historic Preservation (DHP) before you
begin.
Buffalo
Exterior and interior work is eligible and you can undertake a variety of repairs and/or
replacements as long as the work does not significantly change your house's overall
historic appearance, including but not limited to:
• Structural systems, including foundations, floor joists and ceiling and attic rafters.
• Roofs, including roof coverings, rafters, fascia, soffits, gutters and downspouts.
• Interior work, including floors, walls, stairs, ceilings and trim around windows and
doors.
• Utility systems, including heating, ventilation, air conditioning, electrical and plumbing
systems as well as fire safety and security systems.
• Windows and doors, including glass, frames, shutters, hardware and storm windows.
• Exterior walls, cornices, porches and foundations, including siding, dormers, brackets,
columns, railings, stairs, window and door trim, concrete or masonry walls and
chimneys.
• Weatherproofing, including caulking, weather-stripping and some insulation upgrades.
Please note that the credit does not apply to work outside the footprint of the house, such
as new additions, landscaping, driveways, fencing, or detached garages.
New York State Historic Preservation Office ' YORK Parks, Recreation
Division for Historic Preservation 5,71 E OF
parks.ny.gov/shpo C PPOVUtTY and Historic Preservation
rev. Aug 2019
Can an owner object to having his or her property listed on the registers? Yes. Private property owners
may object to National Register listing, If the property has one owner, that owner's objection will prevent the
listing. If the property has multiple owners, the majority of the owners must object in order to prevent listing.
For properties with multiple owners, such as districts, objections only count toward the listing of the district as
a whole. No one owner can exempt himself or herself from listing in a district by means of an objection,
Although the State Register does not recognize owner objections, it is the policy of the SHPO to avoid listings
with significant objections and to work with nomination sponsors and communities to provide information and
education about the registers program.
How long does it take to get a property listed? The length of time required for the preparation and review of
an individual nomination is typically twelve months or longer, depending on the quality of the application and
staff workloads. Historic districts generally require at least a year to account for their greater complexity and
the additional need for public comment,
How do the State and National Registers differ from local landmark designation? State and National
Registers listing should not be confused with local landmark designation. Many communities have enacted
local landmark ordinances that establish commissions with the authority to review proposed work on locally
designated properties. These commissions are established and operated independently from the State and
National Registers, which do not regulate the actions of private property owners unless state or federal funds
are used or a state or federal permit is required. National Register listing does not automatically lead to local
landmark designation, and local districts often differ from those listed on the registers.
Must owners of listed buildings open their buildings to the public? No. There is absolutely no
requirement to open register -listed properties to the public.
Will a property owner be able to leave his property to his children or anyone else he/she wishes? Yes,
Listing on the registers in no way affects the transfer of property from one owner to another.
Will listing on the State and National Registers, either individually or in a historic district, affect local
property taxes or zoning? No. Listing has no direct bearing on any of these local actions.
How can an owner get a State and National Registers plaque to display on his or her building?
Although the SHPO does not provide plaques, a list of manufacturers is available upon request.
How does listing protect a building and its Surroundings? The registers are a valuable tool in the planning
of publicly funded, licensed or permitted projects. Government agencies are responsible for avoiding or
reducing the effects of projects on properties that are eligible for or listed on the registers. Listing raises
awareness of the significance of properties, helping to ensure that preservation issues are considered early
and effectively in the planning process.
How do I find out if my building is already listed? Check out the SHPO's online database, the Cultural
Resource Information System (CRIS), which is on our website here: https://cris.parks.ny,.qov, Here, you can
enter as a guest, hit the "Search" button at the top of the page, and search with the address, name of the
property, or search by zooming into the map. Your building may not already be listed, but we may have some
preliminary information already in CRIS, For more guidance, contact your National Register Unit
representative.
Where can I find out more about the State and National Registers? Contact the Division for Historic
Preservation at (518) 237-8643, visit our website at https:Hparks,tiy..qov/shpo/national-register/
or see the National Park Service website at hftps://www,nps.gov/sublects/nationalregister/index.htm.
E�NE ORK � Parks, Recreation
6 'T. " N1 and Historic Preservation
Updated July 2019
What are the State and National Registers of Historic Places? The State and National Registers are the
official lists of properties significant in history, architecture, engineering, landscape design, archeology, and
culture. Properties may be significant in local, state and/or national contexts. More than 120,000 properties in
New York have received this prestigious recognition.
What qualifies a property for listing on the registers? The registers recognize all aspects of New York's
diverse history and Culture. Eligible properties must represent a significant historic theme (e.g., architecture,
agriculture, industry, transportation) and they must be intact enough to illustrate their association with that
theme. Properties must usually be more than 50 years of age to be considered for listing.
What are the benefits of being listed on the registers? The State and National Registers are a recognized
and visible component of public and private planning. The registers promote heritage tourism, economic
development and appreciation of historic resources. Benefits include:
• Official recognition that a property is significant to the nation, the state, or the local community.
• Eligibility to apply for the state homeowner tax credit and/or the state and federal commercial historic
rehabilitation tax credits.
• Eligibility (not -for -profit organizations and municipalities only) to apply for New York State historic
preservation grants. Other grants, also requiring listing, may be available through other public and private
sources,
• Properties that meet the criteria for registers listing receive a measure of protection from state and federal
undertakings regardless of their listing status. State and federal agencies must consult with the SHPO to
avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to listed or eligible properties.
