No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Packet - Wiedmaier cell tower- 10-1-24 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD Shirley A. Raffensperger Board Room, Town Hall 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, October 1, 2024 6:30 P.M. Members of the public are welcome to attend in -person at Town Hall or virtually via Zoom. The public will have an opportunity to see and hear the meeting live and provide comments in -person or through Zoom (by raising hand icon) at https://us06web.zoom.us/j/83643764382. If the public would like to attend the meeting for viewing purposes only, it is recommended to watch the livestream video on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCC9vycXkJ6klVIibjhCy7NQ/live). AGENDA 1. SEQR Determination: Stone Quarry Road Driveway Improvements / Deposit and Removal of Fill - Special Permit. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Special Permit for the deposit and removal of fill relative to proposed driveway improvements on an adjacent property immediately south of 229 Stone Quarry Road. The project involves extending the existing driveway that serves 229 Stone Quarry Road to provide improved vehicle access to the rear portion of the property as well as drainage improvements along the driveway and Stone Quarry Road. The project also involves excavating approximately 550 cubic yards of topsoil and shale and installing temporary stormwater management facilities during construction and permanent facilities post-construction. This is an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review. Richard Henry Mandl, Jr., Owner/Applicant. 3. SEQR Determination: Personal Wireless Service Facility (Tower) – 111 Wiedmaier Court – Site Plan Approval & Special Permit. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for a personal wireless service facility located at 111 Wiedmaier Court, off Slaterville Road/NYS Route 79. The proposal involves the construction of a 138' +/- monopole tower with 9 antennas, two equipment cabinets, a generator, and other equipment within a 50' x 50' +/- chain link fenced area. S. Roberts WC Land, LLC, Owner; Verizon Wireless, Applicant; Jared C. Lusk, Nixon Peabody, LLP, Agent. 5. Persons to be heard. 6. Approval of Minutes. 7. Other Business. 8. Adjournment. C.J. Randall Director of Planning 607-273-1747 NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY CHRISTINE BALESTRA AT 607-273-1747 or CBALESTRA@TOWNITHACANY.GOV. (A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) Accessing Meeting Materials Online Site Plan and Subdivision applications and associated project materials are accessible electronically on the Town’s website at https://townithacany.gov/meeting-calendar-agendas/ under the calendar meeting date. TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE The Planning Board will hold public hearings on Tuesday, October 1, 2024, starting at 6:30 P.M. on the following matters: Consideration of Special Permit for the deposit and removal of fill relative to proposed driveway improvements on an adjacent property immediately south of 229 Stone Quarry Road. The project involves extending the existing driveway that serves 229 Stone Quarry Road to provide improved vehicle access to the rear portion of the property as well as drainage improvements along the driveway and Stone Quarry Road. The project also involves excavating approximately 550 cubic yards of topsoil and shale and installing temporary stormwater management facilities during construction and permanent facilities post-construction. This is an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review. Richard Henry Mandl, Jr., Owner/Applicant. Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for a personal wireless service facility located at 111 Wiedmaier Court, off Slaterville Road/NYS Route 79. The proposal involves the construction of a 138' +/- monopole tower with 9 antennas, two equipment cabinets, a generator, and other equipment within a 50' x 50' +/- chain link fenced area. S. Roberts WC Land, LLC, Owner; Verizon Wireless, Applicant; Jared C. Lusk, Nixon Peabody, LLP, Agent. Members of the public are welcome to attend in-person at Town Hall or virtually via Zoom. The public will have an opportunity to see and hear the meeting live and provide comments in-person or through Zoom (by raising hand icon) at https://us06web.zoom.us/j/83643764382. If the public would like to attend the meeting for viewing purposes only, it is recommended to watch the livestream video on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCC9vycXkJ6klVIibjhCy7NQ/live). Any person wishing to address the board will be heard. In addition, comments can be sent via email to townclerk@townithacany.gov up to the end of business the day of the meeting and all comments will be forwarded to the board. Additional information is available at https://townithacany.gov/. C.J. Randall, Director of Planning Link below that includes all application materials received, by date. The link also includes another copy of the staff-prepared packet for the 10-1-24 Planning Board meeting: Verizon Cell Tower Proposal - 111 Wiedmaier Court PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board Members FROM: Christine Balestra, Senior Planner DATE: September 24, 2024 RE: Site Plan Approval and Special Permit – Verizon Wireless “Sunny View Site” Personal Wireless Service Facility (Telecommunications Tower), 111 Wiedmaier Court Please find the enclosed materials related to the consideration of Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for a personal wireless service facility located at 111 Wiedmaier Court, off Slaterville Road/NYS Route 79. The proposal involves the construction of a 138' +/- monopole tower with nine antennas, two equipment cabinets, a generator, and other equipment within a 50' x 50' +/- chain link fenced area. The project is scheduled for review at the October 1, 2024, Planning Board meeting, and for the October 22, 2024, Zoning Board of Appeals meeting (for consideration of a height variance appeal). Federal Requirements The applicant initiated a building permit application for this project on November 13, 2023, which started a 150-day Federal Shot Clock, per the requirements of 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(ii). The Shot Clock, by definition, is the sum of the number of days specified by federal regulation as the presumptively reasonable time for the Town to act on the relevant personal wireless service facility application type, plus the number of days of any applicable tolling period, per 47 CFR 1.6003. The Town Code, §270-219, explains the Shot Clock period, along with the requirements to comply with the regulations. The Town of Ithaca has 150 calendar days (excluding holidays and other days per federal definition) from the date of initial submission to complete the review process associated with the proposed tower. Among the attachments are two letters of “incompleteness,” written from the town to the applicant (dated December 11, 2023, and June 7, 2024). The letters described and requested missing materials from the application. The applicant responded with materials on May 29, 2024 (including a narrative and Exhibits A-Y), and August 7, 2024 (including another narrative and Exhibits Z-EE). The application was deemed complete on August 14, 2024, and all application materials were distributed to the Planning Board around August 21, 2024. The current attachments include: 1. Completed Full EAF Parts 1-3 with maps and attachments 2. Draft resolutions prepared by staff – SEQR and Site Plan/Special Permit 3. Consultant report prepared by William P. Johnson and Steven M. Ciccarelli, titled “Proposed Wireless Telecommunications Services Facility - RF Site Review Verizon Wireless / Sunny View,” dated September 20, 2024 4. Two letters from the town to the applicant, dated December 11, 2023, and June 7, 2024, listing missing materials from the application 5. Memo from Marty Moseley, Director of Code Enforcement & Zoning, dated 8-14-2024 6. Tompkins County Planning Department GML 239 review letter 7. Memo from Town Conservation Board/Environmental Review Committee, dated 9/24/24 TOWN OF ITHACA NEW YORK Project Description As indicated in the application materials and required by Town Code, the proposed facility will be constructed to support up to four total telecommunications carriers. However, Verizon is the only applicant for this facility and the only carrier that is currently planning to locate antennas on the tower. The area where the proposed cell tower will be located is a 12.3+/- acre vacant property that has been previously disturbed. The parcel was created as a result of the Wiedmaier Court 5-lot residential subdivision that was approved by the Planning Board in December 2003 (please see the FEAF Part 3 attachment for a description of the prior disturbance). The parcel is bordered on the north by woods and Burns Road, on the east by private residences on Wiedmaier Court, on the south by a stream and woods, and on the west by woods. There are no trees or other vegetation to remove to accommodate the tower and associated facilities and access drive. The project does not include a landscape plan to mitigate potential aesthetic impacts of the equipment shelter and associated facilities, but the board could require one as a condition of approval. As noted in the enclosed FEAF Part 3 attachment, this area is not listed among the most significant scenic views in the Town of Ithaca or Tompkins County Scenic Resources Inventory lists. Other than the height, the proposed tower meets all of the dimensional standards of the town Personal Wireless Service Facility law in the Town Code (§270-219). The project will include minimal lighting for the equipment cabinets, which will be compliant with the town’s Outdoor Lighting Law. Finally, there is minor earth removal associated with the development of the concrete pad and gravel access drive, so an erosion and sedimentation control plan for this project (Simple SWPPP) has been submitted and will be approved by the Town Engineering Department. The attached draft resolution contains a condition of approval requiring approval prior to the application for any building permits. Please call me at (607) 273-1721 or email me at cbalestra@townithacany.gov with any questions regarding this project. Cc: Brett Morgan, Airosmith Development, Inc. Jared Lusk, Esq., Nixon Peabody, LLP S. Roberts WC Land, LLC Proposed action is site plan, special permit approval by the Planning Board, and a height variance by the Zoning Board of Appeals 111 Wiedmaier s , including a generator on a 4' x 8' concrete pad. Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 1 -Project and Setting Instructions for Completing Part 1 Part 1 is to be completed by the applicant or project sponsor.Responses become part of the application for approval or funding, are subject to public review,and may be subject to further verification, Complete Part 1 based on information currently available.If additional research or investigation would be needed to fully respond to any item,please answer as thoroughly as possible based on current information;indicate whether missing information does not exist,or is not reasonably available to the sponsor;and,when possible,generally describe work or studies which would be necessary to update or fully develop that information. Applicants/sponsors must complete all items in Sections A &B.In Sections C,D &E,most items contain an initial question that must be answered either “Yes”or “No”.If the answer to the initial question is “Yes”,complete the sub-questions that follow.If the answer to the initial question is “No”,proceed to the next question.Section F allows the project sponsor to identify and attach any additional information.Section G requires the name and signature of the applicant or project sponsor to verify that the information contained in Part 1 is accurate and complete. A .Project and Applicant/Sponsor Information. Name of Action or Project: Bell Atlantic Mobile Systems LLC,d/b/a Verizon Wireless -Unmanned Wireless Communications Facility -"Sunny View" Project Location (describe,and attach a general location map): 111 WiedmaierCt,Ithaca,New York 14850 Brief Description of Proposed Action (include purpose or need ):s- Bell Atlantic Mobile Systems LLC,d/b/a Verizon Wireless ("Verizon Wireless"or "Applicant")proposes the installation of aruj communications facility located on the oxioting property.Soid property being located on Wiedmeier Ct O.Ogjniles Southeast: proposed facility will originate from Wiedmaier Ct improving existing gravel driveway.(C f u In general,the installation will consist of the following:an 134'tall monopole (138'including 4’lightntftg-rod)Tfune (9)antennas and related equipment to bemountedtothetoweratacenter-line height of 130',cellular and utility equipment at grade in a proposed 50'x50'fencecfcQmpound.The project alsoincludetheinstallationofpowerandfiberutilitiestoservicethefacility. nmanned wireless ofBurns Road.Access to the Name of Applicant/Sponsor: Bell Atlantic Mobile Systems LLC,d/b/a Verizon Wireless;attn:Lindsay Beckwith Telephone:(585)313.3027 E-Mail:lindsay.beckwith@verizonwireless.com Address:1275 John Street,Suite 100 City/PO:West Henrietta State:Zip Code:NY 14586 Project Contact (if not same as sponsor;give name and title/role): Nixon Peabody,LLP;attn:Robert W.8urgdorf,Esq. Telephone:(585)263-1000 E-Mail:rburgdorf@nixonpeabody.com Address: 1300 Clinton Square City/PO:State:Zip Code: 14604RochesterNY Property Owner (if not same as sponsor): S Roberts WC Land LLC Telephone: E-Mail: Address: 111 WiedmaierCt Zip Code:City/PO:State:14850IthacaNY Page 1 of 13 FEAF 2019 mtg date 10/1/2024 mtg date 10/22/2024 TC Planning Dept GML 239 referral response rec'd 9/13/2024 B.Government Approvals B.Government Approvals,Funding,or Sponsorship.(“Funding”includes grants,loans,tax relief,and any other forms of financial assistance.) Government Entity If Yes:Identify Agency and Approval(s) Required Application Date (Actual or projected) a.City Council,Town Board,YesHHNo or Village Board of Trustees b.City,Town or Village ElYesDNo Planning Board or Commission TBDPlanningBoard-Special Use Permit &Site Plan Approval EZlYesDNoc.City,Town or Village Zoning Board of Appeals Board of Appeals -Area Variance TBD HYesDNod.Other local agencies Building Department -Building Permit TBD ^VesdNoe.County agencies f.Regional agencies YesCUNo YesdNog.State agencies h.Federal agencies dYesdNo i.Coastal Resources. i.Is the project site within a Coastal Area,or the waterfront area of a Designated Inland Waterway? it Is the project site located in a community with an approved Local Waterfront Revitalization Program? Hi.Is the project site within a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area? YesEZINo S^YeMNo^YesHNoT^C.Planning and Zoning C.l .Planning and zoning actions. Will administrative or legislative adoption,or amendment of a plan,local law,ordinance,rule or regulation be the YesEZINo only approval(s)which must be granted to enable the proposed action to proceed? •If Yes,complete sections C,F and G. •If No,proceed to question C.2 and complete all remaining sections and questions in Part 1 C.2.Adopted land use plans. a.Do any municipally-adopted (city,town,village or county)comprehensive land use plan(s)include the site where the proposed action would be located? If Yes,does the comprehensive plan include specific recommendations for the site where the proposed action would be located? EZIYes No YesHNo b.Is the site of the proposed action within any local or regional special planning district (for example:Greenway; Brownfield Opportunity Area (BOA);designated State or Federal heritage area;watershed management plan; or other?) If Yes,identify the plan(s): YesEZINo c.Is the proposed action located wholly or partially within an area listed in an adopted municipal open space plan,I lYesITINo or an adopted municipal farmland protection plan? If Yes,identify the plan(s): Page 2 of 13 .46 +/-(per SWPPP) C.3.Zoning a.Is the site of the proposed action located in a municipality with an adopted zoning law or ordinance. If Yes,what is the zoning classification(s)including any applicable overlay district? Medium Density Residential (MDR )&Conservation (Cl EZlYesDNo b.Is the use permitted or allowed by a special or conditional use permit?EZlYesDNo YesEZlNoc.Is a zoning change requested as part of the proposed action? If Yes, 1.What is the proposed new zoning for the site? C.4.Existing community services. a.In what school district is the project site located?Ithaca City School District b.What police or other public protection forces serve the project site? Tompkins County Sheriff c.Which fire protection and emergency medical services serve the project site? Ithaca Fire Department Station 2 d.What parks serve the project site? Eastern Heights Park .Tudor Park .Hunoerford Heights Park D.Project Details D.l.Proposed and Potential Development a.What is the general nature of the proposed action (e.g.,residential,industrial,commercial,recreational;if mixed,include all components)?Unmanned telecommunications facility b.a.Total acreage of the site of the proposed action? b.Total acreage to be physically disturbed? c.Total acreage (project site and any contiguous properties)owned or controlled by the applicant or project sponsor? 12.34 acresoMacres 0.13 acres c.Is the proposed action an expansion of an existing project or use? i.If Yes,what is the approximate percentage of the proposed expansion and identify the units (e.g.,acres,miles,housing units, square feet)?% YesEZlNo Units: Yes EZlNod.Is the proposed action a subdivision,or does it include a subdivision? If Yes, 2.Purpose or type of subdivision?(e.g.,residential,industrial,commercial;if mixed,specify types) «.Is a cluster/conservation layout proposed? 222.Number of lots proposed? 2'v.Minimum and maximum proposed lot sizes?Minimum YesONo Maximum YesElNoe.Will the proposed action be constructed in multiple phases? /.If No,anticipated period of construction: 22.If Yes: •Total number of phases anticipated •Anticipated commencement date of phase 1 (including demolition)•Anticipated completion date of final phase •Generally describe connections or relationships among phases,including any contingencies where progress of one phase may determine timing or duration of future phases: _2 months month year month 'ear Page 3 of 13 f.Does the project include new residential uses? If Yes,show numbers of units proposed. One Family Two Family YesElNo Three Family Multiple Family (four or morel Initial Phase At completion of all phases EYesQNog.Does the proposed action include new non-residential construction (including expansions)? If Yes, i.Total number of structures 1 (tower ) ii.Dimensions (in feet)of largest proposed structure:138'height; Hi.Approximate extent of building space to be heated or cooled: &_width;and length_0_square feet YesHNoh.Does the proposed action include construction or other activities that will result in the impoundment of any liquids,such as creation of a water supply,reservoir,pond,lake,waste lagoon or other storage? If Yes, i.Purpose of the impoundment: ii.If a water impoundment,the principal source of the water:Ground water Q Surface water streams GOther specify: Hi.If other than water,identify the type of impounded/contained liquids and their source. iv.Approximate size of the proposed impoundment.Volume: v.Dimensions of the proposed dam or impounding structure: million gallons;surface area: height;length vi.Construction method/materials for the proposed dam or impounding structure (e.g.,earth fill,rock,wood,concrete): acres D.2.Project Operations a.Does the proposed action include any excavation,mining,or dredging,during construction,operations,or both?|~|Yesl7lNo (Not including general site preparation,grading or installation of utilities or foundations where all excavated materials will remain onsite) If Yes: i .What is the purpose of the excavation or dredging? ii.How much material (including rock,earth,sediments,etc.)is proposed to be removed from the site?•Volume (specify tons or cubic yards): •Over what duration of time? iii.Describe nature and characteristics of materials to be excavated or dredged,and plans to use,manage or dispose of them. YesGNoiv.Will there be onsite dewatering or processing of excavated materials? If yes,describe. v.What is the total area to be dredged or excavated? vi.What is the maximum area to be worked at any one time? vii.What would be the maximum depth of excavation or dredging? viii.Will the excavation require blasting? ix.Summarize site reclamation goals and plan: acres acres feet Yes^No b.Would the proposed action cause or result in alteration of,increase or decrease in size of,or encroachment QYes0No into any existing wetland,waterbody,shoreline,beach or adjacent area? IfYes: i.Identify the wetland or waterbody which would be affected (by name,water index number,wetland map number or geographic description): Page 4 of 13 ii.Describe how the proposed action would affect that waterbody or wetland,e.g.excavation,fill,placement of structures,or alteration of channels,banks and shorelines.Indicate extent of activities,alterations and additions in square feet or acres: iii.Will the proposed action cause or result in disturbance to bottom sediments? If Yes,describe: iv.Will the proposed action cause or result in the destruction or removal of aquatic vegetation? If Yes:•acres of aquatic vegetation proposed to be removed :•expected acreage of aquatic vegetation remaining after project completion:•purpose of proposed removal (e.g.beach clearing,invasive species control,boat access): YesdNo YesdNo •proposed method of plant removal:•if chemical/herbicide treatment will be used,specify product(s): v.Describe any proposed reclamation/mitigation following disturbance: c.Will the proposed action use,or create a new demand for water? If Yes: i .Total anticipated water usage/demand per day: ii.Will the proposed action obtain water from an existing public water supply? IfYes: YesdNo gallons/day YesdNo •Name of district or service area:•Does the existing public water supply have capacity to serve the proposal? •Is the project site in the existing district?•Is expansion of the district needed? •Do existing lines serve the project site? iii.Will line extension within an existing district be necessary to supply the project? IfYes: YesdNo YesdNo YesdNo YesdNo Yes dNo •Describe extensions or capacity expansions proposed to serve this project: •Source(s)of supply for the district: iv.Is a new water supply district or service area proposed to be formed to serve the project site? If,Yes:YesdNo •Applicant/sponsor for new district: •Date application submitted or anticipated:•Proposed source(s)of supply for new district: v.If a public water supply will not be used,describe plans to provide water supply for the project: vi .If water supply will be from wells (public or private),what is the maximum pumping capacity:gallons/minute. YesdNod.Will the proposed action generate liquid wastes? IfYes: Total anticipated liquid waste generation per day:gallons/day ii.Nature of liquid wastes to be generated (e.g.,sanitary wastewater,industrial;if combination,describe all components and approximate volumes or proportions of each): iii.Will the proposed action use any existing public wastewater treatment facilities? IfYes: Yes QNo Name of wastewater treatment plant to be used: Name of district: Does the existing wastewater treatment plant have capacity to serve the project? Is the project site in the existing district? Is expansion of the district needed? Yes DNo Yes Oslo Yes DNo Page 5 of 13 •Do existing sewer lines serve the project site?•Will a line extension within an existing district be necessary to serve the project? If Yes:•Describe extensions or capacity expansions proposed to serve this project:_ YesDNoYesEJNo iv.Will a new wastewater (sewage)treatment district be formed to serve the project site? IfYes: •Applicant/sponsor for new district:•Date application submitted or anticipated:•What is the receiving water for the wastewater discharge? v.If public facilities will not be used,describe plans to provide wastewater treatment for the project,including specifying proposed receiving water (name and classification if surface discharge or describe subsurface disposal plans): YesDNo vi.Describe any plans or designs to capture,recycle or reuse liquid waste: e.Will the proposed action disturb more than one acre and create stormwater runoff,either from new point sources (i.e.ditches,pipes,swales,curbs,gutters or other concentrated flows of stormwater)or non-point source (i.e.sheet flow)during construction or post construction? IfYes: /.How much impervious surface will the project create in relation to total size of project parcel? Square feet or acres (impervious surface) Square feet or acres (parcel size) ii.Describe types of new point sources. Yes 0No lit Where will the stormwater runoff be directed (i.e.on-site stormwater management facility/structures,adjacent properties, groundwater,on-site surface water or off-site surface waters)? •If to surface waters,identify receiving water bodies or wetlands: •Will stormwater runoff flow to adjacent properties? iv.Does the proposed plan minimize impervious surfaces,use pervious materials or collect and re-use stormwater?YesdNo YesQNo f.Does the proposed action include,or will it use on-site,one or more sources of air emissions,including fuel combustion,waste incineration,or other processes or operations? IfYes,identify: i.Mobile sources during project operations (e.g.,heavy equipment,fleet or delivery vehicles) 0Yes [UNO N/A ii.Stationary sources during construction (e.g.,power generation,structural heating,batch plant,crushers) Construction equipment Hi.Stationary sources during operations (e.g.,process emissions,large boilers,electric generation) Backup generator g.Will any air emission sources named in D.2.f (above),require a NY State Air Registration,Air Facility Permit,Yes 0No or Federal Clean Air Act Title IV or Title V Permit? IfYes: i.Is the project site located in an Air quality non-attainment area?