HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOC Packet 2022-04-13 TOWN OF ITHACA
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
215 N. Tioga St 14850
607.273.1747
www.town.ithaoa.ny us
_.........................................................................
04/06/2022
TO: Codes and Ordinances Committee:
William Goodman, Chair
Eric Levine
Eva Hoffmann
Rob Rosen
Yvonne Fogarty
Chris lung
FROM: Christine Balestra, Planner
RE: Next Codes and Ordinances Committee Meeting—April 13, 2022
The next meeting of the Codes and Ordinances Committee is scheduled for Wednesday, April
13th at 5:30pm via Zoom (details on the next page). A quorum of the Town of Ithaca Town
Board may be present at this meeting. However, no official Town Board business will be
conducted.
The minutes from the March 9, 2022, meeting are attached.
If you cannot attend this meeting, please notify Abby Homer as soon as possible at (607) 273-
1747, or ahomer@town.ithaca.ny.us.
cc: Susan H.Brock,Attorney for the Town
Susan Ritter,Director of Planning
Marty Moseley,Director of Code Enforcement
Abby Homer,Administrative Assistant
Paulette Rosa,Town Clerk(email)
Town Administrative staff(email)
Town Board Members(email)
Town Code Enforcement staff(email)
Town Planning staff(email)
Town Public Works staff(email)
Media
TOWN OF ITHACA CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
(607) 273-1747
PLEASE NOTE: Members of the public who wish to attend the meeting via Zoom may call in
on a cell phone or landline at(929) 436-2866 and enter the Meeting ID: 506 3713554; or may
view the meeting by computer at https://us06web.zoom.us/e/5063713554. Once on Zoom,
click on "Join A Meeting" and enter the Meeting ID: 506 3713554. The meeting will also be
recorded on the Town of Ithaca YouTube Channel.
Meeting of April 13, 2022- 5:30 P.M.
AGENDA
1. Member comments/concerns.
2. Minutes from March 9, 2022, meeting.
3. Discussion of Updates to Town of Ithaca Telecommunications Law.
4. Other business:
• Next meeting date: May 11, 2022
Town of Ithaca Planning Department
April 6,2022
TOWN OF ITHACA CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE (LOU
Meeting of March 9, 2022 —5:37 pm—via Zoom and live on YouTube
Draft Minutes
Members and Staff Present: Bill Goodman, Chair, Eva Hoffmann, Eric Levine, Chris Jung, Rob
Rosen-Members. Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Chris Balestra, Planner; Marty Mosely,
Director of Code Enforcement; Susan Brock, Counsel.
Excused: Yvonne Fogarty, Member.
Bill set up the meeting to broadcast on YouTube along with the Zoom platform and the agenda
was reviewed. Bill then introduced Chris Jung as the Zoning Board of Appeals member to begin
as COC member officially in April.
1. Member comments/concerns: None.
2. Minutes: Rob moved to approve the 2/16/22 COC minutes as amended; Eva seconded. All
members voted in favor of approval.
3. Discussion of Updates to Town of Ithaca Telecommunications Law: A memo prepared
by Town Planner Chris Balestra was distributed as a discussion guide for the COC members related
to the remaining telecommunications law decisions. The questions in the memo are excerpted here:
For small wireless facilities near residences and schools - what setback does the COC recommend?
500 feet? 1500 feet?Something in between? Bill recommended holding off until the end of the
telecommunications law discussion for this recommendation.
Who does the committee recommend reviewing:
a. Large cell tower applications? —Planning Board site plan review process (currently) or
change to internal staff/administrative review? Planning staff recommended that this
remain within the Planning Board site plan review process. The committee unanimously
agreed.
b. Wireless facilities collocated onto an existing structure/tower?Planning Board site plan
review or internal staff/administrative review? Planning staff recommends that this be an
internal/staff administrative review. Bill, Rob, and Eric agreed. Rob suggested creating
two categories here - collocations onto utility pole/tower/other structure already being
used for a similar purpose and collocations onto all other structures. Committee did not
decide.
c. (Smaloindividual wireless facilities, e.g., one antenna on a pole, not collocated onto an
existing structure?Planning Board site plan review or internal staff/admin review? This is
considered a NEW small wireless facility on a new pole or structure. Bill and Eric thought
this should be an internal review. Rob thought it should be Planning Board review.
Committee did not decide.
d. Wireless facilities (part of a group o�facilities on a number of poles) that are not
collocated onto an existing structure?Planning Board site plan review or internal
staff/administrative review? This is still considered small wireless, but a group of antennas
on a group of poles, creating a system. Planning staff recommended that these applications
go to the Planning Board for a site plan review process. Again, Bill and Eric thought this
should be an internal review. Rob thought it should be Planning Board review. Committee
did not decide.
Eva expressed hesitation at the complexity with the way all antennas are described in applications,
suggesting that whoever reviews these applications (large or small), the town should be given
opportunity for expert advice to be able to understand what they are reviewing, why they are being
replaced, etc. While it may appear simple, they should all be handled with care and also think
ahead to the future. She also asked what extra is involved for staff when applications go for Board
review? Planner Chris Balestra explained that staff prepares resolutions, public hearing notices,
detailed memos, environmental reviews, and recommendations to the board to assist them with their
decisions.
Chris also noted that her expertise, and the Planning Board's authority, is to review the applications
for land use planning impacts. In the case of telecommunications, this would be limited to
aesthetic/visual impacts, location of the facility, any site or parking layouts etc. The current
telecommunications law requires antennas over a certain size to go through the site plan review
process (under a certain size, an applicant can apply for a building permit with no additional Board
review). Chris further explained that an RF Engineer would be the expert to consult relative to the
technical aspects of the antenna capabilities, details related to the antenna design, reasons for the
locations, etc. The Planning Board would review the data provided by all parties to help them with
their decision.