Will State and National Registers listing restrict the use of a property? If you are not using federal or
state funds to complete Your project (e.g. a grant or tax credit, CD funds, a Main Street Grant) and you do not
require a state or federal permit to undertake it (e.g. DEC permit), you are free to remodel, alter, paint,
manage, subdivide, sell, or even demolish a National or State Register listed property (as long as you comply
with local zoning). If state or federal funds are used or if a state or federal permit is required, proposed
alterations may be reviewed by SHPO staff if the property is either listed or determined eligible for listing.
What kinds of properties can be included in the registers? Buildings and structures such as
residences, churches, commercial buildings and bridges; sites such as cemeteries, landscapes and
archaeological sites; districts, including groups of buildings, structures or sites that are significant as a whole,
such as farmsteads, residential neighborhoods, industrial complexes and cultural landscapes; and objects,
such as fountains and monuments.
What is a historic district? A historic district is a group of buildings, structures, and sites that are significant
for their historical and physical relationships to each other. Properties in districts are not usually significant
individually but gain meaning from their proximity and association with each other. A district may include any
number of properties.
What is the process for listing a property on the registers? To begin, an application must be
submitted to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for evaluation. If the property is determined eligible
for listing, the nomination sponsor is responsible for providing documentation that describes the property's
setting and physical characteristics, documents its history, conveys its significance in terms of its historic
context, and demonstrates how it meets the register criteria. The New York State Board for Historic
Preservation reviews completed nominations. If the board recommends the nomination, the New York State
Historic Preservation Officer (Commissioner of the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation) lists
the property on the State Register and forwards it to the National Park Service for review and listing on the
National Register.
11 1 1
I � I I R q
E YORK � Parks, Recreation
arras...... M and Historic Preservation
Rev. July 2019
The following criteria are used to evaluate properties for listing on the National and State Registers of
Historic Places. The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology,
engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures and objects that possess
integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association and
Criterion A: that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of our history; or
Criterion B: that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or
Criterion C. that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction
or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a
significant distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
Criterion D: that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
Ordinarily cemeteries, birthplaces, or graves of historical figures, properties owned by religious
institutions or used for religious purposes, structures that have been moved from their original
locations, reconstructed historic buildings, properties primarily commemorative in nature, and
properties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years shall not be considered eligible for
the State and National Registers, However, Such properties will qualify if they are integral parts of
districts that do meet the criteria or if they fall within the following categories:
A. a religious property deriving primary significance from architectural or artistic distinction or
historical importance; or
B. a building or structure removed from its original location but which is significant primarily for
architectural value, or which is the surviving structure most importantly associated with a historic
person or event; or
C. a birthplace or grave of a historical figure of outstanding importance if there is no other appropriate
site or building directly associated with his productive life; or
D. a cemetery that derives its primary significance from graves of persons of transcendent
importance, from age, from distinctive design features, or from association with historic events; or
E. a reconstructed building when accurately executed in a suitable environment and presented as
part of a restoration master plan, and when no other building or structure with the same association
has survived; or
F. a property primarily commemorative in intent if design, age, tradition, or symbolic value has
invested it with its own historical significance; or
G. a property achieving significance within the past 50 years if it is of exceptional importance.
111111111! 111 !111111111111111111111 Ilill K, 1111111111
E RK I Parks, Recreation
'Y and Historic Preservation
Rev. July 2019
Paulette Rosa
From:
Rod Howe
Sent:
Thursday, December 3, 2020 1:24 PM
To:
Nick Goldsmith
Cc:
Paulette Rosa
Subject: FW: Street Lighting
FYI
From: Janet Wagner <janetrwagner@msn.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 3, 20201:23 PM
To: TeeAnn Hunter <thunter@town.ithaca.ny.us>
Cc: Rod Howe <RHowe @town.ithaca.ny.us>; Rich DePaolo <rdepaolo@town.ithaca.ny.us>
Subject: Street Lighting
Hi Tee -Ann,
I read that you are the chairman of the committee for town streetlights. I missed the Nov. open meeting and
the minutes aren't yet online, so apologies if the following issue has already been dealt with: My husband, Bill
Sonnenstuhl, and I detest the orange color of the streetlights that have been replacing the old, colorless ones.
The orange color is actually rather nauseous, especially when reflected on the snow. It's not a pretty sight to
see our yard flooded with orange. As each light needs replacing, can it please be replaced with a clear bulb?
And do we need such strong lights? We really don't have to light up the place to prevent muggings, which was,
indeed, an issue when Bill and I lived in NY City many years ago. It seems that Ithaca is going in the wrong
direction when it comes to the issue of light pollution.
Janet Wagner
206 Winston Drive
Paulette Rosa
From:
Rod Howe
Sent:
Thursday, December 10, 2020 8:05 AM
To:
Paulette Rosa
Subject:
FW: LED Street Lighting
FYI
From: Bruce Brittain <brucebrittain@verizon.net>
Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 9:16 PM
To: TeeAnn Hunter <thunter@town.ithaca.ny.us>; Rod Howe <RHowe@town.ithaca.ny.us>; rd@richdepaolo.com; Nick
Goldsmith <NGoldsmith@town.ithaca.ny.us>; Joe Slater <jslater@town.ithaca.ny.us>; Laura Pastore
<LPastore@town.ithaca.ny.us>
Cc: caroline.arms@gmaii.com; jtholden@gmail.com
Subject: LED Street Lighting
DATE: December 9, 2020
TO: Public Works Committee: Tee Ann Hunter, Rod Howe, Rich Depaolo
Town Staff: Nick Goldsmith, Joe Slater, Laura Pastore
CC: FHIA: Caroline Arms, Jeff Holden
FROM: Bruce and Doug Brittain
RE: LED Street Lighting
Thank you for your continuing efforts to convert the Town's streetlights to LED.