(Area routinely or periodically fails to meet Yes DNoambientairqualitystandardsforallorsomepartsoftheyear) ii.In addition to emissions as calculated in the application,the project will generate:•Tons/year (short tons)of Carbon Dioxide (C02)•Tons/year (short tons)of Nitrous Oxide (N20) •Tons/year (short tons)of Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) •Tons/year (short tons)of Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6)•Tons/year (short tons)of Carbon Dioxide equivalent of Hydroflourocarbons (HFCs)•Tons/year (short tons)of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) Page 6 of 13 h.Will the proposed action generate or emit methane (including,but not limited to,sewage treatment plants,QYes0No landfills,composting facilities)? If Yes: i.Estimate methane generation in tons/year (metric): li.Describe any methane capture,control or elimination measures included in project design (e.g.,combustion to generate heat or electricity,flaring): i.Will the proposed action result in the release of air pollutants from open-air operations or processes,such asquarryorlandfilloperations? If Yes:Describe operations and nature of emissions (e.g.,diesel exhaust,rock particulates/dust): Yes0 No j.Will the proposed action result in a substantial increase in traffic above present levels or generate substantial Yes0No new demand for transportation facilities or services? IfYes: i.When is the peak traffic expected (Check all that apply):Morning Evening QWeekend Randomly between hours of it.For commercial activities only,projected number of truck trips/day and type (e.g.,semi trailers and dump trucks): to ill.Parking spaces:Existing iv.Does the proposed action include any shared use parking? v If the proposed action includes any modification of existing roads,creation of new roads or change in existing access,describe: Proposed Net increase/decrease YesDNo vi.Are public/private transportation service(s)or facilities available within /2 mile of the proposed site? VI'I Will the proposed action include access to public transportation or accommodations for use of hybrid,electric or other alternative fueled vehicles? viii.Will the proposed action include plans for pedestrian or bicycle accommodations for connections to existing pedestrian or bicycle routes? YesDNoYesDNo YesDNo k.Will the proposed action (for commercial or industrial projects only)generate new or additional demand 0YesQNo for energy? IfYes: I.Estimate annual electricity demand during operation of the proposed action: Minimal increase in electrical power usage as necessary to operate the facility. II.Anticipated sources/suppliers of electricity for the project (e.g.,on-site combustion,on-site renewable,via grid/local utility,or other): Local utility i'll.Will the proposed action require a new,or an upgrade,to an existing substation?Yes0 No 1.Hours of operation.Answer all items which apply, i.During Construction:•Monday -Friday:•Saturday: •Sunday: •Holidays: ii.During Operations:•Monday -Friday: •Saturday:•Sunday: •Holidays: 8am -5pm 24 hours 24 hours 24 hours 24 hours Page 7 of 13 HYesDNom.Will the proposed action produce noise that will exceed existing ambient noise levels during construction, operation,or both? If yes: i.Provide details including sources,time of day and duration: Purina construction,noise associated with the operation of construction equipment.Purina operation,noise associated with the operation of backup generator. ii.Will the proposed action remove existing natural barriers that could act as a noise barrier or screen? Describe: YesHNo n.Will the proposed action have outdoor lighting? If yes: i.Describe source(s),location(s),height of fixture(s),direction/aim,and proximity to nearest occupied structures: One (11 switch operated LEP light fixture attached to the h-frame at grade,designed to illuminate the area in and around the Verizon equipment only. HYesQNo YesHNoII.Will proposed action remove existing natural barriers that could act as a light barrier or screen? Describe: o.Does the proposed action have the potential to produce odors for more than one hour per day? If Yes,describe possible sources,potential frequency and duration of odor emissions,and proximity to nearest occupied structures: YesHNo p.Will the proposed action include any bulk storage of petroleum (combined capacity of over 1,100 gallons) or chemical products 185 gallons in above ground storage or any amount in underground storage? IfYes: YesHNo /.Product(s)to be stored ii.Volume(s)per unit time Hi.Generally,describe the proposed storage facilities: (e.g.,month,year) q.Will the proposed action (commercial,industrial and recreational projects only)use pesticides (i.e.,herbicides,Yes HNoinsecticides)during construction or operation? IfYes: i.Describe proposed treatment(s): ii.Will the proposed action use Integrated Pest Management Practices?Yes DNo r.Will the proposed action (commercial or industrial projects only)involve or require the management or disposal Yes HNoofsolidwaste(excluding hazardous materials)? IfYes: i.Describe any solid waste(s)to be generated during construction or operation of the facility: (unit of time) (unit of time) •Construction:tons per _ tons per ii.Describe any proposals for on-site minimization,recycling or reuse of materials to avoid disposal as solid waste:•Construction: •Operation : •Operation: iii.Proposed disposal methods/facilities for solid waste generated on-site:•Construction: •Operation: Page 8 of 13 Yes 0 Nos.Does the proposed action include construction or modification of a solid waste management facility? If Yes: i.Type of management or handling of waste proposed for the site (e.g.,recycling or transfer station,composting,landfill,or other disposal activities): ii.Anticipated rate of disposal/processing: Tons/month,if transfer or other non-combustion/thermal treatment,or Tons/hour,if combustion or thermal treatment Hi.If landfill,anticipated site life:years t.Will the proposed action at the site involve the commercial generation,treatment,storage,or disposal of hazardous 0Yes 0No waste? IfYes: i.Name(s)of all hazardous wastes or constituents to be generated,handled or managed at facility: ii.Generally describe processes or activities involving hazardous wastes or constituents: iii.Specify amount to be handled or generated tons/month iv.Describe any proposals for on-site minimization,recycling or reuse of hazardous constituents: YesDNov.Will any hazardous wastes be disposed at an existing offsite hazardous waste facility? IfYes:provide name and location of facility: If No:describe proposed management of any hazardous wastes which will not be sent to a hazardous waste facility: E.Site and Setting of Proposed Action E.l.Land uses on and surrounding the project site a.Existing land uses. i.Check all uses that occur on,adjoining and near the project site. Urban Industrial Commercial 0 Residential (suburban)0 Rural (non-farm)0 Forest Agriculture Aquatic ii.If mix of uses,generally describe: Other (specify): b.Land uses and covertypes on the project site. Land use or Covertype Current Acreage Acreage After Project Completion Change (Acres +/-) Roads,buildings,and other paved or impervious surfaces o.so 0.50 0.0 Forested 9.26 9.26 0.0 Meadows,grasslands or brushlands (non- agricultural,including abandoned agricultural)2.58 2.58 0.0 Agricultural (includes active orchards,field,greenhouse etc.) Surface water features (lakes,ponds,streams,rivers,etc.) Wetlands (freshwater or tidal) Non-vegetated (bare rock,earth or fill) Other Describe: Page 9 of 13 YesIZlNoc.Is the project site presently used by members of the community for public recreation? i.If Yes:explain: d.Are there any facilities serving children,the elderly,people with disabilities (e.g.,schools,hospitals,licensed Yes0No day care centers,or group homes)within 1500 feet of the project site? If Yes, i.Identify Facilities: e.Does the project site contain an existing dam? IfYes: i.Dimensions of the dam and impoundment: Dam height: *Dam length: •Surface area:•Volume impounded: ii.Dam’s existing hazard classification: Hi.Provide date and summarize results of last inspection: YesHNo feet feet acres gallons OR acre-feet f.Has the project site ever been used as a municipal,commercial or industrial solid waste management facility,YesHNoordoestheprojectsiteadjoinpropertywhichisnow,or was at one time,used as a solid waste management facility? IfYes: i.Has the facility been formally closed? •If yes,cite sources/documentation: ii.Describe the location of the project site relative to the boundaries of the solid waste management facility: YesQ No Hi.Describe any development constraints due to the prior solid waste activities: g.Have hazardous wastes been generated,treated and/or disposed of at the site,or does the project site adjoin EHYesEZlNopropertywhichisnoworwasatonetimeusedtocommerciallytreat,store and/or dispose of hazardous waste? IfYes: i.Describe waste(s)handled and waste management activities,including approximate time when activities occurred: Yes0 Noh.Potential contamination history.Has there been a reported spill at the proposed project site,or have any remedial actions been conducted at or adjacent to the proposed site? IfYes: i.Is any portion of the site listed on the NYSDEC Spills Incidents database or Environmental Site Remediation database?Check all that apply: Q Yes -Spills Incidents database Yes -Environmental Site Remediation database Neither database ii.If site has been subject of RCRA corrective activities,describe control measures: YesHjNo Provide DEC ID number(s): Provide DEC ID number(s): YesDNoiii.Is the project within 2000 feet of any site in the NYSDEC Environmental Site Remediation database? If yes,provide DEC ID number(s): iv.If yes to (i ),(ii)or (iii)above,describe current status of site(s): Page 10 of 13 Unnamed stream along eastern property boundary Unregulated by state/federal agencies 18-24 inches YesDNov.Is the project site subject to an institutional control limiting property uses? •If yes,DEC site ID number: •Describe the type of institutional control (e.g.,deed restriction or easement):•Describe any use limitations: •Describe any engineering controls: •Will the project affect the institutional or engineering controls in place?•Explain:YesDNo E.2.Natural Resources On or Near Project Site a.What is the average depth to bedrock on the project site?7 +feet b.Are there bedrock outcroppings on the project site? If Yes,what proportion of the site is comprised of bedrock outcroppings?YesIZlNo % c.Predominant soil type(s)present on project site:HsC3 84.3 % 15.7 %HzE % d.What is the average depth to the water table on the project site?Average:feet e.Drainage status of project site soils:Well Drained:%of site0ModeratelyWellDrained:100 %of site Poorly Drained %of site f.Approximate proportion of proposed action site with slopes:0 0-10%: 10-15%: 15%or greater: 100 %of site %of site %of site g.Are there any unique geologic features on the project site? If Yes,describe: Yes0No h.Surface water features. i.Does any portion of the project site contain wetlands or other waterbodies (including streams,rivers, ponds or lakes)? ii.Do any wetlands or other waterbodies adjoin the project site? If Yes to either i or ii ,continue.If No,skip to E.2.i. ^YesK[No (CLf )) YesE3No Yes 0NoHi.Are any of the wetlands or waterbodies within or adjoining the project site regulated by any federal, state or local agency? iv.For each identified regulated wetland and waterbody on the project site,provide the following information:•Streams:Name ^ClassificationI•Lakes or Ponds:Name•Wetlands:•Wetland No.(if regulated by DEC) v.Are any of the above water bodies listed in the most recent compilation of NYS water quality-impaired waterbodies? If yes,name of impaired water body/bodies and basis for listing as impaired: ’lassification Approximate Size <CName Yes 0No i.Is the project site in a designated Floodway?Yes 0No j.Is the project site in the 100-year Floodplain?Yes 0No Yes 0Nok.Is the project site in the 500-year Floodplain? 0Yes DNo1.Is the project site located over,or immediately adjoining,a primary,principal or sole source aquifer? If Yes: i.Name of aquifer:Principal Aquifer Page 11 of 13 m.Identify the predominant wildlife species that occupy or use the project site: Rabbits SkunksSquirrels Chipmunks Oppossums Foxes DeerBirdsRaccoons n.Does the project site contain a designated significant natural community? If Yes: i.Describe the habitat/community (composition,function,and basis for designation): YesElNo ii.Source(s)of description or evaluation: iii.Extent of community/habitat:•Currently: •Following completion of project as proposed: •Gain or loss (indicate +or -): acres acres acres o.Does project site contain any species of plant or animal that is listed by the federal government or NYS as Yes0No endangered or threatened,or does it contain any areas identified as habitat for an endangered or threatened species? If Yes: i.Species and listing (endangered or threatened ): YesHNop.Does the project site contain any species of plant or animal that is listed by NYS as rare,or as a species of special concern? IfYes: i.Species and listing: Yes 0Noq.Is the project site or adjoining area currently used for hunting,trapping,fishing or shell fishing? If yes,give a brief description of how the proposed action may affect that use: E.3.Designated Public Resources On or Near Project Site a.Is the project site,or any portion of it,located in a designated agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law,Article 25-AA,Section 303 and 304? IfYes,provide county plus district name/number: YesfZJNo b.Are agricultural lands consisting of highly productive soils present? i.IfYes:acreage(s)on project site? ii .Source(s)ofsoilrating(s): Yes0No c.Does the project site contain all or part of,or is it substantially contiguous to,a registered National Natural Landmark? IfYes: i.Nature of the natural landmark:[J Biological Community Geological Feature ii.Provide brief description of landmark,including values behind designation and approximate size/extent: YesENo YesHNod.Is the project site located in or does it adjoin a state listed Critical Environmental Area? IfYes: /.CEA name: ii.Basis for designation: iii.Designating agency and date: Page 12 of 13 e.Docs the project site contain,or is it substantially contiguous to,a building,archaeological site,or district Yes0 No which is listed on the National or State Register of Historic Places,or that has been determined by the Commissioner of the NYS Office of Parks,Recreation and Historic Preservation to be eligible for listing on the State Register of Historic Places? IfYes: Nature of historic/archaeological resource:Archaeological Site Historic Building or District ii.Name: Hi.Brief description of attributes on which listing is based: f.Is the project site,or any portion of it,located in or adjacent to an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites on the NY State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)archaeological site inventory? Yes 0No Yes 0Nog.Have additional archaeological or historic site(s)or resources been identified on the project site? IfYes: i.Describe possible resource(s): ii.Basis for identification: h.Is the project site within fives miles of any officially designated and publicly accessible federal,state,or local 0Yes 0NO scenic or aesthetic resource? IfYes: i.Identify resource:Eastern Heights Park,Tudor Park,Hungerford Heights Park ii.Nature of,or basis for,designation (e.g.,established highway overlook,state or local park,state historic trail or scenic byway, etc.):Local park iii.Distance between project and resource: i.Is the project site located within a designated river corridor under the Wild,Scenic and Recreational Rivers Yes0 No Program 6 NYCRR 666? IfYes: i.Identify the name of the river and its designation: ii.Is the activity consistenjt with development restrictions contained in 6NYCRR Part 666? 1 miles. YesDNo F.Additional Information Attach any additional information which may be needed to clarify your project. If you have identified any adverse impacts which could be associated with your proposal,please describe those impacts plus any measures which you propose to avoid or minimize them. G.Verification I certify that the information provided is true to the best of my knowledge. Applicant/Sponsor Name Steven Matthews,agent on behalf of applicant Date 4/3/23 Signature r <S7 Title Director of Engineering PRINT FORM Page 13 of 13 EAF Mapper Summary Report Monday,January 16,2023 8:53 AM Disclaimer:The EAF Mapper is a screening tool intended to assist project sponsors and reviewing agencies in preparing a assessment form (EAF).Not all questions asked in the answered by the EAF Mapper.Additional information on any question can be obtained by consulting the EAF Wbrkbooks.Although the EAF Mapper provides the most up-to-date digital data available to DEC.you may also need to contact local or other data sources in order to obtain data not provided by the Mapper.Digital data is not a substitute for agency determinations. in environmental EAF are0EAF ifSCTSW I.6~5I1»2'7J *£* JOttawaMonteal M.linr\ T r .'it°ot BOMO oR °<>,w r :T ,Albany".Detroit Boston ..ProvidenceSjClevefaid i New York EMENT^fiKcan,Esn Japan,METI,EsrKhina ^HoiK)KoncJEsn ,F(o)i0penSt eatMap c o n t n C I S User Comm unity ''?!!• \\ B.i.i [Coastal or Waterfront Area]No B.i.ii [Local Waterfront Revitalization Area]No C.2.b.[Special Planning District]Digital mapping data are not available or are incomplete.Refer to EAF Workbook. Digital mapping data are not available or are incomplete.Refer to EAF Workbook. Digital mapping data are not available or are incomplete.Refer to EAF Workbook. E.1.h [DEC Spills or Remediation Site - Potential Contamination History] E.lh.i [DEC Spills or Remediation Site - Listed] E.lh.i [DEC Spills or Remediation Site -Digital mapping data are not available or are incomplete.Refer to EAF Environmental Site Remediation Database]Workbook. E.lh.iii [Within 2,000'of DEC Remediation No Site] E.2.g [Unique Geologic Features]No E.2.h.i [Surface Water Features] E.2.h.ii [Surface Water Features] E.2.h.iii [Surface Water Features] E.2.h.v [Impaired Water Bodies] E.2.i.[Floodway] No No No No Digital mapping data are not available or are incomplete.Refer to EAF Workbook. Digital mapping data are not available or are incomplete.Refer to EAF Workbook. Digital mapping data are not available or are incomplete.Refer to EAF Workbook. E.2.j.[100 Year Floodplain] E.2.k.[500 Year Floodplain] E.2.I.[Aquifers] E.2.I.[Aquifer Names] E.2.n.[Natural Communities] Yes Principal Aquifer No Full Environmental Assessment Form -EAF Mapper Summary Report / E.2.0.[Endangered or Threatened Species]No E.2.p.[Rare Plants or Animals] E.3.a.[Agricultural District] E.3.c.[National Natural Landmark] E.3.d [Critical Environmental Area] E.3.e.[National or State Register of Historic 1 Digital mapping data are not available or are incomplete.Refer to EAF Places or State Eligible Sites] E.3.f.[Archeological Sites] E.3.i.[Designated River Corridor] I No ; j No No :No ;Workbook. No! I No Full Environmental Assessment Form -EAF Mapper Summary Report 2 Page 1 of 10 Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 2 - Identification of Potential Project Impacts Part 2 is to be completed by the lead agency. Part 2 is designed to help the lead agency inventory all potential resources that could be affected by a proposed project or action. We recognize that the lead agency=s reviewer(s) will not necessarily be environmental professionals. So, the questions are designed to walk a reviewer through the assessment process by providing a series of questions that can be answered using the information found in Part 1. To further assist the lead agency in completing Part 2, the form identifies the most relevant questions in Part 1 that will provide the information needed to answer the Part 2 question. When Part 2 is completed, the lead agency will have identified the relevant environmental areas that may be impacted by the proposed activity. If the lead agency is a state agency and the action is in any Coastal Area, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment. Tips for completing Part 2: • Review all of the information provided in Part 1. • Review any application, maps, supporting materials and the Full EAF Workbook. • Answer each of the 18 questions in Part 2. • If you answer “Yes” to a numbered question, please complete all the questions that follow in that section. • If you answer “No” to a numbered question, move on to the next numbered question. • Check appropriate column to indicate the anticipated size of the impact. • Proposed projects that would exceed a numeric threshold contained in a question should result in the reviewing agency checking the box “Moderate to large impact may occur.” • The reviewer is not expected to be an expert in environmental analysis. • If you are not sure or undecided about the size of an impact, it may help to review the sub-questions for the general question and consult the workbook. • When answering a question consider all components of the proposed activity, that is, the Awhole action@. • Consider the possibility for long-term and cumulative impacts as well as direct impacts. • Answer the question in a reasonable manner considering the scale and context of the project. 1. Impact on Land Proposed action may involve construction on, or physical alteration of, † NO † YES the land surface of the proposed site. (See Part 1. D.1) If “Yes”, answer questions a - j. If “No”, move on to Section 2. Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur E2d 9 9 b. The proposed action may involve construction on slopes of 15% or greater. E2f 9 9 c. The proposed action may involve construction on land where bedrock is exposed, or generally within 5 feet of existing ground surface. E2a 9 9 d. The proposed action may involve the excavation and removal of more than 1,000 tons of natural material. D2a 9 9 e. The proposed action may involve construction that continues for more than one year or in multiple phases. D1e 9 9 f. The proposed action may result in increased erosion, whether from physical disturbance or vegetation removal (including from treatment by herbicides). D2e, D2q 9 9 g. The proposed action is, or may be, located within a Coastal Erosion hazard area. B1i 9 9 h. Other impacts: _______________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ 9 9 a. The proposed action may involve construction on land where depth to water table is less than 3 feet. Notes: Please see Part 3 for items checked "yes." Unchecked boxes are "no impact." 4 4 4 Page 2 of 10 2. Impact on Geological Features The proposed action may result in the modification or destruction of, or inhibit access to, any unique or unusual land forms on the site (e.g., cliffs, dunes, † NO † YES minerals, fossils, caves). (See Part 1. E.2.g) If “Yes”, answer questions a - c. If “No”, move on to Section 3. Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. Identify the specific land form(s) attached: ________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ E2g 9 9 b. The proposed action may affect or is adjacent to a geological feature listed as a registered National Natural Landmark. Specific feature: _____________________________________________________ E3c 9 9 c. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ 9 9 3. Impacts on Surface Water The proposed action may affect one or more wetlands or other surface water † NO † YES bodies (e.g., streams, rivers, ponds or lakes). (See Part 1. D.2, E.2.h) If “Yes”, answer questions a - l. If “No”, move on to Section 4. Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. The proposed action may create a new water body. D2b, D1h 9 9 b. The proposed action may result in an increase or decrease of over 10% or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water. D2b 9 9 c. The proposed action may involve dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from a wetland or water body. D2a 9 9 d. The proposed action may involve construction within or adjoining a freshwater or tidal wetland, or in the bed or banks of any other water body. E2h 9 9 e. The proposed action may create turbidity in a waterbody, either from upland erosion, runoff or by disturbing bottom sediments. D2a, D2h 9 9 f. The proposed action may include construction of one or more intake(s) for withdrawal of water from surface water. D2c 9 9 g. The proposed action may include construction of one or more outfall(s) for discharge of wastewater to surface water(s). D2d 9 9 h. The proposed action may cause soil erosion, or otherwise create a source of stormwater discharge that may lead to siltation or other degradation of receiving water bodies. D2e 9 9 i. The proposed action may affect the water quality of any water bodies within or downstream of the site of the proposed action. E2h 9 9 j. The proposed action may involve the application of pesticides or herbicides in or around any water body. D2q, E2h 9 9 k. The proposed action may require the construction of new, or expansion of existing, wastewater treatment facilities. D1a, D2d 9 9 4 4 4 4 Page 3 of 10 l. Other impacts: _______________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ 9 9 4.Impact on groundwater The proposed action may result in new or additional use of ground water, or † NO † YES may have the potential to introduce contaminants to ground water or an aquifer. (See Part 1. D.2.a, D.2.c, D.2.d, D.2.p, D.2.q, D.2.t) If “Yes”, answer questions a - h. If “No”, move on to Section 5. Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. The proposed action may require new water supply wells, or create additional demand on supplies from existing water supply wells. D2c 9 9 b.Water supply demand from the proposed action may exceed safe and sustainable withdrawal capacity rate of the local supply or aquifer. Cite Source: ________________________________________________________ D2c 9 9 c. The proposed action may allow or result in residential uses in areas without water and sewer services. D1a, D2c 9 9 d. The proposed action may include or require wastewater discharged to groundwater.D2d, E2l 9 9 e. The proposed action may result in the construction of water supply wells in locations where groundwater is, or is suspected to be, contaminated. D2c, E1f, E1g, E1h 9 9 f. The proposed action may require the bulk storage of petroleum or chemical products over ground water or an aquifer. D2p, E2l 9 9 g. The proposed action may involve the commercial application of pesticides within 100 feet of potable drinking water or irrigation sources. E2h, D2q, E2l, D2c 9 9 h.Other impacts: ______________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 9 9 5.Impact on Flooding The proposed action may result in development on lands subject to flooding.† NO † YES (See Part 1. E.2) If “Yes”, answer questions a - g. If “No”, move on to Section 6. Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. The proposed action may result in development in a designated floodway.E2i 9 9 b. The proposed action may result in development within a 100 year floodplain.E2j 9 9 c. The proposed action may result in development within a 500 year floodplain.E2k 9 9 d.The proposed action may result in, or require, modification of existing drainage patterns. D2b, D2e 9 9 e. The proposed action may change flood water flows that contribute to flooding.D2b, E2i, E2j, E2k 9 9 f.If there is a dam located on the site of the proposed action, is the dam in need of repair, or upgrade? E1e 9 9 4 4 4 4 n Page 4 of 10 g. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ 9 9 6.Impacts on Air The proposed action may include a state regulated air emission source. † NO † YES (See Part 1. D.2.f., D,2,h, D.2.g) If “Yes”, answer questions a - f. If “No”, move on to Section 7. Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. If the proposed action requires federal or state air emission permits, the action may also emit one or more greenhouse gases at or above the following levels: i. More than 1000 tons/year of carbon dioxide (CO2) ii.More than 3.5 tons/year of nitrous oxide (N2O) iii. More than 1000 tons/year of carbon equivalent of perfluorocarbons (PFCs) iv.More than .045 tons/year of sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) v. More than 1000 tons/year of carbon dioxide equivalent of hydrochloroflourocarbons (HFCs) emissions vi. 43 tons/year or more of methane D2g D2g D2g D2g D2g D2h 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 b. The proposed action may generate 10 tons/year or more of any one designated hazardous air pollutant, or 25 tons/year or more of any combination of such hazardous air pollutants. D2g 9 9 c. The proposed action may require a state air registration, or may produce an emissions rate of total contaminants that may exceed 5 lbs. per hour, or may include a heat source capable of producing more than 10 million BTU=s per hour. D2f, D2g 9 9 d.The proposed action may reach 50% of any of the thresholds in “a” through “c”, above. D2g 9 9 e. The proposed action may result in the combustion or thermal treatment of more than 1 ton of refuse per hour. D2s 9 9 f. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 9 9 7.Impact on Plants and Animals The proposed action may result in a loss of flora or fauna. (See Part 1. E.2. m.-q.)† NO † YES If “Yes”, answer questions a - j. If “No”, move on to Section 8. Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a.The proposed action may cause reduction in population or loss of individuals of any threatened or endangered species, as listed by New York State or the Federal government, that use the site, or are found on, over, or near the site. E2o 9 9 b.The proposed action may result in a reduction or degradation of any habitat used by any rare, threatened or endangered species, as listed by New York State or the federal government. E2o 9 9 c. The proposed action may cause reduction in population, or loss of individuals, of any species of special concern or conservation need, as listed by New York State or the Federal government, that use the site, or are found on, over, or near the site. E2p 9 9 d.The proposed action may result in a reduction or degradation of any habitat used by any species of special concern and conservation need, as listed by New York State or the Federal government. E2p 9 9 4 4 4 Page 5 of 10 e. The proposed action may diminish the capacity of a registered National Natural Landmark to support the biological community it was established to protect. E3c 9 9 f. The proposed action may result in the removal of, or ground disturbance in, any portion of a designated significant natural community. Source: ____________________________________________________________ E2n 9 9 g. The proposed action may substantially interfere with nesting/breeding, foraging, or over-wintering habitat for the predominant species that occupy or use the project site. E2m 9 9 h. The proposed action requires the conversion of more than 10 acres of forest, grassland or any other regionally or locally important habitat. Habitat type & information source: ______________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ E1b 9 9 i. Proposed action (commercial, industrial or recreational projects, only) involves use of herbicides or pesticides. D2q 9 9 j. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 9 9 8. Impact on Agricultural Resources The proposed action may impact agricultural resources. (See Part 1. E.3.a. and b.) † NO † YES If “Yes”, answer questions a - h. If “No”, move on to Section 9. Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. The proposed action may impact soil classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NYS Land Classification System. E2c, E3b 9 9 b. The proposed action may sever, cross or otherwise limit access to agricultural land (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc). E1a, Elb 9 9 c. The proposed action may result in the excavation or compaction of the soil profile of active agricultural land. E3b 9 9 d. The proposed action may irreversibly convert agricultural land to non-agricultural uses, either more than 2.5 acres if located in an Agricultural District, or more than 10 acres if not within an Agricultural District. E1b, E3a 9 9 e. The proposed action may disrupt or prevent installation of an agricultural land management system. El a, E1b 9 9 f. The proposed action may result, directly or indirectly, in increased development potential or pressure on farmland. C2c, C3, D2c, D2d 9 9 g. The proposed project is not consistent with the adopted municipal Farmland Protection Plan. C2c 9 9 h. Other impacts: ________________________________________________________ 9 9 4 4 Page 6 of 10 9. Impact on Aesthetic Resources The land use of the proposed action are obviously different from, or are in † NO † YES sharp contrast to, current land use patterns between the proposed project and a scenic or aesthetic resource. (Part 1. E.1.a, E.1.b, E.3.h.) If “Yes”, answer questions a - g. If “No”, go to Section 10. Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. Proposed action may be visible from any officially designated federal, state, or local scenic or aesthetic resource. E3h 9 9 b. The proposed action may result in the obstruction, elimination or significant screening of one or more officially designated scenic views. E3h, C2b 9 9 c. The proposed action may be visible from publicly accessible vantage points: i. Seasonally (e.g., screened by summer foliage, but visible during other seasons) ii. Year round E3h 9 9 9 9 d. The situation or activity in which viewers are engaged while viewing the proposed action is: i. Routine travel by residents, including travel to and from work ii. Recreational or tourism based activities E3h E2q, E1c 9 9 9 9 e. The proposed action may cause a diminishment of the public enjoyment and appreciation of the designated aesthetic resource. E3h 9 9 f. There are similar projects visible within the following distance of the proposed project: 0-1/2 mile ½ -3 mile 3-5 mile 5+ mile D1a, E1a, D1f, D1g 9 9 g. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 9 9 10. Impact on Historic and Archeological Resources The proposed action may occur in or adjacent to a historic or archaeological † NO † YES resource. (Part 1. E.3.e, f. and g.) If “Yes”, answer questions a - e. If “No”, go to Section 11. Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. The proposed action may occur wholly or partially within, or substantially contiguous to, any buildings, archaeological site or district which is listed on or has been nominated by the NYS Board of Historic Preservation for inclusion on the State or National Register of Historic Places. E3e 9 9 b. The proposed action may occur wholly or partially within, or substantially contiguous to, an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites on the NY State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) archaeological site inventory. E3f 9 9 c. The proposed action may occur wholly or partially within, or substantially contiguous to, an archaeological site not included on the NY SHPO inventory. Source: ____________________________________________________________ E3g 9 9 4 4 4 4 4 4 Page 7 of 10 d. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 9 9 e. If any of the above (a-d) are answered “Yes”, continue with the following questions to help support conclusions in Part 3: i.The proposed action may result in the destruction or alteration of all or part of the site or property. ii.The proposed action may result in the alteration of the property’s setting or integrity. iii.The proposed action may result in the introduction of visual elements which are out of character with the site or property, or may alter its setting. E3e, E3g, E3f E3e, E3f, E3g, E1a, E1b E3e, E3f, E3g, E3h, C2, C3 9 9 9 9 9 9 11.Impact on Open Space and Recreation The proposed action may result in a loss of recreational opportunities or a † NO † YES reduction of an open space resource as designated in any adopted municipal open space plan. (See Part 1. C.2.c, E.1.c., E.2.q.) If “Yes”, answer questions a - e. If “No”, go to Section 12. Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. The proposed action may result in an impairment of natural functions, or “ecosystem services”, provided by an undeveloped area, including but not limited to stormwater storage, nutrient cycling, wildlife habitat. D2e, E1b E2h, E2m, E2o, E2n, E2p 9 9 b. The proposed action may result in the loss of a current or future recreational resource.C2a, E1c, C2c, E2q 9 9 c. The proposed action may eliminate open space or recreational resource in an area with few such resources. C2a, C2c E1c, E2q 9 9 d. The proposed action may result in loss of an area now used informally by the community as an open space resource. C2c, E1c 9 9 e.Other impacts: _____________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ 9 9 12. Impact on Critical Environmental Areas The proposed action may be located within or adjacent to a critical † NO † YES environmental area (CEA). (See Part 1. E.3.d) If “Yes”, answer questions a - c. If “No”, go to Section 13. Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. The proposed action may result in a reduction in the quantity of the resource or characteristic which was the basis for designation of the CEA. E3d 9 9 b. The proposed action may result in a reduction in the quality of the resource or characteristic which was the basis for designation of the CEA. E3d 9 9 c. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 9 9 4 4 Page 8 of 10 13. Impact on Transportation The proposed action may result in a change to existing transportation systems.† NO † YES (See Part 1. D.2.j) If “Yes”, answer questions a - g. If “No”, go to Section 14. Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. Projected traffic increase may exceed capacity of existing road network.D2j 9 9 b.The proposed action may result in the construction of paved parking area for 500 or more vehicles. D2j 9 9 c. The proposed action will degrade existing transit access.D2j 9 9 d.The proposed action will degrade existing pedestrian or bicycle accommodations.D2j 9 9 e.The proposed action may alter the present pattern of movement of people or goods.D2j 9 9 f.Other impacts: ______________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 9 9 14. Impact on Energy The proposed action may cause an increase in the use of any form of energy.† NO † YES (See Part 1. D.2.k) If “Yes”, answer questions a - e. If “No”, go to Section 15. Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. The proposed action will require a new, or an upgrade to an existing, substation.D2k 9 9 b. The proposed action will require the creation or extension of an energy transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two-family residences or to serve a commercial or industrial use. D1f, D1q, D2k 9 9 c. The proposed action may utilize more than 2,500 MWhrs per year of electricity.D2k 9 9 d. The proposed action may involve heating and/or cooling of more than 100,000 square feet of building area when completed. D1g 9 9 e.Other Impacts: ________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ 15. Impact on Noise, Odor, and Light The proposed action may result in an increase in noise, odors, or outdoor lighting. † NO † YES (See Part 1. D.2.m., n., and o.) If “Yes”, answer questions a - f. If “No”, go to Section 16. Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. The proposed action may produce sound above noise levels established by local regulation. D2m 9 9 b. The proposed action may result in blasting within 1,500 feet of any residence, hospital, school, licensed day care center, or nursing home. D2m, E1d 9 9 c. The proposed action may result in routine odors for more than one hour per day.D2o 9 9 4 4 4 4 Page 9 of 10 d. The proposed action may result in light shining onto adjoining properties.D2n 9 9 e. The proposed action may result in lighting creating sky-glow brighter than existing area conditions. D2n, E1a 9 9 f. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 9 9 16. Impact on Human Health The proposed action may have an impact on human health from exposure † NO † YES to new or existing sources of contaminants. (See Part 1.D.2.q., E.1. d. f. g. and h.) If “Yes”, answer questions a - m. If “No”, go to Section 17. Relevant Part I Question(s) No,or small impact may cccur Moderate to large impact may occur a. The proposed action is located within 1500 feet of a school, hospital, licensed day care center, group home, nursing home or retirement community. E1d 9 9 b.The site of the proposed action is currently undergoing remediation.E1g, E1h 9 9 c. There is a completed emergency spill remediation, or a completed environmental site remediation on, or adjacent to, the site of the proposed action. E1g, E1h 9 9 d.The site of the action is subject to an institutional control limiting the use of the property (e.g., easement or deed restriction). E1g, E1h 9 9 e. The proposed action may affect institutional control measures that were put in place to ensure that the site remains protective of the environment and human health. E1g, E1h 9 9 f. The proposed action has adequate control measures in place to ensure that future generation, treatment and/or disposal of hazardous wastes will be protective of the environment and human health. D2t 9 9 g.The proposed action involves construction or modification of a solid waste management facility. D2q, E1f 9 9 h.The proposed action may result in the unearthing of solid or hazardous waste.D2q, E1f 9 9 i. The proposed action may result in an increase in the rate of disposal, or processing, of solid waste. D2r, D2s 9 9 j.The proposed action may result in excavation or other disturbance within 2000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste. E1f, E1g E1h 9 9 k. The proposed action may result in the migration of explosive gases from a landfill site to adjacent off site structures. E1f, E1g 9 9 l. The proposed action may result in the release of contaminated leachate from the project site. D2s, E1f, D2r 9 9 m.Other impacts: ______________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 4 4 4 Page 10 of 10 17. Consistency with Community Plans The proposed action is not consistent with adopted land use plans. † NO † YES (See Part 1. C.1, C.2. and C.3.) If “Yes”, answer questions a - h. If “No”, go to Section 18. Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. The proposed action’s land use components may be different from, or in sharp contrast to, current surrounding land use pattern(s). C2, C3, D1a E1a, E1b 9 9 b. The proposed action will cause the permanent population of the city, town or village in which the project is located to grow by more than 5%. C2 9 9 c. The proposed action is inconsistent with local land use plans or zoning regulations. C2, C2, C3 9 9 d. The proposed action is inconsistent with any County plans, or other regional land use plans. C2, C2 9 9 e. The proposed action may cause a change in the density of development that is not supported by existing infrastructure or is distant from existing infrastructure. C3, D1c, D1d, D1f, D1d, Elb 9 9 f. The proposed action is located in an area characterized by low density development that will require new or expanded public infrastructure. C4, D2c, D2d D2j 9 9 g. The proposed action may induce secondary development impacts (e.g., residential or commercial development not included in the proposed action) C2a 9 9 h. Other: _____________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 9 9 18. Consistency with Community Character The proposed project is inconsistent with the existing community character. † NO † YES (See Part 1. C.2, C.3, D.2, E.3) If “Yes”, answer questions a - g. If “No”, proceed to Part 3. Relevant Part I Question(s) No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur a. The proposed action may replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures, or areas of historic importance to the community. E3e, E3f, E3g 9 9 b. The proposed action may create a demand for additional community services (e.g. schools, police and fire) C4 9 9 c. The proposed action may displace affordable or low-income housing in an area where there is a shortage of such housing. C2, C3, D1f D1g, E1a 9 9 d. The proposed action may interfere with the use or enjoyment of officially recognized or designated public resources. C2, E3 9 9 e. The proposed action is inconsistent with the predominant architectural scale and character. C2, C3 9 9 f. Proposed action is inconsistent with the character of the existing natural landscape. C2, C3 E1a, E1b E2g, E2h 9 9 g. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 9 9 4 4 4 1 Part 3 – Evaluation of the Magnitude and Importance of Project Impacts Verizon Telecommunications Tower State Environmental Quality Review Full Environmental Assessment Form Action: Site Plan Approval, Special Permit, Height Variance Location: 111 Wiedmaier Court, Tax Parcel No. 56.-4-1.22 Lead Agency: Town of Ithaca Planning Board Involved Agency: Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Description: The proposal involves the construction of a 138 +/- foot tall personal wireless service facility (monopole tower) with nine antennas, two equipment cabinets, a generator, and other equipment within a 50' x 50' +/- chain link fenced area, located at 111 Wiedmaier Court. The Planning Board is considering granting Preliminary and Final Site Plan approval and Special Permit for the project. The Zoning Board of Appeals is considering granting a height variance for the project. The proposed actions are Unlisted Actions pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617 State Environmental Quality Review and Chapter 148 of the Town of Ithaca Code (Environmental Quality Review). 1. Impact on Land a. The proposed action may involve construction on land where depth to water table is less than 3 feet. f. The proposed action may result in increased erosion, whether from physical disturbance or vegetation removal (including from treatment by herbicides). Briefly describe the impact on land: The project site involves a 12.3+/- acre, previously disturbed, vacant property that was created as a result of the Wiedmaier Court 5-lot residential subdivision that was approved by the Planning Board in December 2003. The parcel is bordered on the north by woods and Burns Road, on the east by private residences on Wiedmaier Court, on the south by a stream and woods, and on the west by woods. Per the FEAF, Part 1, 100% of the property contains slopes of 0-10% and moderately well-drained soils. The applicant has stated that the project will be constructed over a period of approximately two months. The proposal will result in a physical change to the project site with the construction of a 138+/- foot tall monopole telecommunications tower, equipment shelters, generator, and other associated equipment within a 50-foot by 50-foot fenced area. The proposal also involves widening an existing 8- foot wide gravel/grass access drive into a 12-foot wide, 500 +/- foot long gravel driveway that will allow access to the site from the end of Wiedmaier Court. The proposed drive will dead-end in a 15- foot wide gravel parking and turnaround area located immediately adjacent to the tower. The project will result in the physical disturbance of approximately .46+/- acres to accommodate the concrete pad containing the tower, all equipment, and expanded gravel access drive. According to the FEAF Part 1, the project site contains an average depth to water table between 18 and 24 inches. This is a previously disturbed site, with very minimal excavation and earth-moving activity associated with the project. The project is not expected to negatively impact the water table; and any impacts will be mitigated with the erosion and sedimentation control plans described in sections 3-5 below. 2 The area that surrounds the project site is characterized by rural residential development. The proposal will not change the overall character of the area. Impacts to water, air, plants, aesthetics, and other resources will be evaluated in the sections below. 3. Impact on Surface Water h. The proposed action may cause soil erosion, or otherwise create a source of stormwater discharge that may lead to siltation or other degradation of receiving water bodies. i. The proposed action may affect the water quality of any water bodies within or downstream of the site of the proposed action. 4. Impact on Groundwater h. Other impacts: The EAF Mapper database indicates that there is a principal aquifer near the site. 5. Impact on Flooding d. The proposed action may result in, or require, modification of existing drainage patterns. Briefly describe the impact on surface water, groundwater, and flooding: The project site is relatively flat and involves minimal grading. There will be some earth-moving activities related to the construction of the concrete pad, tower, and gravel access drive. The application materials state that the proposal will physically disturb .46+/- acres of the 12.3+/- acre project area. The Town of Ithaca Engineering Department has indicated that the project will require a simple Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (Simple SWPPP).The submitted application drawings indicate the construction of silt fencing surrounding the areas of construction (limited to a small portion of the existing cleared area and existing driveway), to help filter stormwater runoff and control site drainage. Related to water quality, the applicant proposes temporary erosion and sedimentation control practices that will control dust and minimize soil tracking and erosion off site. There is a stream that runs along the eastern property boundary that is located approximately 125- 175 feet from the existing cleared areas of the property. There is no anticipated adverse impact on the stream, provided that the proposed erosion controls are installed and properly maintained, and that no additional disturbance occurs past any of the areas marked “approximate location of no disturbance” on the plans. According to the NYS DEC EAF Mapper Program, there is a principal aquifer located near the project site. NYS DEC classifies principal aquifers as "aquifers known to be highly productive or whose geology suggests abundant potential water supply, but which are not intensively used as sources of water supply by major municipal systems at the present time". A review of the USGS Unconsolidated Aquifers in Tompkins County Water-Resources Report (published 2000) indicates that the project site is located within the “Six Mile Creek Valley” aquifer, which encompasses most of the area between Slaterville Road and Coddington Road. The project will not involve significant development that would negatively impact the aquifer. As noted above, the proposal includes very minimal grading, with any impacts to surface water, groundwater, and flooding being mitigated via the installation of sediment and erosion controls. These controls are outlined in the Simple SWPPP that has been submitted and that will be approved by the Town Engineering Department before a building permit is issued for the project. Based on the above information, impacts identified in this section would be considered small in magnitude. 3 6. Impacts on Air f. Other impacts: The proposed action will include on-site air emissions, including fuel combustion, waste incineration, or other processes or operations. The FEAF Part 1, page 6 indicates that the project will utilize construction equipment during construction and a backup generator during operations, both of which are sources of on-site air emissions. However, the use of construction equipment is temporary and will cease once the project is completed (approximately two months). The backup generator is proposed for emergencies and will only operate in the event of an emergency. Based on the above information, impacts identified in this section would be considered small in magnitude. 7. Impacts on Plants and Animals: j. Other impacts: The project is located within a Unique Natural Area. The project site is located within the designated Six Mile Creek Valley Unique Natura Area and is zoned Conservation by the town. There are no known endangered or threatened plant or animal species located on or near the site that would be impacted by the proposed tower, concrete pad, or access road. Additionally, there will be no tree cutting associated with the proposal. The proposed tower will be constructed entirely within an existing cleared area; and the existing driveway access will only be widened by four feet to accommodate the proposed use. History of impacts on plants and animals: The project site is “Lot 5” from the Wiedmaier Subdivision, approved by the Planning Board in December 2003. In 2007, the property owner at the time performed extensive earthwork and illegal tree clearing in preparation for a housing site. The clearing was in violation of the subdivision approval and other Town Code provisions. Prior to the earthwork, the site was a mix of thick meadow/brush and evergreen and deciduous trees. Topographically, the site was a hilltop, with steep sloping sides leading to streams on both sides. To create the large level site that currently exists, the property owner removed the hilltop, and spread out the excavated material, creating a large plateau with steep unstabilized sides. The property owner was required by NYS DEC to undertake additional earthwork to soften slopes and install permanent stormwater practices to remediate the site. To correct the subdivision approval violations, the property owner was required to hire a professional landscaper to re-landscape the hillside with a native seed mix and plant approximately 250 trees. The remediation plans also identified a “no disturbance zone” on the filed subdivision plat, to inform all future owners and to insure that this portion of the land would be left in a natural state in perpetuity. There has been no further clearing since the remediation plans were established. Trees and other landscaping were monitored for a period of five years, which was a condition of Planning Board approval. Nearly all of the plantings survived or were replaced. None will be disturbed as part of the proposed project. Based on the above information, impacts identified in this section would be considered small in magnitude. 