As an example, Chris explained that the Planning Board was currently reviewing an application
from Verizon to upgrade antennas on an existing cell tower that was approved by the board in 2013.
The proposed antennas are smaller than the existing ones and will be placed exactly where the
current antennas are on the tower. Part of the antenna swap involves 5G antennas. The applicant
provided drawings, FCC licenses, and RF specifications. The land use planning impacts in this case
would be limited to aesthetics. Will the proposed antennas impact views? Will there be significant
aesthetic impacts related to the proposal?
Susan Brock noted that "d" was previously recommended to go to the Planning Board and is on the
flow chart that was drafted previously. Bill noted that was the thought at that time, however now
with the depth of criteria being written into the draft proposed law with design criteria, setbacks,
etc. and the new COC member input, his opinion is now that these should be internal staff/admin
review. If the majority of the committee feels the original recommendation for Board review remain
for this, then that would carry. Susan noted that telecommunications companies may not be able to
collocate when it comes to a grouped facility. She also noted landowner consent is required as part
of the law. Chris agreed that collocating is not always feasible for small wireless facilities
associated with the different telecommunications companies.
Susan lastly noted that if the staff internally reviews all small cell applications and has to deny them
based on the criteria in the law, then the application does have the opportunity to appear before the
Zoning Board for an area variance, which has different criteria than the review by the Planning
Board. She expressed concern that the language the town would result in a lot of denied applications
to go for zoning variances, with criteria that differs from what the Planning Board considers for the
large cell applications. Bill asked if there was still a need for some applicants to seek a variance if
the request that the planning board approved does not meet the zoning standards? Susan replied,
yes, the Planning Board does not deny based on not meeting zoning - it makes the zoning variance a
condition of approval if/when necessary.
Sue Ritter explained that planning staff currently reviews all development applications and uses the
criteria in the law to determine when site plan review, special permits and/or zoning variances
would be needed. In the case of telecommunications, she asked: when the criteria is so tight and all
the requirements are met, what can the Planning Board really do? Can they just say no if the public
is opposed, or other reasons, when all requirements in the law are met? What would be the purpose
of the additional steps for the Planning Board review?
Bill concluded that committee should consider an official vote on which applications go to the
Planning Board at the next meeting, when the full committee is present, along with further
consideration of the setbacks which were not discussed tonight. After the April meeting, all the
changes can be incorporated into the draft law and be reviewed in full again in May, with blanks left
where needed if things not decided.
5. Other business:
Next meeting: April 13, 2022
Agenda: continued discussion of telecommunications law (public comment will be
taken)
The meeting adjourned at 6:37 p.m.
From: Chris Balestra
Sent: Tuesday,April 5, 2022 3:44 PM
To: Abby Homer; Bill Goodman; Chris Balestra; Chris Jung; Eric Levine; E
Hoff mannContact; Marty Moseley; Paulette Rosa; Rob Rosen; Susan
Brock; Susan Ritter; Yvonne F garty(asLiaL @ ghtlink.com).
Subject: FW: Vital 5G Information for the Town Codes Committee and Board
FYI
From: Paulette Rosa <PRosa @town.ithaca.ny.us>
Sent:Tuesday, April 5, 2022 3:43 PM
To:Chris Balestra <CBa lestra @town.itha ca.ny.us>; Bill Goodman
<BGood man @town.ithaca.ny.us>; Eric Levine<e levi ne @town.ithaca.ny.us>; Pam Bleiwas
<pbleiwas@town.ithaca.ny.us>; PL17@cornell.edu; Rich Depaolo<rdepaolo @town.ithaca.ny.us>;
Rod Howe<Rhowe @town.ithaca.ny.us>;Tee-Ann Hunter<huntertgd@gmaiI.com>
Subject: FW:Vital 5G Information for the Town Codes Committee and Board
Paulette Rosa
Town Clerk, RMO
(607) 273-1721 xt 110
TOWN OF ITHACA
N E W Y 0 R K
From:Jeff Zorn <jLz3@L ornell.edu>
_
Sent:Tuesday, April 5, 2022 3:31 PM
To: Paulette Rosa <PRosaC@town.ithaca.ny.us>
Subject:Vital 5G Information for the Town Codes Committee and Board
Hi Paulette,
Could you please forward this information to the Ithaca Town Codes
Committee and Board for me? Since they have a meeting next week on 5G
implementation in our town they'd probably like to have up to date
information from one of their constituents who is concerned about this
issue. Can you let me now when you have received this and forwarded it on?
From a recent report from the European Parliament:
"The recent academic literature illustrates that continuous wireless radiation
seems to have biological effects especially considering the particular
characteristics of 5G: the combination of millimetre waves, a higher
frequency, the quantity of transmitters and the quantity of connections.
Various studies suggest that 5G would affect the health of humans, plants,
animals, insects, and microbes — and as 5G is an untested technology, a
cautious approach would be prudent. The UN Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, the Helsinki Accords and other international treaties
recognise that informed consent prior to interventions that might affect
human health is an essential, fundamental human right, which becomes
even more controversial when considering children's and young people's
exposure....The European Environment Agency (EEA) has long advocated
precaution concerning EMF exposure, pointing out that there were cases of
failure to use the precautionary principle in the past, which have resulted in
often irreversible damage to human health and environments. Appropriate,
precautionary and proportionate actions taken now to avoid plausible and
potentially serious threats to health from EMF are likely to be seen as
prudent and wise from future perspectives."
Thanks,
Jeff
Jeff Zorn
202 Pine Tree Rd.
Ithaca,NY 14850
H: 607-273-3168
C: 607-339-7328
E:jrz3@cornell.edu