We see that "LED Streetlights Design Discussion" is on the PWC agenda for next Tuesday. We plan
to attend (via Zoom), and have several questions and concerns. We thought that we should get
these to you beforehand, in order to allow PWC members time to consider some of these issues, and
to provide Nick time to find some answers before the meeting.
DIMMING
Many LEDs do not produce a constant light, but instead flash rapidly on and off. This is especially
true for "dimmable" LEDs that reduce their light output by flashing. Some people (us included!) find
this to be very bothersome, with the flash rate triggering severe headaches and a nausea
response. The Epilepsy Foundation has indicated that flashing lights can also trigger
seizures. Illuminating an area with light that is rapidly alternating between bright and dark is also
difficult on the viewer's eyes, since the pupil is unable to respond rapidly enough to the varying
lighting conditions. This harsh lighting is sometimes referred to as "glare," even though it does not fit
the typical definition. Since one of the Town's goals is to encourage walking, rather than driving, we
need to provide a welcoming visual environment for the night-time streetscape. This can best be
accomplished by having the lights be either full -on or full -off. How much electricity would actually be
saved by dimming? And would it be worth the discomfort and aggravation that a rapidly flashing light
can cause?
SMART CONTROL
During last month's meeting, Nick mentioned that one option would be for the streetlights to be high-
tech. Each would have its own wi-fi sending -unit, which would transmit information to a central
computer. This seems entirely unnecessary, and just something else to go wrong. Is it really
needed? It seems more like an excuse to include "cutting -edge technology," just because we can.
METERING
Nick also mentioned that each streetlight could have its own electric meter. The existing lights are
billed on an estimate of electricity usage -- a tariff This is probably sufficient. Do we really need an
increased level of detail on the bills from NYSEG?
AESTHETICS
What do the new pole -arms and lamp -heads look like? What options are available? Would different
Lighting Districts want different designs?
COLOR TEMPERATURE
What color temperatures are available, and which offers the most natural lighting, providing the most
inviting illumination of the streetscape? Our guess is that 2700K would work well. How narrow is the
color spectrum? And how does this affect visual acuity?
SOLAR COLLECTORS ON UTILITY POLES
We have noticed that some municipalities (including Princeton, NJ) have small, dedicated solar
collectors mounted on the same utility poles as the streetlights. Some lamp -heads even have
integrated solar (and wind!) collectors. Is this something that the Town should consider?
OPPORTUNITY TO RETHINK STREET LIGHTING, WRIT LARGE
If all of the existing streetlights are going to be exchanged for new ones, this would be a great
opportunity to take a hard look at the current setup, and to make changes and
improvements. Variables to consider include:
- Which utility poles the lights should be mounted on -- Same as now or different?
- The height of the lights above the road surface.
- The length of the arms -- How close to the center of the road the light is located.
- Light distribution pattern -- What part of the road/shoulder/walkway/crosswalk should be illuminated?
- Brightness -- How bright should the lights be? Should intersection lights be brighter than (or
a different color than) Lighting District lights?
- The boundaries of the Lighting Districts -- Have some neighborhoods spread outward, and should
their Lighting Districts follow?
- The possible addition of new Lighting Districts.
- Etc.
One example that comes immediately to mind is the street lamp at the Pleasant Grove Rd / Forest
Home Dr intersection. The existing streetlight is not actually *at* the intersection, just nearby, and
does nothing to illuminate the crosswalk. Ideally, the light would be moved to the utility pole that is
closer to the crosswalk, and the light distribution pattern would be adjusted so that the light
illuminated the full length of the crosswalk, but did not shine into the windows of the house at 200
FHD (Caroline Arms' house; she may be concerned about light spilling into her bedroom). We are
sure that this is just one example of many. If all of the lamps in the Town are going to be changed
anyhow, there will never be an easier time to make any changes.
Thank you very much. We are looking forward to a good discussion next Tuesday.
Paulette Rosa
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Thanks for quick response!
E.
Elaina M. McCartney <elaina.mccartney@cornell.edu>
Wednesday, December 9, 2020 8:23 PM
Paulette Rosa
Re: Urgent: Comments for STR meeting Dec. 14
On Dec 9, 2020, at 19:55, Paulette Rosa <PRosa@town.ithaca.ny.us> wrote:
Thank you for your comments. They will be sent to the committee and the full board
Paulette
Paulette Rosa
Town Clerk
On Dec 9, 2020, at 7:52 PM, Elaina M. McCartney
<elaina.mccartney@cornell.edu> wrote:
Dear Paulette,
I live at 845 Taughannock Blvd. Some neighbors have alerted me that a few people have
some general concerns regarding short -terms rentals in the Town of Ithaca. I wanted to
make sure that our unique situation as lakeshore residents are taken into account, as
we are less densely populated than areas of Ithaca where problems may have
occasionally occurred. It seems to us that any occasional noise or parking issues can
easily be dealt with by means other than restricting everyone's ability to have guests
enjoy living on the lake short-term. (Ithaca already has a noise ordinance and one may
call Police Dispatch anonymously at 607-272-3245 to complain and get prompt action.)
I've attached a pdf copy of my letter that I'd like you share with anyone concerned
about STR issues, especially the STR committee that is scheduled to meet Dec. 14. The
letter is also reprinted below.
Thanks!