4 9. Impact on Aesthetic Resources c. The proposed action may be visible from publicly accessible vantage points: i. Seasonally ii. Year round d. The situation or activity in which viewers are engaged while viewing the proposed action is: i. Routine travel by residents, including travel to and from work ii. Recreational or tourism based activities Briefly describe the impact on aesthetic resources: The project site is not listed in the Town of Ithaca Scenic Resources Inventory or in the Tompkins County Scenic Resources Inventory. It is not in an area that is officially designated as a federal, state, or local scenic or aesthetic resource. The project site is located adjacent to residences and is approximately 500-feet from NYS Route 79E/Slaterville Road. In order to properly assess potential aesthetic and visual impacts, the applicant submitted included a visual analysis “balloon-fly” at the proposed tower height (134ft), along with before and after photo renderings and photo simulations of the tower within the landscape at various viewpoints. The simulations show the balloon inset on each page, followed by a photo showing the tower and another photo showing a camouflaged tower that is made to look like an evergreen tree. The list below includes the specific views in the visual analysis where the tower will be visible: a) P-1/S-1 – Intersection of Wiedmaier Court and NYS Route 79E/Slaterville Road, looking southwest [tower most visible here] b) P-3/S-3 – Looking west from NYS Route 79E/Slaterville Road, near 1667 Slaterville Road (approx. 1550-feet from project site) c) P-4/S-4 – Intersection of Burns Road and NYS Route 79E/Slaterville Road, looking south d) P-5/S-5 – Looking south from Burns Way e) P-6/S-6 – Looking northeast along Burns Road The visual analysis illustrates that the project will only be visible from those traveling along NYS Route 79E/Slaterville Road or Burns Road, either recreationally or as part of a daily commute. Other than the South Hill Recreation Way, which will not be impacted by the tower, there are no public parks or recreation trails nearby, so only the adjacent property owners and residents on Wiedmaier Court, Burns Road, and Slaterville Road will see the tower on a consistent basis. At 134-feet tall, the tower will be taller than surrounding trees at full leaf-out. However, in most cases, one will need to deliberately look for the tower in order to see it while commuting in a vehicle. The project will be visible in the winter when the deciduous trees that surround the site have lost their leaves. However, there should be enough coniferous trees to adequately screen the tower from most views. The applicant has not proposed additional landscaping. Landscaping around the fenced- in area would not necessarily soften views or mitigate potential aesthetic impacts. Camouflaging the tower to look like an evergreen tree is not recommended, as it will make the tower stand out more than necessary, which could potential create negative aesthetic impacts. There are no similar projects visible within any distance of the proposed project. The two nearest personal wireless service towers are located at least three miles away from the project (Cornell monopole on Dryden Road in the Town of Ithaca, and a tower in the Town of Danby). These facilities can be seen from a number of public and private properties. 5 Based on the above information, impacts identified in this section would be considered small in magnitude. 14. Impact on Energy e. Other Impacts: The project will utilize electric power provided by the local utility company. The applicant indicated in the FEAF Part 1 that the project will utilize electric energy, sourced from the local utility company (NYSEG). According to the application materials, the new tower will result in a minimal increase in electrical power usage. It is unknown if the facility will need to comply with the Town of Ithaca Energy Code. Regardless, impacts associated with energy usage would be considered small in magnitude. 15. Impact on Noise, Odor, and Light f. Other Impacts: The project will create construction noise and will require safety lighting. The applicant indicated in the FEAF Part 1 that the project will create noise during construction. The emergency generator will also create noise impacts when in use. The closest residence will be located approximately 450-feet from the tower once constructed. Noise impacts are expected to be temporary, with the majority ceasing after construction and the generator only operating during emergencies. In terms of lighting impacts, the tower itself does not require or include lighting, pursuant to FAA standards. The project does include a 25W “flood light” that will be mounted around 8-feet high and angled down towards the equipment cabinets in a manner that will comply with the Town Outdoor Lighting Law. The light is a required safety feature and is not expected to create significant adverse impacts on neighboring residences. Based on the above information, impacts identified in this section would be considered small in magnitude. 16. Impact on Human Health m. Other Impacts: The proposed tower and antennas appear to have radiation exposure limits that fall within the maximum guidelines set forth by the Federal Communications Commission, the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, and the American National Standards Institute. Pursuant to Town Code §270-219.Q, the Town of Ithaca hired a consultant team to examine and evaluate the application and related documentation. Per the Town Code, the consultants were requested to make recommendations as to whether the criteria for granting approvals and permits have been met, including whether the applicant's conclusions regarding a significant gap in coverage, co-location, safety analysis, visual analysis, and structural inspection are valid and supported by generally accepted and reliable engineering and technical data and standards and whether the personal wireless service facility, as constructed, will be in compliance with the approved plans and in accordance with generally accepted good engineering practices and industry standards. The consultants also specifically reviewed the electrical RF (radio-frequency) aspects of the project, and, per Town Code, evaluated the RF information provided by the applicant for completeness, consistency, and adequacy. 6 The consultants produced a preliminary written report that summarizes the relevant findings and explains the basis for the findings. The report made the following findings relative to the projects’ impact on human health: 1. The RF coverage threshold levels upon which the proposed site is designed are reasonable values and are consistent with threshold levels used by Applicant in similar sites in this region 2. Based on the RF coverage threshold levels and the need to off-load traffic from certain neighbor sites, Applicant has demonstrated need for RF coverage and additional traffic capacity from a base station facility in the general area of the proposed project site 3. Base station antennae must be elevated to allow efficient RF propagation and achieve the proposed RF coverage and capacity relief to neighboring cells. Applicant has provided evidence that a tower height lower than the proposed height would not suffice to accomplish their goals based on our review of this evidence 4. FCC regulations require Applicant perform a preliminary analysis to ascertain whether or not it is likely the proposed site will expose members of the “General Population” to excessive electromagnetic energy. Applicant has provided a Radio Frequency Emissions Compliance Report (Exhibit P) dated March 14, 2023, and signed by David C. Cotton, P.E., that shows the proposed site will not exceed the FCC General Population limits. Based on the above information, impacts identified in this section would be considered small in magnitude. 18. Consistency with Community Character f. The proposed tower will be inconsistent with the character of the existing natural landscape. As noted above, the proposed tower will be located on a previously disturbed vacant parcel that is surrounded by rural residential development. The proposal will not change the overall character of the area but will be inconsistent with the character of the existing landscape. The tower will be set back from NYS Route 79E/Slaterville Road, with tall trees on all sides, which will mitigate impacts of the facility on the natural landscape. Based on the above information, impacts identified in this section would be considered small in magnitude. Staff Recommendation, Determination of Significance A negative determination of environmental significance is recommended for the action as proposed, based on review of the materials submitted for the proposed action, the information above, and analysis of the magnitude and importance of the project impacts. Lead Agency: Town of Ithaca Planning Board Reviewer: Christine Balestra, Senior Planner Review Date: September 24, 2024 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: SEQR Verizon Personal Wireless Service Facility 111 Wiedmaier Court Tax Parcel No. 56.-4-1.22 Planning Board, October 1, 2024 WHEREAS: 1. This action is Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for a personal wireless service facility located at 111 Wiedmaier Court, off Slaterville Road/NYS Route 79. The proposal involves the construction of a 138' +/- monopole tower with nine antennas, two equipment cabinets, a generator, and other equipment within a 50' x 50' +/- chain link fenced area. S. Roberts WC Land, LLC, Owner; Verizon Wireless, Applicant; Jared C. Lusk, Nixon Peabody, LLP, Agent; and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting in an uncoordinated environmental review with respect to the Verizon Personal Wireless Service Facility proposal; and 3. The Planning Board, on October 1, 2024, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 1, submitted and prepared by the applicant; FEAF Parts 2 and 3, prepared by Town Planning staff; application materials dated November 13, 3023, and May 29, 2024, including Exhibits A-Y; additional application materials dated August 7, 2024, including Exhibits Z-EE; and other plans and materials; and 4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Verizon Personal Wireless Service Facility project; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617 New York State Environmental Quality Review for the above referenced action as proposed, based on the information in the FEAF Part 1 and for the reasons set forth in the FEAF Parts 2 and 3, and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Preliminary Site Plan & Special Permit Verizon Personal Wireless Service Facility 111 Wiedmaier Court Tax Parcel No. 56.-4-1.22 Planning Board, October 1, 2024 WHEREAS: 1. This action is Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for a personal wireless service facility located at 111 Wiedmaier Court, off Slaterville Road/NYS Route 79. The proposal involves the construction of a 138' +/- monopole tower with nine antennas, two equipment cabinets, a generator, and other equipment within a 50' x 50' +/- chain link fenced area. S. Roberts WC Land, LLC, Owner; Verizon Wireless, Applicant; Jared C. Lusk, Nixon Peabody, LLP, Agent; and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting in an uncoordinated environmental review with respect to the Verizon Personal Wireless Service Facility proposal, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted and prepared by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3 prepared by staff; 3. The Planning Board, at a public hearing on October 1, 2024, has reviewed and accepted as adequate application materials dated November 13, 3023, and May 29, 2024, including Exhibits A-Y; additional application materials dated August 7, 2024, including Exhibits Z-EE; and other plans and materials; and 4. Project plans, and related information, were duly delivered to the Tompkins County Planning and Sustainability Department per New York State General Municipal Law §§239-l et seq., and such Department responded in a September 13, 2024, letter from Katherine Borgella, Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, pursuant to §§239-l, -m, and -n of the New York State General Municipal Law, determining that the proposed action will have no significant county- wide or inter-community impact; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby finds that the special permit standards of Article XXIV Section 270-200, Subsections A – H, of the Town of Ithaca Code, have been met, specifically that: A. The project will be suitable for the property on which it is proposed, considering the property’s size, location, and physical site characteristics.  The property is 12+/- acres in size, whereas the facility and all appurtenances will only encompass .46+/- acres. The proposed facility will be located on an existing cleared site and a considerable distance from existing residences; B. The proposed structure design and site layout are compatible with the surrounding area.  The site layout will not change – the facility will utilize an existing gravel drive and will be constructed on an existing cleared site. The facility will also be sufficiently screened by existing tall vegetation so as to not create significant changes in the landscape and the character of the neighborhood; Page 2 of 4 C. Operations in connection with the proposed use do not create any more noise, fumes, vibration, illumination, or other potential nuisances than the operation of any permitted use in the particular zone.  During operations, the facility will not emit noise, fumes, vibration, illumination (other than one safety light) or other potential nuisances. D. Community infrastructure and services, such as police, fire and other protective services, roadways, schools, and water and sewer facilities are currently, or will be, of adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed use.  There are no changes to existing infrastructure and services. All infrastructure to accommodate the existing use is in place and is of adequate capacity. E. The proposed use, structure design, and site layout will comply with all the provisions of the Town Code and with the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan.  If the Zoning Board of Appeals grants an area variance for height, then the proposed use, structure design and site layout will comply with all provisions of Chapter 270, Zoning, and, to the extent considered by the Planning Board, with other regulations and ordinances of the town, with the NYS Building Code and all other state and federal laws, rules and regulations, and with the Town Comprehensive Plan. F. The site layout, with proposed vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian access, traffic circulation, and parking and loading facilities, is sufficient for the proposed use and is safely designed for emergency vehicles.  There is no bicycle or pedestrian access permitted or associated with the proposed tower. There is no public access associated with the project – the existing gravel drive, widened to accommodate the project, will provide appropriate access for emergency vehicles. The project includes a small parking and turnaround area. G. The project includes sufficient landscaping and/or other forms of buffering to protect surrounding land uses. Existing vegetation is preserved to the extent possible.  There will be no loss to existing trees and vegetation. There is very large no disturbance area of large trees and vegetation surrounding the project site that will remain natural growth in perpetuity. H. To the extent deemed relevant by the Planning Board, the proposed use or structure complies with all the criteria applicable to site plan review set forth in Chapter 270, Zoning. 2. That the Planning Board further finds that the requirements of §270-219.R have been met, specifically, the proposed personal wireless service facility: (a) Complies with all relevant federal statutory and regulatory requirements, including all applicable FCC, FAA, NEPA, and NHPA requirements. This is consistent with the findings of the consultant report prepared by William P. Johnson and Steven M. Ciccarelli, dated September 20, 2024. (b) The applicable standards in Chapter 270 (Zoning), Article XXIV (Special Permits and Special Approvals), § 270-200 (Considerations for approval) are met. See #1 above; and (c) All of the following additional standards are met: Page 3 of 4 [1] Public utility status. Services provided by the proposed PWSFs are considered public utility services, and the provider of such services is considered a public utility, in the State of New York. See application materials Exhibit C. [2] Need. The applicant has proven a compelling need to address any significant gaps in the applicant's personal wireless services (the ability of wireless telephones to make and receive voice calls to and from landlines that are connected to the national telephone network) through the proposed facilities and not through any other solution, and the facility presents a minimal intrusion on the community. This is consistent with the findings of the consultant report prepared by William P. Johnson and Steven M. Ciccarelli, dated September 20, 2024. See also application materials Exhibits Z, AA, and BB. [a] To determine whether a gap is significant, the Planning Board shall consider, among other things, dropped call and failure rates, whether a gap is relatively large or small in geographic size, whether the number of the applicant's customers affected by the gap is relatively small or large, whether or not the location of the gap is situated on a lightly or heavily traveled road or in a sparsely or densely occupied area, and whether the applicant's customers are affected for only a limited period of time. A significant gap cannot be established simply because the applicant's personal wireless services operate on a frequency which is not the frequency most desired by the applicant. An applicant's claim of need for future capacity does not constitute evidence of a significant gap. [b] In making the finding of compelling need, the Planning Board shall consider the evidence of a significant gap, the applicant's consideration of other sites and other means of addressing the gaps, and the feasibility of addressing the gaps through the use of other sites or other means. [3] Compliance with Chapter 270 (Zoning) and other Town Code requirements. Complies with all requirements of this § 270-219, with all other requirements of this Chapter 270 (unless expressly superseded by this § 270-219), and all other applicable Ithaca Town Code requirements. [4] Co-location on proposed towers. For non-SWFs, when construction of a tower is proposed, such a tower is designed to accommodate future shared use by at least two other PWSF providers. Tower is such designed, per application materials Exhibit L. [5] Aesthetic impacts. The proposed PWSFs will not inflict a significant adverse aesthetic impact upon properties that are located adjacent or in close proximity to the proposed site(s) or upon any other properties situated in a manner that such properties might reasonably be expected to sustain adverse aesthetic impacts. Explained per EAF Part 3 Attachment, and application materials Exhibit Q. [6] Impacts upon real estate values. The proposed PWSFs will not inflict a significant adverse impact upon the property values of properties that are located adjacent or in close proximity to the proposed site(s). Explained per application materials Exhibits Y and CC. [7] Impact upon the character of the surrounding community. The proposed PWSFs will not be incompatible with the use and character of properties located adjacent or in close proximity to the proposed site(s), or with any other properties situated in a manner that the Page 4 of 4 PWSFs might reasonably be expected to be incompatible with such properties. Explained per EAF Part 3 Attachment, per Special Permit findings in #1 above. [8] Mitigation. The applicant has mitigated the potential adverse impacts of the proposed PWSFs to the greatest extent reasonably feasible through siting, location, and design. 3. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the proposed personal wireless service facility located at 111 Wiedmaier Court, off Slaterville Road/NYS Route 79, as described in Whereas #3 above, subject to the following conditions: a. Before final site plan approval, receipt of any necessary variances from the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals; b. [Staff note: any other conditions before final site plan?] c. [Staff note: any other conditions before final site plan?] d. [Staff note: any other conditions before final site plan?] e. Before issuance of a building permit, approval of the Simple Erosion and Sedimentation Control plan (SWPPP) by the Town of Ithaca Engineering Department; f. Before issuance of a building permit, submission of the required documents, permits, and fees listed on the Town Code Enforcement Department Comments list, dated 8-14-24; and g. [Staff note: Removal bond – this is in the law – do we need to add it as a condition of approval?] Prior to the installation of any personal wireless service facilities, execution and filing with the Town Clerk of a bond or other form of security or undertaking which shall be approved as to form, manner of execution, and sufficiency for surety by the Attorney for the Town and the Town Engineer. Any bond or guaranty shall be provided by or placed with a solvent surety corporation duly licensed in the State of New York. Such bond or undertaking shall be conditioned upon the faithful performance of the provisions of this section, and in the event of default, the bond or undertaking shall be forfeited to the Town, which shall be entitled to maintain an action thereon. The bond or undertaking shall remain in full force and effect until the removal of all personal wireless service facilities and all site restoration has been completed. The value of the bond shall be equal to 125% of the cost of facility removal and restoration of the site, as determined by the Town Engineer after evaluation of the applicant's detailed estimate of such cost. No such decommissioning or removal bond shall be secured by an indemnity agreement with the owner or operator, or any party affiliated with them. William P. Johnson and Steven M. Ciccarelli RF Engineering Consultants P.O. Box 20263 Rochester, New York 14602 September 20, 2024 Town of Ithaca Planning Board Attn: Ms. Christine Balestra, Senior Planner Town of Ithaca 215 N. Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Proposed Wireless Telecommunications Services Facility - RF Site Review Verizon Wireless / Sunny View 111 Wiedmaier Court (Tax Parcel No. 56-4-1.22) Proposed 134’ New Monopole Tower plus 4’ Lightning Rod (138’ overall) Dear Ms. Balestra, This preliminary report discusses the radio-frequency (RF) aspects of the proposed Bell Atlantic Mobile Systems LLC d/b/a Verizon Wireless (Applicant) project in the Town of Ithaca - the siting authority for the proposed project. Subsequent reports, if needed, will address any remaining questions or issues that arise during public hearings at the request of the town. This report is organized to focus on findings relevant to the subject site review. Certain findings may include recommendations for siting authority action to request additional information from Applicant. The appendices referenced within the body of the report provide more general background information that may assist the reader in a deeper understanding of issues that lead to the findings and recommendations. Appendix A is attached to this report as a summary of professional qualifications to render opinions regarding the application. Additional background information related to technical matters is included in Appendix B and following. The following materials form the basis for this report: 1. Permit application materials dated May 29, 2024, including Exhibits A through X 2. Applicant’s supplemental submission dated August 7, 2024, including Exhibits Z, AA and BB 9/20/24 Town of Ithaca Page 2 of 38 Summary of Findings 1. The RF coverage threshold levels upon which the proposed site is designed are reasonable values and are consistent with threshold levels used by Applicant in similar sites in this region. 2. Based on the RF coverage threshold levels and the need to off-load traffic from certain neighbor sites, Applicant has demonstrated need1 for RF coverage and additional traffic capacity from a base station facility in the general area of the proposed project site. 3. Base station antennae must be elevated to allow efficient RF propagation and achieve the proposed RF coverage and capacity relief to neighboring cells. Applicant has provided evidence that a tower height lower than the proposed height would not suffice to accomplish their goals based on our review of this evidence. 4. Deployment of cellular base stations can be affected by developing plans for neighboring sites. We recommend that Applicant discuss with the board whether any neighbor site deployments are at or near a point where they may allow height reduction of the proposed tower. 5. During public hearings and municipal site plan review, other alternate sites that may provide improved visual impact are often identified by the siting authority or the public in addition to those Applicant identified. We recommend Applicant perform an RF analysis for any additional nearby sites identified by municipal staff and others that have potential for improved visual impact. 