HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOC Minutes 2021-06-09 TOWN OF ITHACA CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE WOC
Final Approved Minutes
Digitally Present: Bill Goodman, Chair; Pat Leary, Eric Levine, Eva Hoffmann, Bill King, Members; Marty
Moseley, Director ofCode Enforcement; Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Chris 0a|estna, Planner;
Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk; Susan Brock, Counsel.
Absent: Yvonne Fogarty
1. Member comments/concerns. Bill G. notified everyone that the meeting was being broadcast on
the Town of Ithaca YouTubechannel. The City of Ithaca broadcasts most of their meetings via YouTube
and the town will be doing that aswell going forward. Bill indicated that he'd let members of the public
speak to the committee, then invite them to leave Zoom and watch the rest of the meeting on YouTube.
Marie Molnar addressed the committee about telecommunications, specifically a recent email related to
5G that she and Andrew sent to the Town Board. She reiterated that the Town Board should require
telecommunications companies to prove that there is a significant gap in coverage and that the location
proposed for facilities is the least intrusive location. She asserted that the municipality got todecide
what evidence should be submitted to prove these things and whether they've been proven
satisfactorily. She explained that telecommunications companies have supplied falsified propagation
maps as proof, and that proof should be in the form of drive test data and dropped call data. Marie
went on to request an increase in the town's proposed setback distances between a 5G facility and
residences, from 250 feet toat least l500feet. She mentioned that the town can set the distance if
there isa way for the applicant to seek relief from the law.
Andrew Molnar spoke to the committee about the 5G topic as well. He asked the committee to embrace
Andrew Campanelli's report that was created for the City of Ithaca and shared with the Town of Ithaca.
He asked that the town move to adopt all the recommendations in the report, especially on page 23
under "Local Zoning Determinations." In addition, he reiterated the following requests from his recent
email On items t0 include in8 revised telecommunications law: require general liability insurance
without 8 pollution exclusion, make sure that insured iS the telecom company and not the siting
company, mandate random annual radiation testing for all facilities (not just towers)— have this testing
done by the municipality and paid for by the telecommunications company- include a revocability
C|JUS8, send notifications of proposals via certified no3i| to p2Op|2 living within l5O0 feet Of8 facility
(paid for by applicant, not the t0vvn), and establish 8 procedure for any disabled persons suffering from
electro-sensitivity syndrome to submit grievances in accordance with the ADA.
2' Minutes from May 12, 2021, COCmeeting. The committee approved the minutes with minor
changes. Eva moved and Pat seconded. All who were present were in favor (Yvonne was absent).
3' Continued discussion of Telecommunications Law update. The C(]C was provided with Andrew
Cornpane||i's report to the city after the May COCmeeting. Bill mentioned that Andrew Carnpane||i
talked to the City of Ithaca Administration Committee at their May meeting. Since the city records their
l
meetings on YouTube, Bill encouraged members to view the city's channel to listen to the meeting
related to the Campanelli report.
Bill reported on a new expanded FCC ruling related to telecommunications. The ruling amended the
"OTARD—Over-The-Air-Reception-Devices" rule, which has been in place by the FCC for decades [staff
note: The FCC website states that the OTARD rule "protects the rights of property owners or tenants to
install, maintain or use an antenna to receive video programming from direct broadcast satellites,
broadband radio services and television broadcast stations in areas within the owner's or tenant's
exclusive use."] Susan Brock explained that the FCC recently expanded the OTARD rule to allow owners
to receive broadband internet services to facilitate the roll out of 5G broadband networks. The
amendment to OTARD will now allow telecommunications companies to contract with property
owners/tenants to directly place 5G facilities on private property.
Susan noted that the OTARD rule prohibits local governments from preventing facilities that are covered
under the rule, but that the language is a little confusing (e.g., the OTARD rule apparently does not cover
wireless facilities that are operating primarily as "hub and ray antennas" if they provide
telecommunication services.) She suggested talking about this with Andrew Campanelli to get more
clarity on the subject, as it may change the parameters of what the town was working on in terms of
following the 1996 Telecommunications Act. The town might not have the legal authority to regulate
facilities on private properties that are covered under the new OTARD rule.