Elaina McCartney
607-339-9940
Elaina McCartney
845 Taughannock Blvd.
Ithaca NY 14850
12/8/2020
To: STR Committee
Re: Response to possible concerns about lakefront short-term rentals
I have owned and lived in my duplex home at 845 Taughannock Blvd. for 25 years.
The downstairs apartment has been operated as an Airbnb rental since 2015, is
certified, and meets all inspection requirements.
Like other properties along Cayuga Lake, we provide beautiful lakefront
accommodations to tourists, families visiting local residents, parents visiting or
dropping off Cornell and Ithaca College attendees, tourists sampling the Wine Trail,
Art Trail, parks and well-known restaurants, local Ithacans who want the lakeside
experience, or writers wanting peace and quiet. Sometimes we're the home base for
reunions, conference attendees, families dropping off their college -bound children,
kayakers, paddleboarders, boaters (mooring provided), swimming enthusiasts,
birdwatchers, and so on. We generate a 3% room tax for Tompkins County that is
paid automatically by Airbnb. For me, as a retiree on a fixed income, short term
rentals provide a stable way for me to pay the high lakefront property and school
taxes and continue to live here.
We have had zero complaints from neighbors regarding our Airbnb short-term
rentals, including zero complaints about parking or noise. We have a small parking
lot along the road where guests are allocated a parking spot, and there is plenty of
parking on the other side of Route 89. Recycling and trash are managed as any
responsible homeowner does, and the premises are kept clean and well -maintained
inside and out. Our guest agreement stipulates that there are no events or parties
and no dock use after 10 pm, and we strictly limit the number of guests.
The Town of Ithaca already has a Noise Ordinance should there ever be an issue
with any short terms rentals along the lake. An anonymous call may be made to
Ithaca Police Dispatch at 607-272-3245 and an officer would deal with it promptly. We
have made
this information available to our neighbors but no one has had to use it.
I believe short term rentals along the shore of Cayuga Lake contribute to the local
economy in a very positive way, and allow visitors to experience what makes Ithaca
so special.
<M cCartney_STR_Ietter.pdf>
Paulette Rosa
From:
Bill Goodman
Sent:
Wednesday, December 9, 2020 11:14 PM
To:
Pat Leary; TeeAnn Hunter; Rich DePaolo
Cc:
Paulette Rosa; Marty Moseley; Susan Ritter
Subject:
FW: Short term lake rentals
Hi folks, forwarding this email I received. I have replied and explained we are not "eliminating" STRs, just regulating, and
that we will be discussing the Lakefront Residential limits on Monday.
One thing to think about before Monday is whether you want me to allow public comments at the next meeting. Since I
didn't allow public comments last time, some of the Renwick Heights folks contacted our county legislators to complain
about our process - Debra Dawson called me to explain they even wanted to meet with her - I still have to call her to see
how that meeting went. They also contacted Paulette to find out about the Open Meetings Law, and Paulette explained
to them (after confirming with Albany) that we don't have to allow public comments.
Bill Goodman
Deputy Supervisor, Town of Ithaca
215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
607-592-6745, cell
-----Original Message -----
From: Benjamin Weiner <ben@wineryconnect.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 2:33 PM
To: Bill Goodman <BGoodman@town.ithaca.ny.us>
Subject: Short term lake rentals
Hello Mr Goodman,
I am a 2-family homeowner on the west shore of the lake in the town of ithaca. I have owned this property since 1995
was recently made aware of the Town making plans to eliminate short term rentals, and I am complied to respond. I
would also appreciate receiving a link to join the meeting on Monday.
Since 1995, 1 have rented my place on various levels. Sometimes year round, but most often I rent one unit as an
academic year rental, and then over the summer I rent it by the week. As the taxes have increased over the years, I
have leaned more towards these weekly summer rentals. Over these 25 yrs, it has become very clear that the vast
majority of this income goes to simply paying the taxes. Much of the rest goes towards maintenance which is unending
on the lake.
I will look into the history of this new proposed zoning (pls send any info you have), but I have always had families that
come to enjoy Ithaca and the lake. I've never had a problem with my neighbors about it. I do not understand the
reasoning behind trying to limit this right.
Perhaps there are other problems, which I would assume are related to even shorter terms like weekend rentals and
parties, but I need to rent in these lucrative summer months in order to pay my taxes. A complete elimination of that
would likely make this place I love so much rendered untenable and unaffordable.
I appreciate you hearing my voice. I will share the same at the meeting on Monday.
To: Short Term Rental Committee and Town of Ithaca Board Members
From: Carolyn Greenwald
Date: December 10, 2020
Re: Lakeside District Continued Exclusion
Dear Short Term Rental Committee and Town of Ithaca Board,
I write to zealously advocate for the continued exclusion of the lakefront district from the
proposed STR regulations.
My first argument in favor of the continued exclusion for lakefront properties is that the STIR
committee has been saying since at least 2018 that lakefront properties would be specifically
excluded from the current and first imposed regulations. I have attended almost every STR
committee meeting since May 2018 and I have heard the committee state that lakefront
properties would be excluded no less than 30 times. I recall letters from lake property
homeowners being set aside and excluded from consideration by the committee since the
proposed regulations would not impact these homeowners.
On November 14, 2019, 1 reviewed the proposed regulations after they had been edited by the
Town's attorney. I immediately saw that the way she restructured the document inadvertently
removed the lakefront exclusion. I reached out to Bill Goodman who assured me that the
restructuring of the document was not intended to make substantive changes and, "shouldn't
have any different implications than before." Attached please find a copy of this email from Bill.