6. Applicant considered five sites, of which one is the proposed site, site E. Four of these sites (A, B, C and D) were dismissed for further consideration by RF because “… this location would not have adequately covered the intended coverage area in the same capacity as the selected location.” No technical evidence is provided by Applicant for those conclusions. We recommend further analysis regarding rejected sites if, in the opinion of the siting authority, there is any possibility that they could provide an aesthetic advantage for this site or if the board feels there should be evidence in the record to show the technical and/or aesthetic disadvantages of these sites compared to the proposed site. 7. The proposed tower is 134’ tall (138’ with lightning rod). Structures that exceed 199’ generally require FAA marking and lighting. Shorter structures near controlled airspace may also require FAA marking and lighting. Determination of 1 There are several ways by which a wireless telecommunications service provider can establish site need for a “covered service.” A “covered service” is “a telecommunications service or a personal wireless service”. See “Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment,” FCC 18-133, 85 FR 51867, at ¶ 37 and footnote 85 (October 15, 2018) (the FCC regulatory test for establishing an effective prohibition is whether “a state or local legal requirement materially inhibits a provider’s ability to engage in any of a variety of activities related to its provision of a covered service,” and this test is met “not only when filling a coverage gap but also when densifying a wireless network, introducing new services or otherwise improving service capabilities”) 9/20/24 Town of Ithaca Page 3 of 38 marking/lighting requirements are made using findings of an airspace study. Applicant did not provide an FAA airspace study to show marking and lighting requirements. If an airspace study was performed, we recommend Applicant make the airspace study available and make a definitive commitment on the record that either (a) no structure marking/lighting will be required or (b) specify what marking/lighting is required for the proposed structure or one later extended for co-location purposes. 8. FCC regulations2 require Applicant perform a preliminary analysis to ascertain whether or not it is likely the proposed site will expose members of the “General Population”3 to excessive electromagnetic energy. Applicant has provided a Radio Frequency Emissions Compliance Report (Exhibit P) dated March 14, 2023 and signed by David C. Cotton, P.E. that shows the proposed site will not exceed the FCC General Population limits. 9. If the proposed site is ultimately approved it, like the existing neighbor sites currently in operation, will serve as a fixed area of coverage to which future neighbor sites must connect. 10. If the proposed site is ultimately approved, it will meet the FCC requirements in 47 C.F.R. §1.6100 as an “Existing” structure. Modifications of “Existing” structures that fall outside of that section’s definition of “Substantial Change” are subject to mandatory local approval. We recommend that review of this proposed site consider the possibility that such a request will come before the town in the future as a co-location request by another wireless service provider or modification to improve Applicant’s service levels. 11. Wireless networks consist of individual cells that function as a whole. Approval of any one particular site should consider the future need for additional neighbor sites and the locations of those sites. A new tower in a more controversial area may be required to address the remaining coverage gaps, extend the coverage area, off-load traffic from future saturated sectors, and properly connect the currently-proposed site into the larger network. 12. The proposed RF coverage shows that several coverage gap areas will remain in the area. Those gaps that remain after a proposed site is active imply the possibility that Applicant may decide to address those areas as part of their overall wireless network. At this time, it is recommended that the siting authority request information from Applicant to more fully understand the potential need to serve remaining gap areas and how approval of the currently-proposed site will influence the placement and height of future sites. 2 47 CFR §1.1307 and 47 CFR §1.1310 3 “General population/uncontrolled exposure limits apply in situations in which the general public may be exposed, or in which persons who are exposed as a consequence of their employment may not be fully aware of the potential for exposure or cannot exercise control over their exposure.” 47 CFR §1.1310 footnote (3). 9/20/24 Town of Ithaca Page 4 of 38 The information in this report concerns the RF engineering issues related to the proposed project to assist the siting authority in weighing the alternatives and planning for the future of the community. Engineering design choices may also implicate aesthetic and legal issues. However, this report must not be relied upon for any legal advice or direction. Legal advice about action on these issues must be obtained from the board’s counsel. The remainder of this report addresses the details that support the findings. Site Details Applicant proposes a new 134’ self-supporting wireless telecommunications tower (plus 4’ lightning rod) with antennas, base station equipment, and other improvements within a 50’ x 50’ leased area at 111 Wiedmaier Court (Tax Parcel No. 56- 4-1.22). Exhibit R (Site Plans) shows Applicant’s antennas installed at 130’ antenna center line (ACL). While no co-location positions are shown on these drawings, the structure is planned to allow up to three (3) additional future co-location positions at lower ACL per Exhibit O (Structural Report). Applicant’s three sector antenna array consists of three (3) panel antennas per sector for a total of nine (9) panel antennas total. Based on Exhibit J, Applicant will provide low-band (700/850 MHz), mid-band (1900 MHz and 2100 MHz) and C-band (3700 MHz) services. Access to the lease area is a gated 12’ wide driveway with turn- around area. Ground equipment consists primarily of utility connection panels, a backup battery cabinet and a single equipment cabinet on a 12.5’ x 11.0’ concrete equipment pad with a 50 kW generator located on a separate 4’ x 8’ concrete pad. Introduction Commercial radio (i.e. “wireless”) communication systems have been in use since the late 1800’s when Guglielmo Marconi started his entrepreneurial efforts to provide long-distance wireless telegraph communication to distant locations and ocean-going vessels. In 1973 wireless technology developments allowed Motorola’s Martin Cooper and his team to connect through the public switched telephone network on 5th Avenue in Manhattan (“PSTN”) using a prototype hand-held “DynaTAC” mobile “brick” phone with only 25 minutes of battery life. Cooper claimed he made the first cellular phone call to his technology rival at AT&T Bell Labs with the press corps looking on. In the 1980’s relatively few subscribers could afford the equipment and air-time service fees offered by only two competitors in each Major Trading Market. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 opened the door for much less expensive equipment and service fees to the point that most individuals now have access to reasonably priced mobile phone technology. Many wireless subscribers now use only wireless devices for their telephonic needs. In 2020 there were over 417,000 U.S. base stations handling annual mobile traffic of 42.2 trillion megabytes – a 208% increase since 2016.4 In 2023 the CTIA estimates 4 See https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/u-s-counts-more-than-417k-cell-sites-as-2020 9/20/24 Town of Ithaca Page 5 of 38 there are 499M wireless subscriber devices and 97% of U.S. adults have a cell phone.5 The exponential growth of the commercial personal wireless services continues to stretch existing base station capacity. The original low-band spectrum around 850 MHz and the initial PCS band at 1950 MHz are no longer capable of handling that level of traffic, so the FCC auctioned additional spectrum at higher frequencies collectively called the “mid- band.” Mid-band includes the original 1900 MHz PCS and 2110 MHz AWS bands along with new spectrum (3700-3980 MHz “C-Band”) that was reappropriated for terrestrial use from the 3700-4200 MHz satellite downlink spectrum. The low-band typically can provide about 7% of user traffic capacity compared to the aggregated mid-band spectrum that provides the remaining 93% of base station capacity. The growth in user traffic (both digital voice and data) usually requires both mid-band and low-band deployment that match the area population demographics and major roadways to capture traffic from mobile users in the area. In some urban and dense-urban areas, the “high-band” or millimeter-wave (“mm-wave”) 24.25 GHz to 71.0 GHz is used for handling high- capacity services. The U.S. Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the Act) was signed into law during the 1996-1997 legislative year. The Act had the dual intentions of promoting wireless services competition and encouraging continued deployment of the ubiquitous wireless networks on which we have come to rely. Since the Act became law, subsequent legislative, judicial and regulatory actions cleared the path to speed implementation of the federal policy at the state and local level. The sometimes-conflicting interests of local community values with the Act, and subsequent legislative and regulatory actions to interpret those laws, have placed local municipalities in the position of balancing local community aesthetic and zoning values with national policies to attain ubiquitous wireless service. Community members often do not fully appreciate that planning and zoning boards have specific legal and regulatory constraints when considering wireless telecommunications facilities – namely that they cannot just say “No”, that they must not discriminate between service providers offering essentially the same services, and that any decision to deny must be based on substantial evidence and documented in a written record. Similarly, members of those boards may not fully appreciate that they still do have the ability to balance the interests of an applicant with those of the community as long as their decisions are non-discriminatory between providers of essentially the same services, based on substantial evidence, and documented in a written decision supported by this substantial evidence. We will assist the reviewing boards using our reports and oral testimony to supplement the record and clarify the complex engineering issues behind the substantial evidence presented by Applicant. In recent years, new coverage and capacity sites have been proposed in residential and scenic areas that previously were considered somewhat “off limits” to wireless telecommunication facility construction. Wireless service providers have transitioned from companies that provided the convenience of wireless services for relatively few individuals who could afford and justify the costs of mobile wireless services to the current status of “public utilities” due to the demand by most individuals for reliable and 5 See https://www.ctia.org/the-wireless-industry/wireless-industry 9/20/24 Town of Ithaca Page 6 of 38 relatively low-cost mobile wireless services as part of their daily routine and unexpected emergencies. Household members often own multiple wireless mobile devices that are more than voice communication phones. Consumers are installing wireless “smart” devices in homes, offices and vehicles, sometimes called the “Internet of Things” (IoT). The IoT technologies encompass everything from household appliances to motor vehicle real-time metrics. Don’t be surprised if your refrigerator texts you to pick up milk and eggs on the way home or when your auto repair facility calls to tell you your vehicle fuel consumption is out of acceptable limits. These wireless mobile technologies add energy conservation and personal convenience to everyday life but come at the cost of necessary infrastructure. The IoT devices and the mobile terminals which now serve as phones, personal planners, and cameras often communicate and transact data transfers on the wide-area commercial wireless networks. These devices push network data demands higher and higher. If we have issues with wireless site deployment, in certain ways it is our own doing. The lower costs of service and the ever-increasing demand for services by the general public have placed municipal planning and zoning boards in the difficult position of balancing preservation of community aesthetics and safety concerns with the requirements of federal and state law that recognize wireless service providers as public utilities. In particular, it is well-settled that a zoning board of appeals must apply the public utility standard6 regarding wireless telecommunication facility permit applications. This report is intended to assist the decision makers who may only have a basic level of understanding of the wireless RF engineering issues but are charged to decide whether a project can and should be approved. There are many complex engineering aspects of wireless telecommunication facility site deployment that are in the background of such decisions. This and subsequent reports will help decision-makers understand the engineering issues as they serve their community and balance the necessarily intrusive nature of wireless telecommunications base station site deployment. Site Justification Subject to confirmation by the board’s legal counsel, in New York area variances, special use permits and use variances for a proposed telecommunication facility as a public utility are normally based upon an applicant showing that (1) its new construction “is a public necessity in that it is required to render safe and adequate service”; and (2) “there are compelling reasons, economic or otherwise, which make it more feasible”7 to build a new facility than to use an alternative site. RF coverage gaps and user capacity limitations both affect delivery of safe and adequate service. Area-wide RF coverage gaps and existing neighbor site sector capacity exhaustion tend to show necessity. Feasibility generally relates to whether the proposed facility or an alternative site adequately addresses a well-defined coverage and/or capacity need, avoids unacceptable performance degradation, and enhances non-RF issues such as public safety services and avoids unreasonable community aesthetic impact. 6 Cellular Tel. Co. v. Rosenberg, 82 N.Y.2d 364, 371-371 (1993). 7 Cellular Tel. Co. v. Rosenberg, 82 N.Y.2d 364, 371-371 (1993). 9/20/24 Town of Ithaca Page 7 of 38 Considering the need to provide wireless service and the impact on the community, the proposed site should represent the most balanced and reasonable solution among all technically viable and available alternatives - i.e. the least intrusive means to remedy the service gap. A “least intrusive means” implies a comparison to other viable alternatives such as lower height or a better location that reduces visual and other impacts. Determination of reasonableness might also involve an analysis of whether a proposed site creates unacceptable precedents or places constraints upon the locations of other future sites in the area needed to provide additional area coverage (SEQRA segmentation) where Applicant’s future build-out plans are apparent. Even though no additional sites are currently planned by a service provider, one must keep in mind that base station sites are developed on an approximately three-year cycle. In year one, new site candidates are identified. In year two, a subset of candidate sites are identified for funding based on priority need and site acquisition contracts are placed. In year three, municipal zoning approvals are requested. When evaluating a given site, or set of sites, one must always look beyond the current situation to evaluate the likelihood of future development as demand for wireless services increase. Additional considerations that weigh into the reasonableness of a site, for example, might include whether the proposed structure can be disguised as a “stealth” site, can accommodate additional co-location antenna arrays, or has potential limitations for effective co-location at heights lower than that proposed by Applicant. The need for improved emergency services communications either through the commercial wireless network or by co-located emergency services communications equipment on a proposed structure might also be considered or weighed into the decision-making process. Telecommunication facilities fall into one of two categories based upon the status of the service provider’s technology. The status must be determined by the municipality’s legal counsel. Some facilities are deemed to be covered by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 USC §332(c)(7), which limits some aspects of local zoning authority. Other facilities are deemed not included or their status is unclear because of the nature of the service provider’s technology or lack of precedential decisions at the FCC or within the courts. Determination of the actual status of any particular applicant requires advice from legal counsel and is beyond the scope of this report. This report will proceed on the assumption that 47 USC §332(c)(7) and related local zoning limitations apply and will, therefore, focus upon the areas of review permitted under those limitations. A subsequent contrary determination by the municipality will affect the application of the law to the facts and engineering opinions presented in this report, and such determination may open other areas of inquiry. Subject to confirmation by the board’s legal counsel, the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Act) in 47 USC §332(c)(7) limits certain aspects of local zoning authority regarding wireless telecommunication services providers. Beyond the few explicit limitations, “…nothing [else] in this Act shall limit or affect the authority of a State or local government or instrumentality thereof over decisions regarding the 9/20/24 Town of Ithaca Page 8 of 38 placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities.”8 The main limitations imposed by the Act require that local regulation of "the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities . . . (I) shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; and (II) shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services."9 The Act also states that “[n]o 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.”10 Otherwise, the Act leaves substantial and familiar local zoning authority in place balanced by the familiar conditions that local zoning decisions must be timely11, based upon substantial evidence, and documented for potential judicial review.12 Siting Authority Timeliness for Wireless Telecommunications Facilities The FCC has established timeframes, collectively called the “Shot Clock” for “siting authority” action. The siting authority is usually the local municipality with zoning jurisdiction. The nature of the proposed wireless facility permit request dictates the timeframe for action based upon the nature of the proposed antenna support structure and base station equipment. Appendix B lists the current presumptively reasonable FCC Shot Clock time limit requirements13 and related information. In the case of this application, Applicant proposes a “…facility other than a Small Wireless Facility using a new structure.” Therefore, based on the FCC Shot Clock time limit requirements, the Shot Clock is presumed to be 150 days from application. In the present case, the Shot Clock was temporarily suspended (i.e. “tolled”) subsequent to submission of the permit application while Applicant provided additional information specified in the town code and other materials to allow the planning board and zoning board of appeals to properly evaluate this project. Town staff will advise on the status of the Shot Clock. Public Necessity Wireless service providers, such as Applicant, establish the radio-frequency (RF) coverage level and user capacity margin necessary for what they each unilaterally define as reliable service consistent with their business model. The business model involves a trade-off between the quality of service experienced by a subscriber and the cost of 8 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(A). 9 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(i). 10 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(iv). 11 Timeliness relates to the rebuttable multiple “Shot Clock” requirements established by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that establish presumptively reasonable time limits for final municipal decisions on new support structures, co-location on existing structures, and extension of existing structures for co-location. 12 This balance is discussed at length in Sprint v Willoth 176 F.3d 630 (2nd Cir 1999). 13 47 C.F.R. §1.6003 9/20/24 Town of Ithaca Page 9 of 38 network deployment and operation. Several factors determine the level of subscriber service. Some important factors for base station site selection are the wireless RF signal level, the system capacity to support multiple users, and the potential interference from their own neighbor sites due to inappropriately close base station sites. The choices of site location, RF coverage, and system capacity directly affect service reliability. Despite business model trade-offs, historically high growth of wireless subscribers often place cell site capacity as a high priority. Appendix C provides an overview of wireless cell site design issues. One foundational design requirement is the establishment of minimum RF signal strength threshold requirements… Generally this level will appear on the permit application materials either in the narrative or signal coverage plots, or both. In many cases a service gap involves the need to provide initial RF signal coverage to an area. Then, within areas that are or can be covered, the issue of existing user capacity deficits may dictate where a base station must be located to properly off-load user traffic from existing sites in the area. After establishing the minimum RF signal threshold level for reliable service the design engineer can analyze the area RF coverage path loss encountered from a proposed base station. The path loss analysis predicts the actual coverage area. Applicant Verizon Wireless uses – 105 dBm14 sometimes referred to as “Tier 3” or “Outdoor” service in the 700/850 MHz, 1900 MHz, 2110 MHz and 3700 MHz bands in this region as the minimum signal level for adequate service in similarly situated base station sites. Higher signal levels for “in-vehicle” and “Indoor” are needed when the location of wireless subscribers so demand. For purposes of this report, the bands are grouped into “low- band” (700/850 MHz) and “mid-band” (1900 MHz and above) spectrum. Low-band and mid-band signals have different propagation characteristics. The differing propagation characteristics generally mean that the low-band signals, which have much less capacity bandwidth capability than the mid-band spectrum, will cover a larger area more readily than mid-band signals since the later experience higher losses due to the RF environment obstacles and terrain. A current and on-going challenge for all wireless service providers is how to provide mid-band coverage to areas where user demand forces existing sites to occasionally, or in some cases regularly, operate above capacity thresholds for reliable service. In such cases “network densification” to relieve existing site congestion requires a new base station facility properly situated near user demand areas. Wireless system engineers use an RF propagation plot that is generated by computer modeling for area coverage analysis and prediction. An RF propagation plot shows predicted area signal power levels with respect to the minimum signal threshold for site performance analysis in units of dBm. Visually, an RF propagation plot maps the area surrounding a proposed base station using various colors to represent locations where the RF coverage levels meet or exceed the minimum RF signal levels as stated in dBm. By the absence of color, an RF propagation plot will also show locations where the 14 The unit “dBm” is decibels above 1 milliwatt and is calculated from the power level (in watts) as dBm=10Log(power/0.001). One milliwatt is 0.001 Watts. Negative values represent power levels that are less than 1 mW. Less negative values in dBm represent stronger signal levels (e.g. -7dBm is a stronger signal than -8dBm). 9/20/24 Town of Ithaca Page 10 of 38 base station cannot provide the minimum signal levels. These areas (called coverage “gaps”) differ by band and are a graphic indication of whether a particular site achieves RF design coverage levels for the given location and height. A gap could be only slightly below threshold or it might represent a deep lack of coverage. A designer usually anticipates slight gaps surrounding a cell because of difficult area terrain and clutter. When gaps are deep and located along critical roadways or near relatively high population areas, one can anticipate unreliable wireless service. A particular site may fail as a suitable location because of such unfilled RF gaps or insufficient capacity areas. Computer-based RF propagation analysis is reliable information when properly interpreted. In recent years we have been aware that some incorrect information about computer-based RF propagation plots has been distributed to the public and zoning/planning boards. This controversy appears from time to time, so Appendix D addresses the issue in the event it arises during the current review. RF Propagation Plots for the Proposed facility Cellular networks provide wide-area services by deployment of small areas of RF coverage that provide a finite subscriber capacity in each cell. When there is a low density of subscribers, a larger diameter cell will often suffice to allow subscribers simultaneous access to services. Sometimes cells are too far away to provide reliable service. In those situations, low-band connections might frequently “make” and “break” as signal strength fades or, in the case of higher frequency bands, the added cell capacity for which those bands are deployed is not available due to inadequate signal strength. In support of the application, Applicant has provided a series of RF propagation plots that show existing RF coverage and demonstrate how the proposed site fills the coverage need relative to the provision of wireless service to their subscribers. Exhibit H, pages 17 and 21 respectively, show the existing RF coverage in the vicinity of the proposed site for the 700/850 MHz low-bands and the 1900/2100/3900 MHz mid-band frequencies. The low-band plots indicate sufficient coverage at or above the -105 dBm level with multiple coverage gaps to the west and northwest provided there is sufficient user capacity available. The mid-band plots clearly show significant coverage gaps in the immediate vicinity of and surrounding the proposed site. The proposed site will minimize RF coverage gaps in the vicinity of the proposed site at mid-band and, by improving the signal level, allow mobile subscribers to access services in that band in addition to providing significantly improved low-band coverage. Drive Testing and Dropped Call Records The Town of Ithaca code requires in-kind call testing and dropped call records. While this information is not typically included in modern-day submittals, Applicant provided this information in a supplemental report dated August 7, 2024. Specifically, Exhibits Z (Call Testing Data – Overview/Summary), AA (Call Testing Data - Tabulated) and BB (Call Testing Data – Dropped Connections, Tabulated). 