Bill G moved on to the Campanelli &Associates report to the city titled "Federal Law Based Analysis of
the Code of the City of Ithaca, NY, Chapter 325, Article VA-Telecommunications Facilities and Services,
and Chapter 152, Article II-Telecommunications," dated March 1, 2021. Eva wondered if the
recommendations listed in the report for the city would also apply to the town. Susan stated that yes,
the types of things talked about in the report could be applied to the town as well. She explained that
the main municipal structure difference between the city and the town was the ability to regulate what
happens in the road rights of way, as the city owns and controls all the roads in their municipal
jurisdiction, but the town only has control over local roads that it owns. We cannot regulate the rights
of way of the state and county roads in our jurisdiction.
Bill G then directed the committee to page 23 in the Campanelli report, titled "Local Zoning
Determinations," where Campanelli suggested that the City of Ithaca make findings "a-h" to determine
whether a telecommunications application met certain requirements noted in the city's law. Chris
stated that some of the suggested language was already in the town's telecommunications law -that
some of the language was like the town's special permit criteria, and some of it was like our site plan
criteria. Chris mentioned that it would be easy to establish more specific criteria as a set of findings that
need to be made before special permit or site plan approval is granted for a telecommunications facility.
The committee supported this.
Bill G stated that there were some suggestions at the top of page 25 of the report that could be added to
a law and would assist the board in determining whether a provider has met the burden of proof, based
upon evidence presented for various claims. The first claim (listed as "a" on page 25) stated that the
provider "suffers from a significant gap in coverage." The recommendation would be to get proper
evidence to support the claim, and not just rely on propagation maps. Bill went through the remaining
claims and recommendations listed in "b-f" on page 25. The committee was supportive of the
2
recommendations. Bill G noted that the next iteration of a draft law would likely contain these
recommended sections.
The committee then discussed their previous decisions to handle certain wireless facilities in the law
administratively by staff and others by a board review. The Campanelli report recommended issuing
permits for all facilities, following the findings mentioned above. Considering the new information in
the report, Susan Brock wanted to know if the committee wanted staff make findings internally for staff-
issued permits. Chris summarized the COC's previous decisions, which included requiring Planning
Board site plan approval and special permit for new towers (the typical 150-ft tall ones), collocations on
towers deemed substantial by FCC Order, and small cell DAS systems (the networks of poles, not
individual poles). The committee also previously decided to have administrative staff review for
collocations on individual small cell facilities and towers deemed non-substantial by FCC Order. Chris
noted that it would be a good idea for planning and codes staff to meet and talk about whether it would
be appropriate for staff to take on the task of issuing findings.
Bill mentioned that the city has been trying to figure out the process of approval as well. Bill will follow
up with JoAnn Cornish to see where the city is with their decision. Chris will talk with fellow planning
and codes staff.
The committee had no other comments related to the Campanelli report, so they moved on to discuss
the recent email that was received from Andrew and Marie Molnar that contained additional
suggestions for the new law. The committee expressed support for both the Campanelli report and the
email suggestions from the Molnar's.
Bill asked the committee their opinions on increasing the distance between residences and wireless
facilities to something more than 250-feet. Pat, Bill K, and Eva supported an increase in the distance.
Eric wanted to know what a proper distance really was. He didn't know how much distance would be
too much where 5G would be unable to locate anywhere in the town. His desire would be to balance
the aesthetic impacts of a facility with the utility of it and would need to think about it more before
supporting a significantly increased distance. Bill G wanted to see where the city would go with this.
The next City of Administration Committee is meeting on June 23, 2021.
The next step in the process is to revise the town telecommunications law based on the Campanelli and
Molnar recommendations and to leave blanks so the committee can discuss and decide on specific
items, such as the distance between residences and telecommunications facilities. Staff will work on a
revised draft and present it to the committee for review at the next COC meeting.
4. Other Business.
• Next meeting: August 11, 2021 (July meeting cancelled due to vacations)
• Agenda: Telecommunications Law- Report on City Administration Committee meeting,
Discussion of new draft law.
Meeting was adjourned at 7:48pm.
3