Despite the inadvertent substantive change and Bill's assurance to me, the changes made by the
attorney remain. On February 10, 2020, the STR committee had a meeting with Susan Brock in
attendance. The discussion at the meeting confirmed that Ms. Brock did not understand that the
lakefront district was to be excluded when she restructured the document. She said something
to the effect of, "just so I understand, let's go one by one through the restrictions and tell me
which ones should apply to lakefront properties." Going through all the restrictions, Bill kept
saying "no, it should not apply." At this point, Ms. Brock said something to the effect of "Ok, we
need to talk about this in closed session."
Since 2018,1 have been relying on the repeated statements from the STR committee and its chair
that lakefront properties would be excluded from restrictions. Many lakefront owners have not
expressed their concerns and fears because of this position, and it is unfair to set aside or avoid
their concerns and input only to add this small subset of properties late in the game. An
inadvertent drafting error should not have substantive effect or cause constituents' to be
ignored.
My second argument in favor of the continued exclusion for lakefront properties is that there
is a long history and tradition of short term rentals of lakefront properties in the Town of Ithaca
that pre -dates Airbnb and the newfound popularity of STIR in general. As some of you know, my
husband and I purchase our house (which is now 889 Taughannock, then it was 887 Taughannock)
in the summer of 2001. Even though we stretched our budget to the max, we bought a complete
fixer -upper. We used credit cards to finance big jobs like siding the house (it was covered only in
plywood) and would pay off the bills with help from short term renting. We listed our house with
the Tompkins County Visitor Center and on craigslist. We didn't start using Airbnb until thirteen
years later in 2014. Thus, we have a 20 year history of renting our home that pre -dates Airbnb by
more than a decade. Year round short term rentals are in keeping with long established traditions
of the lakefront properties.
My third argument in favor of the continued exclusion of lakefront properties is that tourist
dollars are vital to the Town of Ithaca economy. At least 50% of the folks who stay at my property
did not choose to come to Ithaca, they chose to rent my lakefront property. I can see this because
the websites provide me with information as to which other houses a guest also considered.
Many of these tourists will go elsewhere if there are no available lakefront houses for short term
rent in the Town of Ithaca. Of the remaining percentage, some portion of them will elect to stay
at the Marriott or another hotel owned by outside investors. It seems far better to me to keep
that money in the local economy. I honestly and truly believe that the committee is seriously
underestimating how much the local economy relies on tourism and how much tourism is now
tied to short term rentals. I recommend local establishments to my guests all the time. I send
them to The Commons, I recommend restaurants, I recommend local shops. This is not a time to
cut off this supply of dollars spent locally.
My fourth argument in favor of the continued exclusion of lakefront properties is that an entire
industry has developed around successful management of lakefront properties and provides
employment to low income workings, particularly working moms. Just this week I walked into
my house and found the cleaner hard at work. She had her two year old son and four year old
daughter with her. Her son was playing with a toy truck I keep at the house and the daughter was
playing monopoly. I cannot think of another job Corinna could have done where she could bring
her children along and they could safely play with toys while she worked. I use a house cleaning
service run by Jess Aguilar. I met Jess about 10 years ago. She put herself through school by
cleaning short term rental lake properties. She now helps other young women do the same. I
know of at least four nurses who have worked for me through Jess and put themselves through
school with the income. Ten years later, less, who now has a master's degree and works full time
in a correctional facility, just bought her first rental property (it's not in Ithaca). In short, the
economic impact of limitations on short term rentals is not limited to loosing tourist dollars, we
will also be losing Town of Ithaca jobs. If short term rentals are only allowed during summer
weeks, this employment opportunity disappears overnight, because these morns and young
students need year-round employment.
My fifth argument in favor of the continued exclusion of lakefront properties is that the
committee's concern that STRs adversely impact neighborhoods is inapplicable to lakefront
properties. As you are aware, due to the steep slope and the busy 55 mile per hour highway, the
lakefront is not a neighborhood. There are no sidewalks or connections between the properties
and as a result there is little interaction between neighbors. Short term summer vacations have
been the norm for these properties for decades and are not out of character with the
neighborhood.
My sixth argument in favor of the continued exclusion of lakefront properties is that this
exclusion will not impact the affordable housing stock of Ithaca. The lakefront properties are
not 'affordable housing' nor numerous enough to impact the housing stock as a whole. We are
talking only about a handful of vacation homes. The days of buying an inexpensive fixer -upper
are long gone. Thus, there is no danger of short term rental owners buying otherwise affordable
housing and converting it into an STR.
My seventh argument in favor of the continued exclusion of lakefront properties is that it is a
small number of the whole. Of the short term rentals in Ithaca, only a few dozen are lakefront
properties. Excluding this small number of houses is of enormous benefit to Ithaca tourism with
little adverse impact on Town of Ithaca policy goals.
My eighth argument in favor of the continued exclusion of lakefront properties is that the
exclusion will directly benefit Town of Ithaca residents. Often times, the people who rent our
home are Ithacans, relatives of Ithacans, past Ithacans, and future Ithacans. I often have guests
who live in Ithaca. They come for a staycation or they come to enjoy the lake. (just last week,
Michelle Berry stayed with us to work on her writing). I often have guests who are visiting
relatives. I can think of half a dozen guests who stayed at our house and now live full time in the
area. Short term lakefront rentals are enjoyed by Town of Ithaca residents all the time, all year
round.
I rent my house approximately 200 days per year and hope to continue to do so until we move
back full time when the kids are grown. A shorter short term rental period would not allow us to
keep the house because of general homeowner costs, mortgage costs, and real estate taxes.