9/20/24 Town of Ithaca Page 11 of 38 Exhibit Z documents the call testing data for Applicant’s proposed telecommunications facility at 111 Wiedmaier Court, conducted in July 2024. Applicant conducted a "drive test" by driving through the area and collecting signal strength data at various points for multiple frequency bands used by Applicant’s network: 700 MHz, 850 MHz, 1900 MHz, and 2100 MHz. The drive test was conducted along local roads, capturing data at various locations within the vicinity of the proposed facility. We were not present to monitor the field testing and, therefore, cannot vouch for the validity of the test methods employed or the accuracy of the data Applicant provided. The information is, however, consistent with the computer-based propagation plots and LTE metrics upon which we usually base our findings. The drive test data includes maps that show received signal strength in dBm for each frequency band across various locations. The results indicate that there are large areas with poor or inadequate signal coverage in the 850 MHz band and very little coverage in the 1900 MHz and 2100 MHz bands, which constitute the majority of Applicant’s bandwidth. Between July 16 and July 31, 2024, the dropped call rate in the vicinity of the proposed site was recorded at 11.84%, significantly higher than what Applicant states is their “national standard of less than 1%.” The high rate of dropped calls and access failures further supports the need for the proposed facility. We conclude that this testing comports with the computer-based modeling and LTE switch metrics Applicant submitted that shows a significant coverage gap in the area surrounding the proposed facility. Neighbor Site Capacity for the Proposed Facility Even when there is sufficient RF signal strength to support reliable service, each cell sector’s capacity limitations may cause users to intermittently encounter a service gap when the number of users exceeds the capacity threshold at times during a 24-hour period. That condition is documented by the network equipment to produce worst-case metrics to determine the severity of the traffic load leading to “exhaustion.” Cell sector exhaustion can cause denial of service to otherwise eligible subscribers even when there is sufficient signal strength above threshold requirements. The operational effect is the same as if no RF signal was present – calls cannot be initiated and data transfer may be impossible or severely limited as many wireless users compete for available bandwidth. A new cell can be deployed to “off-load” traffic from the saturated sector and provide a stronger local RF signal. The added capacity and increased RF signal strength provides local subscribers more robust service. There are numerous metrics used in each technology approach to cellular service reliability. Three metrics used to show LTE (Long Term Evolution) system performance are FDV (Forward Data Volume), ASEU (Average Scheduled Eligible User), and AvgAC (Average Active Connections). Plots of LTE FDV (Forward Data Volume) show the limits of reliable service in terms of data throughput for low-band and mid-band 9/20/24 Town of Ithaca Page 12 of 38 operation. Plots of LTE ASEU (Average Scheduled Eligible User) show how subscriber connections are loading the cell sector and often indicates when distant subscriber devices are having difficulty maintaining connections. AvgAC (Average Active Connections) is a measurement of the number of active connections compared to the limit after which no additional devices will be able to access services. These metrics, and sometimes others, are used to document traffic capacity issues that may serve to justify additional base station facilities. In support of this project, Applicant has provided a series of graphs for FDV, ASEU and AvgAC metrics that show the current capacity issues at the neighbor cell sites. The neighbor sites at issue are Brooktondale Gamma, located approximately 4.7 miles to the southeast and Ithaca HD, located approximately 2.6 miles to the northwest of the proposed site location. Each operating band provides limited user capacity. In this case, distance, intervening terrain and other obstacles prevent strong mid-band RF signals from these neighboring sites from reaching the proposed coverage area. The lack of strong mid- band RF coverage leaves only the low-band services and associated limited capacity available to many service subscribers in the local area of the proposed site. This is evidenced by observing the FDV plots. Brooktondale Gamma and Ithaca HD Alpha sectors are well past maximum capacity in the low-band. While not all the traffic considered is from the area of the proposed site, a new site as proposed will draw off some traffic and provide local subscribers with their own server while relieving some excess traffic from each saturated low-band sector. In addition to relieving traffic congestion at low-band, the proposed site will introduce stronger mid-band service as evidenced by the propagation plots showing existing and proposed coverage shown on pages 17 and 18 in Exhibit H. The overlap of existing best server coverage with proposed best server coverage shown on pages 15 and 16 respectively, provides an indication of how much low-band traffic will be off-loaded by the proposed site. The proposed site will also reduce the ASEU load on existing neighbor sites by eliminating the intermittent demand for services generated by distant coverage area connections making and breaking. In that situation, the stronger low-band signals will tend to draw traffic to the proposed site. Unfortunately we have been told that Verizon Wireless does not have a means of quantifying the amount of traffic off-load that will occur based on computer simulations other than by observing the overlap of best server propagation plots. Suffice it to say that significant traffic will be drawn away from the existing neighbor sites and more reliable and higher capacity service will be deployed in the vicinity of the proposed site. The presence of significant RF coverage gaps predicted by the RF propagation plots for existing coverage and, when applicable, the actual and predicted trends toward maximum capacity of neighbor sites that provide service to the target area, tend to demonstrate need. Analysis of whether these gaps can be addressed by the proposed site or a less intrusive alternate site when balanced between the technical performance and aesthetic advantages serves to justify the proposed site. 9/20/24 Town of Ithaca Page 13 of 38 Feasibility - Addressing the Need and Balancing of Impact A service provider makes decisions to provide wireless RF coverage based on the location and travel habits of their subscriber base. Base stations are limited to coverage in areas surrounding the site since they must be able to communicate with low-power wireless subscriber devices. Design of wireless mobile devices include requirements for minimal output power to reduce likelihood of a user being exposed to excessive radio- frequency signal levels. Therefore, to achieve maximum effect, a base station facility generally should be placed near the center of the target coverage area when zoning, land use, and aesthetic considerations allow. After the location of a proposed base station is established, the terrain features and other “scatter” obstacles, sometimes called “clutter,” of the target area must be analyzed to determine how effectively the base station can cover that area. In addition to area coverage, wireless service providers attempt to position their base station sites to achieve continuous coverage from one cell to the next with few intervening coverage gaps. Even if the area of the proposed project is relatively flat, it may still contain foliage and obstacles that can produce shadowing and absorption of the RF radio waves. Shadowing and scatter cause the jagged pattern shown on the RF propagation prediction plots. RF coverage becomes more uncertain at lower antenna heights because local obstacles in the area through which the signal must propagate are usually not individually modeled in the computer simulation. In addition, physical clearance to near-field obstructions is required to allow proper “beam forming” that assures adequate signal propagation to the edges of the proposed cell. Unlike visual clearance, the lack of sufficient Fresnel Zone clearance15 can have an impact on radio- wave propagation that is similar to a physical obstruction. The significance of visual impact from the tower and antennas and the significance of that impact to nearby residents and visitors are appropriate matters for the board to consider. The board may also wish to consider the prospects for possible future co-location on the proposed site. While considering the local impact, consider that any nearby alternate site location would probably require at least the same antenna height if the proposed site is nearly central to the existing gap area. Generally, base stations at the center of a coverage gap area result in the shortest antenna height requirement. When a base station must cover a gap from a non-central location, the height must usually increase to overcome terrain shadowing to provide comparable levels of RF coverage and maintain adequate connectivity to the adjacent neighbor cells. In the alternative, area coverage might be achieved from a non-central location by utilization of multiple shorter sites. Use of multiple sites increases the cost to cover the target area. 15 The first Fresnel Zone is the locus of points that show where a reflected wave can arrive at the receiver with a 180 degree phase shift. When two waves arrive and one is out of phase, a partial or complete cancellation of received signal can occur. Proper design requires first Fresnel Zone clearance from obstacles where at all possible. 9/20/24 Town of Ithaca Page 14 of 38 Reasonableness of the Proposed Project Approval of a base station facility usually requires review for use and area variances and/or site plan approval that considers similar concerns common to use and area variances. The review is governed by standards applicable to an applicant’s status as a utility, broadcaster, telecommunication services provider or other category. Board decisions must not be arbitrary or capricious. Therefore an applicant should provide objective evidence of their need and, when weighing alternatives, objective evidence regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the alternative sites. The board then weighs that evidence to determine whether the site is reasonable and properly balances the interests of the community and the applicant. In this case, in our opinion, the evidence presented in the RF propagation plots shows that (1) RF coverage gaps in the vicinity of the proposed site are filled by the proposed site and (2) the overlap of best server propagation plots indicating capacity relief of neighbor sites demonstrates a valid need. Where an applicant is also classified as a public utility, a less restrictive standard for area and use variances may apply. Subject to confirmation by the board’s legal counsel, a provider of wireless telecommunication services like Applicant is considered a public utility in New York.16 As a public utility, there may also be legal constraints on the whether a municipality can impose restrictions on Applicant that will unreasonably increase project costs. Unreasonable costs may accrue when mandated co-location or use of sub-optimum sites causes the need for additional base stations to fill an existing significant coverage gap. Under some limited circumstances the need for multiple sites may also increase technical complexity beyond what might be considered reasonable. If the board determines that the site as proposed cannot be approved, the alternatives for Applicant would include options that could increase network costs or decrease potential coverage area. These options include: (1) modification of the proposed site to conform to zoning and visual impact requirements, (2) identification of nearby sites that collectively meet both the RF coverage objectives and zoning and/or aesthetic requirements, (3) construction of an alternate site that meets aesthetic and zoning requirements and provides some coverage even if it does not completely provide coverage to the gap area, or (4) abandonment of the project. The range of options is not particularly limited by the technology and engineering issues. However, the choice of a specific option could implicate the previously mentioned legal and land control issues. The legal implications are beyond the scope of the present report and, if necessary, should be discussed with the board’s counsel. If one or more of these options are deemed viable by the board, a more focused analysis on the specific option(s) can be provided in a supplemental report. 16 Cellular Tel. Co. v. Rosenberg, 82 N.Y.2d 364 (1993) 9/20/24 Town of Ithaca Page 15 of 38 The proposed facility includes a 134’ monopole plus 4’ lightning rod and resides at the southwestern edge of the RF Search Area. The proposed site does present a visual discontinuity which should be weighed against technical performance of the site. If the tower height is reduced to address visual impacts, the amount of traffic off-load from neighbor sites will also reduce. Applicant has provided propagation plots indicating planned and existing low-band and mid-band coverage at the proposed 130’ ACL and at reduced heights of 120’ ACL and 110’ ACL. While low-band coverage changes only slightly over this range in height, mid-band coverage is degraded as the ACL drops, even to 120’. Noticeable coverage gaps open to the northwest and southwest of the proposed site and signal strength degrades to the southeast, adversely affecting service to the targeted improvement areas designated by Applicant. These areas include the intersection of Pine Tree Road and Slaterville Road, the area on Slaterville Road in the vicinity of Bethel Grove, and vicinity of the intersection of Coddington Road and East King Road. The proposed site plan and zoning analysis, if applicable, for any particular site usually considers the nature of the proposed site in the context of the surrounding area and the nature of other alternate sites that can provide adequate, even if not identical, RF coverage. The analysis also balances the impact of a new facility with the benefits derived from the availability of wireless services. The characteristics of the area in which the site is proposed, the proximity and visibility of the site to nearby residences, and accessibility of the site generally weigh into the analysis. In some circumstances, other considerations may include whether a particular site exceeds Federal Communications Commission (FCC) human exposure limits and whether it is necessary to illuminate the tower for aircraft safety even if not required by Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements. Sometimes the objectionable aesthetics of a tower can be partially mitigated by use of stealth structures to blend into the area. Stealth structures tend to limit the co- location opportunities for future wireless service providers because the structures are usually customized for reduction of aesthetic impact. Generally, the design of stealth structures attempts to minimize height and cross-section. Minimization of height and cross section usually limits RF coverage and reduces the mechanical load-bearing ability of the structure compared to other support technologies such as a monopole or lattice tower. The reduced cross-section limits the ability to host additional antenna arrays within the structure’s envelope. However, where a stealth structure is appropriate to achieve the desired aesthetic goals the trade-off between future co-location and acceptable appearance are appropriate. FCC rules allow the modification of “Existing” structures with minimal municipal administrative review when the modifications do not introduce a “Substantial Change.” The term “Substantial Change” is defined by the FCC for various scenarios.17 Note that once a new structure is approved and becomes an “Existing” structure, a future co- location request for such an “Eligible Facility” may result in a height increase with 17 See 47 C.F.R. §1.6100(b)(4),(5),(7) 9/20/24 Town of Ithaca Page 16 of 38 minimal municipal review if the co-location does not cause a “Substantial Change” as cited above. It is recommended that the current zoning review for a new tower should include consideration of that possibility. Alternative Sites Alternative sites identified by Applicant, municipal staff, or residents in the vicinity of the proposed site can sometimes provide opportunities for mitigating undesirable visual impacts of a proposed site. Alternate sites will generally not produce the same RF coverage and/or capacity off-load of the proposed site, but will sometimes provide sufficient technical performance. Alternate sites may not be viable from a technical performance perspective or they may not be available due to a landlord’s reluctance to enter into a lease agreement with Applicant. During site review, municipal staff recommendations and public comments may identify potential alternative site locations that have not been explicitly considered by Applicant. Local residents and municipal staff often have insights into such locations that come from their familiarity with the area and their knowledge of community values. We recommend Applicant perform an RF analysis for any additional nearby sites identified by municipal staff and others that have potential for improved visual impact. Applicant’s Exhibit I (Site Selection Report) indicates that five (5) sites, of which one is the proposed site (site E) were considered by Applicant. Four (4) sites, A through D, were dismissed from further consideration by RF because “… this location would not have adequately covered the intended coverage area in the same capacity as the selected location.” No technical evidence is provided by Applicant for this conclusion. We recommend further analysis regarding rejected sites if, in the opinion of the siting authority, there is any possibility that they could provide an aesthetic advantage for this site or if the board feels there should be evidence in the record to show the technical and/or aesthetic disadvantages of these sites compared to the proposed site. Additional Considerations FAA Marking and Lighting Generally all towers 200’ or taller above ground level require FAA marking and lighting. Under certain circumstances, such as proximity to airports or other critical facilities, shorter towers may require marking and lighting 47 U.S.C. § 303(q), 47 C.F.R §17.21. Applicants usually provide an FAA study to show whether or not the proposed structure will require such marking and lighting to comply with these regulations. If there is concern about future co-location requests to increase height18 and the siting authority is opposed to the erection of a tower that requires FAA marking and lighting, it is recommended that the applicant consider accepting condition of approval that restricts 18 Potential future height increases might take the form of eligible height increase requests per 47 C.F.R. §1.6100 or future zoning permit applications and variance requests based on demonstrated need for service gap remediation. 9/20/24 Town of Ithaca Page 17 of 38 the tower to the necessary height to avoid future marking/lighting requirements. Restriction of height may limit future co-location of other wireless service providers. However, it may happen that no other wireless carriers are interested in collocating on the proposed tower. In that case, the extra height may not be necessary. Determination of marking/lighting requirements are made using findings of an airspace study. Applicant did not provide an FAA airspace study to show applicable marking and lighting requirements, if any. If the airspace study was performed, we recommend Applicant make the airspace study available and/or make a definitive commitment on the record that either (a) no structure marking/lighting will be required or (b) specify the conditions under which marking/lighting is required for the proposed structure or one later extended for co-location purposes. Future Co-location Many municipalities specify that, as a condition of approval, a tower must be designed to accommodate several additional wireless service providers. Generally a wireless service provider designs a cell for an antenna centerline that provides the required coverage but is not so high as to cause interference and excessive overlap to their own adjacent neighbor cells. Since each service provider builds their network to achieve their own reliability and service design requirements, the coverage maps for two wireless service providers can be remarkably different even for those operating in the same frequency band. Future build-out plans for wireless service providers are closely guarded secrets based on proprietary customer demographics and technology deployment, so it is usually challenging to know what a given service provider will require in the years ahead and how those requirements will translate to co-location opportunities. In addition to zoning code requirements for co-location, Appendix E provides some background for consideration of potential future co-location on the proposed structure. Non-Ionizing Electromagnetic Radiation (NIER) Exposure Compliance Wireless facilities like the one proposed by the applicant are generally found to comply with FCC Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) Bulletin 65 thresholds as codified in 47 CFR §1.1307 and 47 CFR §1.1310. FCC regulations set maximum permissible human exposure levels for far-field Non-Ionizing Electromagnetic Radiation (NIER). When transmission antennas are installed in or near accessible or occupied areas of a building, it raises concern regarding occupants of the building and maintenance personnel who may need to access the rooftop. Thresholds for subjecting a wireless transmission facility to a more thorough emission analysis are specified according the frequencies of operation. The above-cited FCC regulations require that Applicant 9/20/24 Town of Ithaca Page 18 of 38 perform a preliminary analysis to ascertain whether or not it is likely the proposed site will expose members of the “General Population”19 to excessive electromagnetic energy. Applicant has provided a Radio Frequency Emissions Compliance Report (Exhibit P) dated March 14, 2023 and signed by David C. Cotton, P.E. This exhibit provides an analysis of the Applicant’s proposed tower's compliance with Federal Communications Commission (FCC) guidelines for radio frequency (RF) exposure. The report confirms that the tower's operation will not expose the general public to hazardous levels of RF energy, remaining well below the FCC's Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) limits. Specifically, the maximum predicted power density at ground level from all Applicant’s operations at this site is 0.3747% of the FCC's General Population limits. This is a small fraction of the allowable exposure, meaning the RF emissions from the site are far below any hazardous thresholds. This conclusion is in agreement with our past experience with similar tower-mounted facilities that generally shows that human exposure at ground level is less than 1% of the General Population exposure threshold. If a proposed site is shown to meet the FCC threshold requirements, federal law20 precludes consideration of “environmental effects” (i.e. human exposure) as a basis for denial. The proposed site has been certified to meet FCC threshold requirements. Appendix B provides a summary and some additional background information regarding NIER. SEQRA Segmentation Like the more familiar subdivision and planned housing development project, an RF wireless network functions as a whole. In order to avoid inadvertent incremental impact segmentation, it may be appropriate that the design for Applicant’s future neighbor sites required to address remaining RF coverage gaps and capacity needs within the jurisdiction be considered during the current site plan review. The lack of coverage that will exist after the proposed site is operational may indicate a need for future facilities in those areas to improve or expand Applicant’s wireless network coverage in the area. It is recommended that Applicant discuss the entire proposed network build-out in the jurisdiction since approval of any single site, such as the proposed facility, creates a fixed area of RF coverage to which other neighbor sites must connect. Additional sites in the area may need to be located in other zoning-controversial locations in order for the applicant to properly meet their coverage objectives and connect to the currently proposed and existing sites. In the worst case, approval of the proposed site could force one or more future neighboring sites to require a tower in an area where such a structure may be even more controversial than the proposed location. 19 “General population/uncontrolled exposure limits apply in situations in which the general public may be exposed, or in which persons who are exposed as a consequence of their employment may not be fully aware of the potential for exposure or cannot exercise control over their exposure.” 47 CFR §1.1310 footnote (3). 20 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. 47 USC §332 (c)(7)(B)(iv) 9/20/24 Town of Ithaca Page 19 of 38 The overall area coverage map shows the existing network neighboring sites and can be used by the town to identify coverage gap locations where controversial zoning may be required for future sites. While Applicant is currently before the board, the board may choose to ask Applicant to estimate the height and location of structures needed to fill the remaining gaps within and near the town’s jurisdictional boundaries. This information could then assist the town in planning efforts and allow evaluation of whether the presently proposed site will later unduly restrict municipal planning goals or otherwise conflict with the comprehensive plan. Alternative Technologies The reader may already be aware of other approaches to deliver wireless communications that could avoid tall towers in a given area. On one extreme, certain cellular-type systems can be implemented using low-Earth orbit satellites. On the other extreme, very small pico-cell systems can allow subscribers to connect to their own home or office network using technology similar to a cordless phone. Each approach has its advantages and disadvantages. Appendix G provides a summary of these technologies. Photo Simulation of Proposed Tower Photographic simulation is one assessment technique usually offered by project sponsors to evaluate the visual impact of a proposed tower or tower modifications. The physical laws that govern propagation of radio waves at the frequencies used by wireless service providers requires elevation of the base station antennas above the surrounding buildings, trees and natural terrain to facilitate reliable reception. Photo simulations of the elevated structures provide a two-dimensional view from a specific vantage point that shows the existing view and the same view with a superimposed likeness of the proposed tower or tower modification. This provides a pre-build “before” and “after” photograph to assist in assessing the potential visual impact. Photo simulations, like any assessment tool, have advantages and limitations. The evaluation of photo simulations are prone to several issues that may cause an incorrect assessment of the aesthetic impact of the proposed structure. Appendix H summarizes some of those issues for your consideration. The Town of Ithaca code requires photo-simulations of the proposed tower, Applicant has supplied such simulations in Exhibit Q. Exhibit Q presents a "Visual Resource Evaluation" conducted by Tectonic Engineering Consultants, Geologists and Lan Surveyors, D.P.C. for the proposed 134’ (plus 4’ lightning rod) Verizon Wireless telecommunications structure at 111 Wiedmaier Court. The evaluation aimed to determine which areas would have visibility of the tower using a "balloon test," where a 4-foot red helium balloon was floated at the height of the proposed structure. Field studies were conducted in February during leaf-off conditions, which maximized visibility. A view shed map and photographs from multiple locations were used to assess visual impact. 9/20/24 Town of Ithaca Page 20 of 38 The study covered a 2-mile radius from the site. Using ArcGIS Desktop software and field observations, views were documented from various vantage points including public roads such as Coddington Road, Slaterville Road, Burns Road, and Wiedmaier Court. The results were recorded in a photo log, with corresponding visual simulations created by photographing the balloon from key locations. Simulations combined these images with an existing structure to depict the tower's potential appearance, both as a monopole structure and as a stealth “monopine” structure. Conclusion The information in this report concerns the RF engineering issues related to the proposed project to assist the board in weighing the alternatives and planning for the future of the community. Engineering design choices implicate aesthetic and legal issues as well. However, this report must not be relied upon for any legal advice or direction. Legal advice about action on these issues must be obtained from the board’s counsel. Thank you for the opportunity to assist the Town of Ithaca. Please feel free to let us know if there are additional questions or other concerns at this time. Sincerely, William P Johnson Steven M. Ciccarelli Consultant Consultant Appendix A: Summary of Qualifications Appendix B: FCC Shot Clock Summary Appendix C: Wireless Network Service Design Appendix D: Computer-based RF Modeling and the FCC Appendix E: Co-location Issues Appendix F: Human Exposure to NIER Appendix G: Alternative and Supplemental Technologies Appendix H: Photo Simulation Evaluation Issues Appendix A: Background and Qualifications Page 21 of 38 I, William P. Johnson, certify that I: 1. joined the faculty of Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) in September, 1989, and currently hold the rank of Professor Emeritus; 2. served as Graduate Program Director for the Telecommunications Engineering Technology program at RIT until June 30, 2020; 3. am and have been employed since 1972 in the radio-frequency (RF) and microwave industry holding positions prior to 1989 such as design engineer, staff engineer, VP Engineering, and consultant; 4. am actively involved in RF/microwave consulting; 5. hold graduate degrees in both electrical engineering and law; 6. am qualified to analyze radio-frequency design and performance documentation relevant to the justification of minimum radio antenna height and tower locations; 7. am qualified to comment upon alternate site analysis, aesthetic characteristics, and visual impact effects relevant to telecommunication towers by virtue of extensive involvement since 1997 in telecommunications site plan and New York SEQRA reviews, administrative agency testimony, and expert testimony for litigation; 8. have consulted for over 80 municipalities and private organizations since 1997 in the area of broadcast and telecommunication facility tower review; 9. have a reputation in both the industry and among clients for being qualified and having the necessary relevant technical expertise needed to provide telecommunication facility review; 10. am the author of the technology content for the New York Department of State Land Use Technical Series publication Planning and Design Manual for the Review of Applications for Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (2001) (available at http://www.dos.state.ny.us/lgss/localgovt.html); 11. provided expert services and subsequent engineering testimony on behalf of defendant Town of Ontario, NY, during successful litigation defense in Sprint v Willoth, 996 F.Supp. 253 (WDNY 1998) and during petitioner Sprint’s appeal in Sprint v Willoth, 176 F.3d 630 (2nd Cir. 1999). Signed: William P. Johnson Consultant Appendix A: Background and Qualifications Page 22 of 38 I, Steven M. Ciccarelli, certify that I: 1. am currently an Associate Professor at Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) and joined the faculty in September, 2001; 2. served as Program Chair for the Electrical Engineering Technology program at RIT from September, 2005 until November, 2009; 3. served as Co-Chair of the IEEE Rochester Section, Microwave Theory and Techniques Society from 2004 until 2008; 4. successfully completed graduate courses and laboratories in analog IC design, MEMS devices and systems, microelectronics, micro-optics and photonics, RADAR and RFIC design from 2002 until 2007; 5. received The IEEE Third Millennium Medal In recognition and appreciation of valued services and outstanding contributions in 2000; 6. have been employed since 1993 in the radio-frequency (RF) and wireless industry holding positions such as RF/Analog Engineer, Senior RF/Analog Engineer and Director of Technology Development; 7. am actively involved in RF/wireless consulting; 8. hold graduate degrees in both electrical engineering and education; 9. am qualified to analyze radio-frequency design and performance documentation relevant to the justification of minimum radio antenna height and tower locations; Signed: Steven M. Ciccarelli Consultant Appendix B: FCC Shot Clock Summary Page 23 of 38 After passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the rapid deployment of personal wireless services that followed, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) responded to industry concerns about the time it took for siting authorities to review and make a final decision on zoning and variance approvals. The delay arguably caused a back-up of plans to deploy towers to expand or densify licensee wireless networks. The FCC issued and periodically updates the regulations to define what, in the agency’s opinion, are reasonable timeframes for such decisions. The Shot Clock is the collective of those opinions21. Co-locate a Small Wireless Facility22, once so identified using permit application documentation, using an existing structure: 60 days; Co-locate a facility other than a Small Wireless Facility using an existing structure: 90 days; deploy a Small Wireless Facility using a new structure: 90 days; or deploy a facility other than a Small Wireless Facility using a new structure: 150 days. Siting authority review is sometimes delayed due to the technical complexities related to wireless site deployment but the C.F.R. makes no provision for that possibility without affirmative action by the siting authority. If time has lapsed it may be possible to negotiate the Shot Clock deadlines with Applicant in writing for good cause to allow time for a thorough review of alternate sites, analysis of height requirements, addition of supplemental materials to support action, and additional justification of need where appropriate and allowed. Unless there is a written agreement with the wireless service provider for a different timeframe, upon receipt of a permit application for a wireless telecommunications facility the municipality has a limited amount of time23 to toll the Shot Clock and notify the applicant of a “materially incomplete” application. Notification of a materially incomplete application for purposes of tolling the Shot Clock must be effectuated within ten (10) days for a small-cell facility24 or thirty (30) days25 for other wireless telecommunication facilities. A valid notification of deficiency “clearly and specifically identifies the missing documents or information” to make the application complete and, in the case of a small-cell “the specific rule or regulation creating the obligation to submit such documents or information.”26 21 47 C.F.R. §1.6003 22 A “Small Wireless Facility” is defined as one meeting all requirements in 47 C.F.R. §1.6002 (l) 23 47 C.F.R. §1.6003(d) 24 47 C.F.R. §1.6003(d)(1) 25 47 C.F.R. §1.6003(d)(2) 26 47 C.F.R. §1.6003(d)(1) and 47 C.F.R. §1.6003(d)(2)(i) Appendix C: Wireless Network Service Design Page 24 of 38 A wireless service provider’s wireless subscribers are often located inside buildings or vehicles that are screened by foliage from direct view of a base station. Foliage, buildings and vehicles are obstacles to radio wave penetration. In order to “render safe and adequate service”27, the wireless RF signal must travel over the terrain in the coverage area, penetrate obstacles that block a direct path to the subscriber, and then arrive with sufficient signal level to achieve the desired level of service. Wireless telecommunication systems must operate simultaneously in both directions between the base station facility and the subscriber’s mobile equipment. Therefore, the return signal from the subscriber’s mobile or stationary equipment must also overcome the signal losses due to terrain and other obstacles. Service levels are affected by several metrics. The fundamental metric is RF signal strength. RF signal strength is measured in several ways. The most recent technology, Long Term Evolution” systems use Reference Signal Received Power to predict service levels while other technologies will use similar measurements related to signal power level at the subscriber location. This one-way predictive calculation is sometimes misunderstood since the “uplink” (from subscriber to base station) and “downlink” (base station to subscriber) differ in the type and deployment of equipment for each. Suffice it to say that the one-way threshold level required for reliable communication takes into account the “uplink” parameters as well to assure sufficient signal strength is available for both directions. Once RF signal strength levels are established the user capacity and interference levels must be evaluated. Generally, when a high level of service reliability or high user capacity are needed, network base stations must be placed closer together to provide both high RF signal levels and increased network user capacity over a smaller area. In less populated areas where user capacity is not as much an issue, the base stations can be spaced at greater distances where the separation is generally limited by path loss caused by terrain features, buildings, and other obstacles. For RF coverage considerations from a particular base station, the wireless service provider’s choice of minimum RF signal level limits the extent of cell coverage. If the RF signal level requirement is high, then the acceptable coverage area is generally small. When a service provider adopts lower but acceptable reliability and uses a lower RF signal threshold for their network design, a single base station will cover more area at the reduced level. Design engineers for wireless service providers use an RF link budget to quantify the RF signal level required for “safe and adequate” wireless network operation. The RF link budget ultimately establishes the maximum permitted path loss between the base station and mobile terminal. The RF link budget includes all relevant system design assumptions, including measures of dropped connections related to signal strength and ultimately quantifies maximum permissible path loss. Path loss, or signal attenuation during propagation, is the reduction in RF signal level as it travels from the base station to the subscriber’s mobile device and, likewise, from the mobile device back to the base station. If the path loss is too high, then the received signal will be below the established minimum RF signal level threshold. When the received signal is below threshold, unreliable operation (i.e. dropped connections or reduced data transmission speed) may 27 Cellular Tel. Co. v. Rosenberg, 82 N.Y.2d 364, 371-371 (1993). Appendix C: Wireless Network Service Design Page 25 of 38 result. Service providers monitor network performance for reliability and may adjust link budget assumptions to respond to the actual performance experience. Thresholds for future sites may show different service level requirements as new technology, additional operating bands, and propagation model adjustments are implemented. Appendix D: Computer-based RF Modeling and the FCC Page 26 of 38 Since 2020, we have been aware that certain parties who solicit local residents and municipal zoning and planning boards as clients to oppose deployment of wireless facilities have made incorrect and arguably deceptive statements regarding document FCC 20-94 titled “SECOND REPORT AND ORDER AND THIRD FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING” (see also GN Docket No. 19-367 “MOBILITY FUND PHASE II COVERAGE MAPS INVESTIGATION STAFF REPORT”). The parties in question purport that the FCC has declared computer-based propagation plots inaccurate and that only RF drive tests are acceptable to the FCC. This assertion is patently incorrect. An excerpt from the Federal Register from August 18, 2020, that formalized the proposed rules in FCC-20-94 states the following: In this document, a Second Report and Order adopted by the Commission establishes important measures for developing improved broadband data, including requiring fixed wireline and satellite providers to submit shapefiles, or lists of addresses or locations, representing where they have customers or could install service within 10 business days of a request; requiring terrestrial fixed wireless providers to report their coverage areas based on propagation maps and models using prescribed parameters, or based on lists of addresses or locations, to define their specific coverage areas; and requiring mobile providers to submit coverage maps and propagation model details based on minimum specified parameters and to disclose other assumptions underlying the models.28 (emphasis added) FCC-20-94 as adopted by the FCC does not assert the claims of inaccurate RF computer- based analysis. It states that computer-based modeling is part of the information the FCC requires.29 FCC-20-94 describes the outcome of an FCC project that sought to measure “speed” (bandwidth) claimed by service providers. The information previously submitted to the FCC may have been overstated or the measurement techniques used by the FCC field personnel who sought to confirm the measurements may have been flawed due to site sector saturation and/or measurement techniques that did not account for heavy site sector utilization. Perhaps without realizing it, those who cite FCC-20-94 to discount computer-based modeling have made a stronger case for a service provider’s use of RF propagation plots as endorsed by the FCC. The ultimate goal of a service provider’s design is to provide adequate bandwidth to subscribers. Network bandwidth (i.e. data speed) performance is not just based on RF propagation levels as would be documented by an RF drive test assuming the sector serving the area is not “saturated.” An adequate RF propagation level is a “necessary” but not a “sufficient” condition for capturing user traffic and providing adequate bandwidth. The “sufficient” conditions include sector capacity, user demand over time, and interference from other users attempting to use the cell. The data demand and throughput is collected by the base station’s control center (i.e. the MTSO switch). Ideally this set of information is available from a project sponsor to show need when capacity issues are to be addressed. 28 See https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-08-18/pdf/2020-17633.pdf (Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 18, 2020 / Final Rule) 29 See FCC-20-94 Appendix E: Co-location Issues Page 27 of 38 Given the uncertainties, there are two views on the matter of co-location each having advantages and disadvantages. First, some municipalities take the position that it is better to concentrate the co-locations at one site rather than conduct hearings for multiple shorter towers. Under this approach, the current tenant and each future service provider with an area coverage gap will ideally locate on the proposed tower. If co-location is agreeable to a service provider, it will force an approximately similar coverage grid to that of the existing carriers. In some cases the similar grid pattern can increase the likelihood that future neighbor tower sites will be required in a location that may be more controversial or in places where it may be undesirable to stack multiple service providers on the same tower. The concentration of a large number of service providers on the same tower can result in a visual impact that far exceeds that of the original tower as proposed even if the height remains unchanged. Second, some municipalities prefer multiple shorter towers since the lower height may make them more easily buffered by foliage and/or facilitate stealth structures. Stealth structures include structures designed to look like clock towers, church steeples, building facades, or trees. Stealth tree structures are generally effective when antenna centerline and tower height are within 15’ of the existing tree canopy, so this generally precludes future co-location without additional height. When the tower height dramatically exceeds the existing tree canopy the advantages of a stealth tree are arguably diminished. Stealth structures are generally more expensive to implement and exhibit some structural limitations for future co-locations. An additional advantage to the multiple-shorter-site approach using more traditional tower structures is that it does provide co-location for capacity expansion when multiple shorter towers are already in place. As more wireless subscribers join the network, the need increases for smaller cells where each cell can handle approximately the same number of calls and will then relieve the burden of the additional subscribers on existing cells. This affect will be more likely in suburban or urban settings, but may occur in rural installations where population is concentrated in a specific sector and demand starts to reach capacity. There are many variables that affect successful co-location. There is no guarantee that any future service provider will be interested in co-location at a specific site since their RF coverage requirements may be remarkably different than the service provider that proposed the tower in the first place. Given the advantages and disadvantages, some municipalities handle it with a compromise solution. A compromise between multiple short towers and consolidation of service providers on a single tower is to build a proposed tower to the minimum required height as currently required but design the tower foundation and the lower superstructure to accommodate a future height increase if so justified by a future co-location application. Increases in height can generally be in 20’ increments on a tower designed for expansion. Future expansion in height, unlike the mere addition of antennas to an existing tower, is arguably a substantial change and, if so, would likely fall outside of the Middle Class Tax Relief Appendix E: Co-location Issues Page 28 of 38 and Jobs Creation Act of 2012 (PL 112-96, February 22, 2012, 126 Stat 156) which includes Sec. 6409: Wireless facilities deployment. That law limits municipal review of an eligible facility request under specific circumstances. This matter and the implications for future site review of a tower designed for expansion should be discussed in more detail with the board’s attorney if or when needed. Appendix F: Human Exposure to Non-ionizing Electromagetic Radiation (NIER) Page 29 of 38 Federal law preempts local zoning authorities from considering environmental effects of and human exposure to cellular/PCS RF emissions as long as the proposed base station complies with Federal Communications Commission (FCC) emission standards.30 Nonetheless, the matter is sometimes of concern to residents, municipal staff and board members. In response to those concerns, the following information is offered for your consideration. The FCC is required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 to evaluate the effect of emissions from FCC-regulated transmitters on the quality of the human environment.31 Toward this end, a substantial effort has been made by the FCC and other agencies to provide information to both the public and the wireless/broadcast industries. Guidelines and information relevant to Non-Ionizing Electromagnetic Radiation (NIER) health and safety assessment are published by the Federal Communications Commission Office of Engineering and Technology (FCC-OET).32 FCC-OET and the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) jointly maintain an internet web site that provides basic information to consumers regarding cell phone health effects.33 FCC-OET also publishes detailed technical information for the industry that recommends calculations and field measurement methodology to demonstrate compliance with the NIER exposure guidelines.34 These methods and calculations were codified at 47 CFR §1.1307 and 47 CFR §1.1310. At the international level, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which is part of the World Health Organization (WHO), and the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP), which is formed from parts of several different government agencies, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) provide on-going research and summary information regarding a wide range of RF emissions including emissions from cell phones and base stations.35 To date neither IARC nor NTP have declared that the radio signals emitted from cellular 4G and 5G base stations that comply with FCC human exposure regulations cause human cancer or other human health abnormalities.36 In light of the information available, Congress and the FCC decided in the 1990s to exclude cellular/PCS and other base stations from mandatory NIER analysis when those sites meet certain emission and height requirements. In a study that spanned 13 counties and included 13,000 cell phone users, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Interphone Study Group published the results of a 13-country study in the International Journal of Epidemiology on May 17, 30 47 USC §332(c)(7)(B)(iv). 31 See National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. Section 4321, et seq. 32 http://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/ 33 http://www.fda.gov/cellphones/ 34 http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Documents/bulletins/oet65/oet65.pdf and updates. 35 http://www.who.int/peh-emf/en/ 36 See a very user-friendly summary of research and issues at the American Cancer Society web site https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/cellular-phone-towers.html Appendix F: Human Exposure to Non-ionizing Electromagetic Radiation (NIER) Page 30 of 38 2010.37 According to the World Health Organization in June, 2011, “[a] large number of studies have been performed over the last two decades to assess whether mobile phones pose a potential health risk. To date, no adverse health effects have been established as being caused by mobile phone use.”38 Commenting on the Interphone study, Dr. Christopher Wild, IARC's director, said that “[a]n increased risk of brain cancer is not established from the data from Interphone. However, observations at the highest level of cumulative call time and the changing patterns of mobile phone use since the period studied by Interphone, particularly in young people, mean that further investigation of mobile phone use and brain cancer risk is merited."39 Beyond the potential damage to tissue caused by exposure to high-intensity NIER fields, some individuals report symptoms they attribute to low level NIER exposure. One hypothesis is that symptoms are correlated with physiological changes. Measurable physiological changes include metrics such as heart rate, blood pressure, and skin conductance. A three-year study performed at the University of Essex, UK, published in July, 2007, failed to find a correlation between low-level NIER exposure and such physiological changes.40 In the study, the number of symptoms reported during the double-blind portion of the experiments was not related to the actual presence of low- level NIER.41 This result is in agreement with earlier more limited studies. On the arguably more conservative side, a report released on August 25, 200942 by International EMF Collaborative entitled "Cellphones and Brain Tumors: 15 Reasons for Concern, Science, Spin and the Truth Behind Interphone" includes, according to the report, endorsement by Ronald B. Herberman, MD, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute. While serving as director, Dr. Herberman had previously urged his staff43 and the general population to recognize and understand that, while research has not proved conclusively one way or the other and given the uncertainty about the ultimate long-term safety of wireless radio signals, there are precautions that one can take. The report urges a skeptical individual and public policy approach to NIER exposure and encourages the on-going study of radio emissions and health concerns. The report urges prudent defensive actions to protect one’s self and to move public policy toward a conservative 37 Elisabeth Cardis et. al., International Journal of Epidemiology (2010;1–20) (Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Epidemiological Association) (May 17, 2010). 