Our guests all sign an agreement that includes directions on where to park, quiet hours, and
penalties for disturbing our neighbors. We limit the number of people allowed on the property
to the signed guests only and do not allow any additional guests, except for the college student
of a visiting family. We do not allow friends of that student on the property nor do we allow
guests to invite a local family over for dinner. Our agreement says no parties not even small ones.
We try very hard to be good neighbors.
Thank you for your time and continued careful consideration of the concerns of lakefront
homeowners.
Carolyn Greenwald
Attached: email dated 11.14.2019
Paulette Rosa
From: Sheila Snyder <sheilasnyder857@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2020 8:02 PM
To: Paulette Rosa
Subject: Short Term Rentals on the Lake
Hi Paulette,
When I phoned tothe Town of Ithaca,to find out who I should send my letter to about the upcoming meeting with the STR
on the agenda, the person told me to send my letter to you. Would you please forward this to the appropriate person and
let me know that it was forwarded please? I would hate to think of all the time spent on writing this went to waste (as well
as my stress of the situation). Thank you.
We are writing about the proposed legislation to restrict Airbnb rentals to less than 30 days per year applying to
lakeside rentals. We own a couple, adjacent single dwellings on Cayuga Lake. Sheila retired in June of this
year. We launched the Airbnb in our southern -most Cottage, just south of ours, at 855 Taughannock Blvd. We
have had this property since 1983. We turned it into a yearly rental in 1990. Through the years, taxes, water
bills, garbage fees, insurance and upkeep have grown faster than rental income. Last year it became about equal
what we spent out and what we were able to take in. This is when we chose and planned to open an Airbnb. We
have heavily invested in furnishings for the Airbnb ($15,000). When it was successful, Al retired in November,
(last month). Our plan was to use the income for our health insurance. Our premiums are $2800 per month.
How do you expect us to pay for that? Should we go without health insurance? If the town of Ithaca goes ahead
with the proposal it takes some of our livelihood away.
We want you to know that we have reached out to our neighbor, Marian Mumford who lives next door to the
Airbnb and checked to make sure our Airbnb guests have not bothered them. She has our number to call should
any issues arise. We were assured the guests have all been wonderful.
In the past, we have had some students who have rented the house when it was a yearly rental. They were not
always good neighbors. Should our lakeside dwelling become subjected to a 30 day STR limitation, we would
be going back to a yearly rental.
When a home is turned into an Airbnb, there is a level of expectation of quality. We took much care to make the
house and the property look nice for curb appeal. Isn't that what the town wants?
We calculated that $800 occupancy tax was paid to the town from our Airbnb, for the 6 months it has been
open. This would be lost revenues for the town if the proposal passes. When Sheila went down to the welcome
center when we were preparing for the Airbnb, they told her that was one of the biggest requests they have is for
rentals on the lake. My Guests come and experience the lake. They can't do that from any area hotel. They take
out the kayaks and canoes. They swim with the ducks. They watch the bald eagle, ospreys and other wildlife
here. They have campfires; they roast s'mores with their kids. Closing down a lakeside Airbnb when it is
considered a high demand item does not seem to be a good decision.
At the end of each stay, we sort their garbage and recyclables. Almost all of the guests had been getting takeout
food from area restaurants, visiting the local parks, visiting the commons, and buying products from our local
wineries and breweries. We provide a list of local points of interests, restaurants and stores. One family took
tennis lessons while they were here. Our guests came from down state, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and were here
to experience the Fingerlakes as tourists. They were looking to be on one of the lakes. Had our lake property not
been available to them, they would not have rented from an Ithaca hotel, but instead gone further up the lake or
to another lake; spending their money elsewhere. The lakeside rentals are really the only option to experience
Cayuga Lake (there are no hotels on Cayuga Lake like Seneca Lake has in Watkins Glen and Geneva). It seems
if the town of Ithaca passes the STR to 30 days per year and include the lakeside rentals, it could have
significant affects on local tourism (essentially they would shut down completely and convert over to long term
rentals, except for maybe the people who rent out on the Graduation weekends).
After some investigation, we discovered that this proposal is driven from issues/complaints from Airbnbs
established in Cayuga Heights neighborhoods. Lakeside housing "neighborhoods" are nothing like the
residential neighborhoods of Cayuga Heights. Regarding any issues/complaints, the town should address them
as they happen, enforcing the ordinances and laws that already exist.
We recommend that the town board allow lakeside home owners to continue to provide a much needed service
to the community that is not met by any other means (unlike the housing provided in residential neighborhoods
like Cayuga Heights). This will also allow lake home owners the ability to earn retirement and supplemental
income as planned.
Sheila and Al Snyder
Lake Residents Since 1983
Paulette Rosa
From:
Paulette Rosa
Sent:
Monday, Oecember14,2O2O11:U8Ak4
To:
Paulette Rosa
Subject:
FW: Town Clerk Complaint
From: Michael Robson
Sent: Thursday, December 1O 20201:11PK4
To: Paulette Rosa
Cc: Skip Parr
Subject: Town Clerk Complaint
I am reaching out to make you aware of the following complaint that we recently received:
/ went into the Ithaca Town Clerk office - / was lookingforthe County Clerkond mixed up the
addresses. / walked into the office and the person who greeted me was not wearing a mask.
Any employee that is in direct contact with the public or within 6 ft. of another employee should be wearing a mask. is
this the case for your office?
Thank you,
Michael Robson
Public Health Sanitarian
Tompkins County Health Department
Division of Environmental Health
From: Paulette Rosa
Sent: Thursday, December 1O,2O2O1:29PK4
To: Michael Robson
C c:SkipParr
Subject: RE: Town Clerk Complaint
MW
|amthe Town Clerk and | can't imagine that happening. |do"eneet"people oracknowledge them from mydesk then
get up and put iton/puU it up. We wear Our masks at all times unless sitting at our desks. The nninute we get u[\ we
grab amask orPull iLLIP. More times than not, it is hooked to my ears and resting below my chin ready to be raised. My
Deputy does the same.
I do remember once this week I got up and grabbed mine and held it over rny face for an instant/2 second interaction
because myear loop broke.
I imagine minor instances might happen to others like me, but it certainly is not a common Occurrence, having happened
twice in my memory of the last 10 months and I still covered my face by holding it up without the tie backs.
We take this very seriously and always have a rnask on, as well as many other safety protocols.
We also have plexiglass to separate LIS frorn customers and more times than not, we are 6 feet away from any
customer/resident.
Feel free to reach out or visit if you have any further concerns or questions.
Thank You
Puuket&eRosa
Town Clerk
From: Michael Robson
Sent: Thursday, December 1O'2O2O1:46PM
To: Paulette Rosa
Cc: Skip Parr
Subject: RE: Town Clerk Complaint
Thank you for the update, we appreciate Your efforts.
Mike
Michael Robson
Public Health Sanitarian
From: Judy Drake <JDrake@town.bhaca.nyua»
Sent: Thursday, December 1O,2OZO2:21PM
To: Paulette Rosa <PRosa@Lownjthaca.ny.us>;Rod Howe <RHowe @townjthacaoyus>
Subject: RE: Town Clerk Complaint
Thanks for letting LIS know. Another example of why our diligence is important.
Judith (,Judy) Doake,PHR/SHRIVI-CP
HumanResource Manager
TOWN OF ITHACA
215 NORTH TIOGA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850
wwwtown.ithamny.us
CORRESPONDENCE LISTING
December 30, 2020
Please review the following correspondence and indicate, by placing your initials in the right-hand column
adjacent to the correspondence that you wish to receive a copy. We can forward a copy to you via e-mail or
make a hard copy. Please indicate your preference next to your name at the bottom of this form.
Correspondence — Item
Please place your
initials here if you wish
to receive a copy
Retention: Permanent
1. Request & response for Speed Reduction
2. Letters re: Short Term Rentals
3.
Retention: Six -Year
1. Dog Control Officer Inspection Reports
Retention: One -Year
Paulette Rosa
Mike Brindisi <mbhndbi18@gmaiicom>
Paulette Rosa
Joe Slater
RE: Speed Limit Reduction
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
From: Paulette Rosa
Sent: Wednesday, December 1G,2O2OZ:22 PM
To:
Cc: Joe Slater
Subject: Speed Limit Reduction
Good Afternoon Michael,
We spoke on the phone but I wanted to acknowledge receipt of your petition and explain the process.
The petition will be forwarded to the Town Board under Correspondence.
At the next Town Board meeting, the Town Board will decide whether or not to refer the petition to the Public Works
Committee for review and recommendation.
The recommendation to move forward or deny the petition will be made at the Town Board meeting.
If|tisrecommended, the Town Clerk sends the resolution making the recommendation along with aNYSform tothe
Tompkins County Highway Superintendent for comment,
He in turn forwards that resolution, form and his comments to the NYS Department of Transportation
The NYS DOT then does a Study of the area, which can take up to 1 year, and approves or denies the request.
As you can see, it is a rather long process, so I wanted you to be aware of the timeline. And that was pre-COVID.
Please check in periodically with me or watch the posting of the committee and board agendas on uurvvebsbe to stay
abreast of the progress.
Regards,
Paulette
PmetteRnsa
Town Clerk
T0rvuOfTthucu
2l5N.Tin�uSL
B. Contact Person Information
Each request must provide a contact person. The contact person will receive at]
correspondence and, will be responsible for gathering evidence of support. If there
are no residents on a requested block, no signatures are required, but a contact person
must still be established.
Name:
Address:
Phone #: '5
E-Mail Address: t4S I'
)
I agree to I
Signature:
We believe the nature of the issue we would like to have addressed is (be as
�AQKZ ��<
D. Evidence of Neighborhood Support
Please provide evidence of neighborhood support for participation in the prograill.
The attached form can be used for this request. Individuals providing signatures must
live or own a property within the study area as identified in Section A.
Signatures from residents representing at least 1/2 of the households whose property
is next to the street segment in question is required for consideration. Additional
copies of this page may be submitted to secure the required number pf signatures.
We the undersigned owners and residents of 6,
hereby offer our support for our neighborhood's participation in the traffic calming
study.
It is important to understand that the traffic calming countermeasure
selected by City staff may require the removal of on -street parking and
can increase on -street noise levels.
Printed Narne
Email (optional)
Address
Owner/Resident Signature
Printed Name
Email (optional)
Address
Owner/Resident Signature
Printed Name
Email (optional)
Address
Owner/Resident Signature
Printed Name
Email (optional)
Address
Owner/Resident Signature
Printed Name
il'b I.-Olef �,A
Email (optional)
Address
Owner/Resident Signature
Printed Name
Email (optional)
Address
Owner/Resident Signature
r,XP,LLL�L,
Printed Name's
c
Email (optional)
Address
Owner/Resident Signature
Printed Name
W OT
Email (optional)
r 0 r4D
Address
I.,q,; i D
Owner/Resident Signature
Printed Name
Email (optional)
Address
Owner/Resident Signature
Printed Name
Email (optional)
Address
Owner/Resident Signature
Email (optional)
Address 4- 44 OLE -1 )44
Owner/Resident Signature
Printed Name
Email (optional)
Address
Owner/Resident Signature
Email (optional)
A-, U ire-s-s---
Printed Name
Email (optional)
Address
Owner/Resident Signature
Address
Owner/Resident Signature
V' Yvl C C4,�
A
U
City of Ithaca - Request for Traffic Calming Investigation
If you would like to have the City Engineering Department consider your request for
traffic calming, you will need to fill out the following sections and send the
completed form to the City of Ithaca Engineering Department (attn*. City
Transportation Engineer) at 108 E Green Street, Ithaca, NY 14850.
What is trqflic calming?
Traffic calming measures are intended to make streets safer and more attractive for
people to walk, bike and drive by reducing the negative impacts of motor vehicles
such as excessive speeds and/or volumes of traffic. Traffic calming measures may
consist of educational, enforcement and engineering efforts. Some examples of
traffic calming measures are: driver speed feedback signs, targeted police
enforcement, pavement markings, signs, speed humps, chicanes and diverters.
What is the Selection Process.?
Received requests will be prioritized based on factors related to traffic speeds,
volumes and other considerations, such as proximity to schools. The Engineering
Office will work with relevant City entities to determine what types of traffic
calming measures may be appropriate. Final approval will be granted by the Board
of Public Works (BPW).
A. Street Study Information
Each request must provide the name of the street on which a study is requested and
the boundaries of the street segment. Boundary limits may change at the discretion
of the Engineering Department. Please use street names for boundary lit -nits, not
block ranges. In order to provide consistent and sufficiently detailed analysis at all
locations, requests must be limited to sections of roadway 1,000 feet or shorter.
Requested Street:/Z( 11
Boundary Area
From (Street): -4,74y -04011
To (Street): -'-ZZ;'1,i XeM
Paulette Rosa
From: kylevandermark <kylevandermark@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, December 21, 2020 6:47 PM
To: Paulette Rosa
Subject: Ithaca Short Term Rentals
To whom it may concern,
Good afternoon, I have just been contacted about short term rentals being proposed to shut down in Ithaca. I just
wanted to say that this summer, my friends and I stayed at an airbnb in Ithaca, specifically 855 Taughannock Blvd Ithaca
NY 14850 USA hosted by Sheila Snyder. We can't say enough great things about our stay and how hospitable she and her
husband were. But along with the occupancy fees that the town would be losing from shutting down the airbnb, they'd
also be depriving local shops, restaurants and grocery stores of valuable business. I know for a fact that my friends and I
who only stayed for about a week spent at least $700 on groceries. We also ordered takeout or went to restaurants (if
applicable, covid restrictions) for breakfast lunch and dinner for every day we were there, and we had at least 5 people
at any given time so that's another $2500 easy for the week. And of course visitors will make it to the local stores at
Ithaca Commons, I know I spent over $250 at Mansour Jewelers alone. I'd say we spent about $1200 on non food
shopping during our time there. I don't know if a simple email will do anything to affect the decision, but I believe that
keeping a steady flow of short term rentals is benefitting Ithaca way more than realized. I know when I'm looking for a
weekend trip or a quick getaway, I'm looking for airbnb over a hotel every single time. There's absolutely no comparison.
If I'm looking for a place to visit and there's no short term rentals, then I'd look for another area that offers them before
searching for hotels. We had plans to go visit the wineries in the spring with hopes of going back to the airbnb we stayed
at this summer. I can honestly say that the living situation made the experience so much better for my friends and I. 1
just needed to speak my opinion about this news, because it really upset me when I found out that the short term
rentals might be going by the wayside. Thank you for your time.
Kyle Vandermark
Paulette Rosa
From:
Bill Goodman
Sent:
Monday, December 21, 2020 12:38 PM
To:
Pat Leary; TeeAnn Hunter, Rich DePaolo
Cc:
Paulette Rosa; Susan Ritter, Marty Moseley
Subject:
FW: Proposed STR regulations - Lakefront
Hi folks, another STR comment re Lakefront
Bill Goodman
Deputy Supervisor, Town of Ithaca
215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
607-592-6745, cell
From: Jyl Dowd <jyldowd@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2020 5:02 PM
To: Bill Goodman <BGoodman@town.ithaca.ny.us>
Subject: Proposed STR regulations
Dear Short Term Rental Committee and Town of Ithaca Board,
am writing in favor of the exclusion of the lakefront district from the proposed STR regulations.
have lived in Ithaca since 1965. Raised by a single mom, 3 of us lived in a one bedroom apartment in the
"flats". We had no money and no car, therefore nowhere we could go to swim. On hot days the best we could
do was to sit in the creek to cool off. I don't believe I had ever swam in Cayuga Lake until I moved back to
Ithaca after college.
By renting out 2 bedrooms in my home (initially to locals, and now through Airbnb) I have been able to pay my
mortgage, put my daughter through college, and treat myself to a 2 week rental on Cayuga Lake every
summer when my daughter comes home to visit.
It's the perfect "stay -cation" because she can see her old friends, people can bring their boats by, it's relaxing
& beautiful, and we don't have to travel. And I know other locals do the same.
Given the difficulty of accessing the lake otherwise (packing up supplies, coordinating meet -up times, driving
time, parking fees, crowds, etc) I strongly believe that the availability of lake front rentals should not be
restricted. EVERYONE deserves some time on the lake!
Jyl Dowd