38 “Electromagnetic fields and public health: mobile phones “, Fact Sheet No. 193 (updated June, 2011) http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs193/en/. 39 CNET News at http://news.cnet.com/8301-27083_3-20005235-247.html (May 18, 2010). 40 Stacy Eltiti et. al. “Does short-term exposure to mobile phone base station signals increase symptoms in individuals who report sensitivity to electromagnetic fields? A double-blind randomised provocation study” (Environmental Health Perspectives, 7/25/2007) (University of Essex, UK) available at http://www.ehponline.org. The study is also available at http://www.essex.ac.uk/psychology/EHS/eltiti%20et%20al%20BEMS%20ON- LINE%20PUBLICATION.pdf 41 Ibid. 42 See http://www.radiationresearch.org/pdfs/15reasons.asp 43 See http://www.post-gazette.com/downloads/20080722upci_cellphone_memo.pdf Appendix F: Human Exposure to Non-ionizing Electromagetic Radiation (NIER) Page 31 of 38 approach to NIER exposure. More recently, Dr. Brenden Curley44, a medical doctor who specializes in hematology and oncology, stated in an interview with a news reporter that There is currently no definitive scientific evidence that cell phone use causes cancer. Some people may worry that cell phones emit radio waves or radiofrequency energy that can damage nearby tissue, causing brain cancer. According to recent research, patients with brain cancer do not report more cell phone use than controls or people without brain cancer. However, current research does have limitations, mostly because cell phones are relatively new and we’re using them more now. So it’s difficult to give a definitive answer right now. However, evidence currently does not support cell phones causing cancer.45 A report of partial findings from the National Toxicology Program (NTP) released on May 26, 2016, and the draft reports for tests on lab mice and lab rats was released on February 2, 2018. These releases present initial and final data regarding development of tumors during a multi-year study of lab mice and rats46. The study exposed lab rats to high levels of whole-body electromagnetic radiation (CDMA and GSM modulation formats) for 9 hours a day over a two-year period. The level of exposure was chosen to avoid thermal issues beyond that which the animal could self- regulate body temperature.47 While this level is far more than exposure based on mass than allowed by the FCC for humans, the higher level (i.e. a “provocation” study) was used to allow study of the impact on the animal’s organs other than just the brain. After release of the initial report, a press briefing was held to allow reporters to ask questions about the study data and preliminary results48. The audio and transcript may be a useful way for the general public to hear answers to some of the complex issues raised by release of the initial report. Researcher Dr. John Bucher, when asked by a reporter for the “take away” from the initial report for the general public said: So this is a study that is looking at the plausibility, biological plausibility, of carcinogenic effect due to cell phone radiation. The direct translation of these findings to the way humans are using cell telephones is not currently completely worked out and that’s part of the evaluation that’s going forward. This may have relevance, it may have no relevance.49 As of February, 2018, the NTP study has been released for peer review to establish independent credibility. The technical reports and related information is available on the NTP web site.50 When last checked, an updated summary of the NTP study of high-level 44 See his bio at https://www.honorhealth.com/physicians/brendan-curley 45 See http://www.12news.com/news/local/outreach/healthcheck/debunking-9-common-cancer- myths/452221027 46 See http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/05/26/055699 47 A 1-degree body temperature rise. 48 Audio and transcript available at http://www.niehs.nih.gov/news/newsroom/releases/2016/may27/ 49 See transcript of press briefing available at http://www.niehs.nih.gov/news/newsroom/releases/2016/may27/ Page 24 of 36. 50 https://www.niehs.nih.gov/news/newsroom/releases/2018/february2/index.cfm Appendix F: Human Exposure to Non-ionizing Electromagetic Radiation (NIER) Page 32 of 38 and long-duration NIER exposure to rats and mice is available online.51 It should be noted that the NTP study used much higher exposure levels and duration than a human using a cell phone held to their head would experience. The human exposure from a base station that complies with FCC threshold regulations is orders of magnitude lower than that of a cell phone held to the head or near the body. While the information in the technical reports is highly technical and uses terminology unfamiliar to most readers who do not perform research or services in the medical field, NTP summarizes the study findings for the rest of us and its application to human health by answering this question: Do the rat and mouse findings apply to humans? The published answer is as follows. The findings in animals cannot be directly applied to humans for two key reasons:  The exposure levels and durations were greater than what people may receive from cellphones.  The rats and mice received RFR across their whole bodies, which is different from the more localized exposures humans may receive, like from a cellphone in their pocket or next to their head. However, the studies question the long-held assumption that radio frequency radiation is of no concern as long as the energy level is low and does not significantly heat the tissues. 52 Without meaning to minimize concerns on the part of any individual on this matter, the scientific information to date as a whole seems to favor a conclusion that neither the biological effects of tissue heating nor symptoms allegedly due to low-level NIER DNA damage are likely caused by a base station facility that complies with FCC guidelines. If anything, the use of a hand-held mobile device held to one’s head or in proximity to the body is more of a concern since the mobile device transmits radio signals while communicating with a base station. When a base station is nearby, the propagation losses are less and the transmit power of the mobile device can be reduced (base stations control the mobile device output power to maintain low levels of interference with other users who are more distant or behind obstacles that block the RF signals. We note that while it is possible to prove scientifically that something is “unsafe” (i.e. identifiable and repeatable conditions that lead to the undesired result) it is logically impossible to prove that something is “safe” by performing any number of tests that are limited in scope and time. Wireless mobile device use, as is the case with other environmental exposure, is in the latter category. It remains undisputed that someday a peer-reviewed study and subsequent historical data validation may show that low-level NIER (as opposed to high-level and long-duration exposure of lab rats and mice) is likely problematic for a class of human population, such evidence does not currently appear to exist. The lack of such clear and objective evidence tends to defeat the assertion that low-level NIER from base station 51 See https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/materials/cell_phone_radiofrequency_radiation_studies_508.pdf 52 Ibid. Appendix F: Human Exposure to Non-ionizing Electromagetic Radiation (NIER) Page 33 of 38 facilities may be dangerous. Naturally, a person who has health-related concerns or experiences any health-related symptoms should consult with a heath care professional – not an RF engineer. Appendix G: Alternative and Supplemental Technologies Page 34 of 38 Other Technology Approaches to Mobile Wireless Services - Satellite Systems, Distributed Antenna Systems, Small/Micro Cells, and Pico Cells The board may already be aware of other approaches to deliver wireless communications that could avoid tall towers in a given area. On one extreme certain cellular-type systems can be implemented using low-Earth orbit satellites. On the other extreme, very small pico-cell systems can allow subscribers to connect to their own home or office network using technology similar to a cordless phone. Each approach has its advantages and disadvantages. Satellite systems provide a very large “cell” that is about 50 miles in diameter. Such a system is useful when there are very few users in the “cell” that require service, such as ocean-going vessels and land locations where natural disasters or other locations where there are limited base stations. Pico-cell technology uses a hard-wired subscriber’s broadband connection to bypass the cellular network for that localized location. One such system that fits between satellite systems and pico-cells is called a Distributed Antenna System (DAS). Another approach, similar to a DAS, is a micro-cell that implements functions of a regular base station in a localized area. DAS and micro-cell systems, including transport sites, are presented here for completeness because this issue can arise in zoning hearings for new towers. Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) DAS systems are designed and deployed by companies such as CommScope53, Corning Inc.54, JMA Wireless55, NextG Networks56, ExteNet Systems57, and others who install and then lease use of the DAS to wireless service providers. Essentially a DAS involves an array of antennas mounted on existing telephone poles and short towers/structures that are otherwise unsuitable for a “macro” wire-area base station facility. The antennas and associated transceivers, sometimes called “nodes”, are interconnected by fiber optic or coaxial cable links called a “backhaul.” In the case of backhaul fiber optic links, the wireless RF signals are converted at each node to optical signals which can then be routed to a hub site and converted back into the signals useable by a specific service provider at a “head end” facility that will interface with the service provider’s network. Some wireless service providers use DAS technology to service tunnels, airport terminals, office buildings and other facilities where either signal penetration limitations, subscriber capacity demands, or lack of ability to construct a tower would stop wireless services. When above-ground utilities exist in an area, a DAS may have the distinct advantage of allowing wireless services from short sites that would tend to alleviate certain aspects of aesthetic concern over tall towers. Unfortunately, the multiplicity of antenna sites, the backhaul interconnection of the nodes using hard-wired connections 53 See https://www.commscope.com/ 54 See https://www.corning.com/ 55 See https://jmawireless.com/ 56 See https://www.nextgennetworksinc.com/ 57 See http://www.extenetsystems.com/ Appendix G: Alternative and Supplemental Technologies Page 35 of 38 and the lack of contingency power tend to limit their practical use to very dense areas or areas that are not serviceable by other means. Examples of DAS limitations include:  need for numerous closely-spaced above-ground utility poles or light stanchions in the service area  potential lack of E-911 location technology to allow emergency responders to know a more precise location of an outdoor emergency call (an in-building DAS would not present such a problem since it is localized to the building in question),  the regulatory constraints and deployment/operating costs to negotiate outdoor pole attachments and ground equipment locations,  the potential fragility of the fiber optic or wired inter-node links that are usually more extensive and more exposed to falling trees or ice as in a conventional wireless base station topology, and  lack of reliable/durable/cost-effective remote power at each node. These limitations present significant potential reductions in performance and reliability that should be carefully weighed. Further, since the systems are sometimes deployed and operated by a third party, the cost to use the system may be excessive. While the limitations are real, in situations where it is not feasible to approve a tower that provides the necessary RF coverage and capacity a permit applicant seeks, a DAS to supplement their network or one that replaces the proposed tower is a possible approach. If necessary, the board’s prerogative in this matter should be thoroughly discussed with the board’s counsel because it is subject to all the legal limitations associated with the Telecommunications Act, court decisions, and Applicant’s legal standing as a public utility in New York. For an example of where DAS systems were previously operational and where new nodes were being installed, Lower Merion Twp in Pennsylvania had a twelve-node operational DAS.58 The system was reported to be operational and, in the spring of 2009, there were zoning proposals before the municipality to increase the number of nodes in the system. Please refer to the township web site for the most up-to-date information. As of September, 2009, the City of Mount Vernon planning board had a joint application from ExteNet, a DAS system provider, and Metro PCS, a wireless service provider, for a special use permit for the installation of a DAS consisting of fiber optic cable and telecommunications equipment placed on utility pole structures located within the corridor of the public right of way throughout the city. Previously, the City of Yonkers granted pole attachment rights to ExteNet within that jurisdiction. A July 15, 2009 article that briefly discusses the use of the ExteNet DAS by MetroPCS is available online59. A more detailed news report dated March 31, 2009, is available from Reuters at their web site60. 58 See http://www.lowermerion.org/index.aspx?recordid=558&page=50 or search the base URL for “DAS” and “NextG” for multiple documents, including the January 22, 2009, press release. 59 See http://www.govtech.com/gt/articles/702090 (available as of September 7, 2009) 60 See http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS254010+31-Mar-2009+BW20090331 Appendix G: Alternative and Supplemental Technologies Page 36 of 38 Micro-cells and Transport Sites Micro-cells provide the functionality of a regular base station in a very localized area. Depending on the deployment, the micro-cell communicates through a fiber optic or radio link backhaul, similar to a base station. Power backup and the reliability of fiber optic cable runs between antennas above ground are similar to the issues described in the DAS system discussion. Micro-cells are particularly useful in applications where user demand is limited to a small area such as a shopping or business area where mobile users are concentrated. Micro-cells can also be used in more densely populated areas where a tower base station is impractical due to zoning constraints. About nine (9) micro cell installations were approved by the Town of Pittsford, NY, for Verizon Wireless in 2022. The micro-cells can be mounted on existing above-ground utility poles, light stanchions, or on buildings in the area. These sites use self-contained electronics and antennas that communicate with a transport site, a “head end” facility, or a mobile telephone switching center via fiber optic or wired connections. The transport site can be an existing tower site, a tall structure, or a new tower either central to or within range of the micro-cells. A transport site will typically be in the range of 70’ to 120’. The use of micro-cell antennas, sometimes called “cantennas,” provide localized service and avoid a tall tower central to the coverage area In the case of a radio backhaul, the transport site, a tall tower, can be located off-center from the coverage area to collect the traffic from the local micro-cell. The combination of the micro-cells and one or more transport sites potentially replace the use a tall tower in the center of the coverage or capacity gap area. A discussion of one municipality and their reaction to the use of micro cells can be found online.61 Both micro-cells and DAS installations have become more important in recent years as wireless service providers struggle to bring increased use capacity and bandwidth to their subscribers. This push has placed municipal boards and planning staff in the difficult position of determining how to handle zoning applications for these systems. Transport sites (75’ – 120’ or more) are sometimes proposed in right-of-way areas adjacent to roadways and pedestrian walkways where the potential for ice shedding can be a public safety issue. Beyond the obvious aesthetic and issues related to fall zones and proximity to vehicles and pedestrians, municipalities are still trying to develop a process to represent the financial impact incurred by use of municipal infrastructure (light poles, traffic light support poles, etc.) due to the installation of equipment on these structures that increase wind loading and can affect the galvanizing on steel poles that potentially will decrease the service life of the structure. On the positive side, the use of micro-cells can avoid the challenges of zoning a tall tower in areas where aesthetics of the tower can be deferred to the aesthetics of the numerous micro-cell DAS antennas throughout the area. 61 See http://buffalonews.com/2017/04/22/towns-confronted-ever-shrinking-cell-antennas/ Appendix H: Photo Simulation Evaluation Issues Page 37 of 38 Photo simulation of a new tower structure is produced using a brightly-colored balloon tethered at the height of the proposed tower on a day when weather will allow observation of the balloon from a distance. Since the goal is to hold the balloon at a height representing the proposed tower, the wind velocity on the day of observation must be low. After the balloon is positioned, a photographer moves around the area to capture photographs of the balloon from critical vantage points. Later, the photographs are modified by stripping out the balloon and replacing it with a photo image of a tower like the one that is proposed. The tower image is properly scaled and post-processed into the photograph. This composite photograph that shows the expected scene that will result if the tower is constructed. When viewing a tower scene, one’s attention is generally drawn to visual discontinuities or abnormalities that result from a disruption of the horizon. As we walk around our own neighborhood we mentally process the foreground and background objects based on our previous experiences of size and proportion. When one views a visual discontinuity scene in-person, the viewer is usually able to mentally process the near-field “clutter” using three-dimensional visual clues and remove them from the scene to get an accurate proportional assessment of the situation. Two-dimensional photographs lack the three- dimensional clues we use to get a proper proportional assessment, so a viewer supplements their assessment by inferring the proportionality information. Generally that process provides a good appraisal of the visual impact provided care is taken when producing the photo simulations to avoid unintentional false clues. False clues are often foreground clutter that appears to minimize the visual discontinuity of a proposed tower or tower modification. Objects such as telephone poles, trees, utility wires, and roadway signage in the foreground are a few of the possible clutter items that require a two-dimensional viewer to take special care in assessing visual discontinuities produced by a proposed tower or tower modification. Reasonable care should be taken to avoid photo simulations that include unnecessary items in the foreground because they can sometimes mask the assessment of the tower or tower modifications. Most of us have seen humorous photographs of friends holding their hands out in such a way as to make it appear an object in the background is resting on their hands in the foreground. This effect is possible when proportionality clues are misinterpreted by the viewer. An example is shown below. 1. Two examples of false visual clues in two-dimensional photographs. In the first example, one eventually discerns that the person is located in the foreground and the Gateway Arch in St. Louis is some distance in the background – but for most Appendix H: Photo Simulation Evaluation Issues Page 38 of 38 viewers it takes a few seconds to make that connection. Unless one knows the proportion of the arch, it would be easy to draw the false conclusion that the arch is fairly minimal in size. 2. Gateway Arch in St. Louis with minimal foreground objects In the second example, the visual perspective is an arguably “accurate” depiction of the scene of view. Some viewers would conclude that the tower, although a dramatic visual continuity on the horizon, is in proportion to the surrounding scene. If that photograph had been produced with a perspective that excluded the building and foreground trees, the true visual discontinuity would be more apparent. In a worst-case example of photo simulations gone bad, a photograph showed a large tree in the foreground with the caption “Proposed tower buffered by existing vegetation” when, in fact, had the photograph been taken from a position only ten feet either side of the tree, the balloon would have been clearly visible from that street view. However, with careful scene selection and minimal editing, photo simulations can provide a good assessment of visual impact. 1 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Uploaded to Town of Ithaca OpenGov online submission system, sent via E-mail to jlusk@nixonpeabody.com, and via U.S. Mail on December 12, 2023 December 11, 2023 Mr. Jared C. Lusk, Esq., Partner Nixon Peabody, LLP – Attorneys for Verizon Wireless 1300 Clinton Square Rochester, NY 14604-1792 Dear Mr. Lusk, On Monday, November 13, 2023, the Town of Ithaca (“Town”) received application materials from you related to the construction of a proposed Personal Wireless Service Facility (PWSF) at 111 Wiedmaier Court, Tax Parcel No. 56.-4-1.22, via the Town of Ithaca OpenGov online building permit submission system. Pursuant to the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC’s) 2009 Declaratory Ruling and 2014 Report and Order interpreting the “reasonable period of time” provision in 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(ii) for municipal processing of siting applications, and Town Code §270-219. E (3), the Town is hereby notifying you in writing within 30 days of the Town’s receipt of the application that the application is incomplete. Specifically, the items that are missing include: 1. Evidence that a significant gap in coverage exists (Town Code §270-219.G (2) (s) [2]) – The Town Code requires in-kind call testing for each frequency at which the applicant provides personal wireless services. The applicant shall provide the Town with the actual testing data recorded during such tests, in a simple format which shall include each frequency, in table format: a. The date and time for the test, b. The location, in longitude and latitude, of each point at which signal strength was recorded, c. Each signal strength recorded, measured in decibel milliwatts (dBm), for each frequency. 2. Dropped call records (Town Code §270-219.G (2) (s) [4]) – The applicant shall also provide dropped call records and denial of service records evidencing the number, percentage, and locations of voice calls that were unable to be initiated or maintained between wireless telephones and landlines connected to the national telephone network. This was not provided in the application packet that was submitted. TOWN OF ITHACA NEW YORK 2 3. Noise study (Town Code §270-219.G (2) (u)) – The application materials state that “A noise study will be prepared in connection with this Project.” However, a noise study has not been submitted. 4. Economic analysis study (Town Code §270-219.G (2) (v)) – The applicant asserts that this information may not lawfully be considered in the Town’s analysis of the application. However, the Town Code requires the submission of an economic analysis of the property value impacts that the construction and operation of the PWSF may have on all adjacent properties located within 500 feet of the parcel boundaries on which the PWSF is located. 5. Visual simulations/before-and-after renderings (Town Code §270-219.J (2) (d) and (e)) –The application materials contain photo simulations for some locations from which the monopole will be visible (“S-3,” “S-6,” and “S-9”), but no simulations from the most visually impacting views, which are “P-1,” P-4,” and P-5”. Please submit photo simulations for P-1, P-4, and P-5. 6. Alternate facility designs and color schemes (Town Code §270-219.J (2) (f)) – There are no alternate facility designs or color schemes in the application package. Please submit. 7. Climbing pegs (Town Code §270-219.O (3)) – It is not clear if there are permanent climbing pegs within 15 feet of the ground of the tower. Please provide documentation that this is not occurring. 8. Insurance requirements (Town Code §270-219. V (1) – Insurance requirements as follows will need to be supplied for the building permit process: (1) Minimum Coverages. Each PWSF Permittee shall maintain in full force and effect, throughout the term of a PWSF Permit, an insurance policy, or policies. Such policy or policies shall, at a minimum, afford insurance covering all of the Permittee's operations, as follows: (a) Commercial General Liability insurance with limits of insurance of not less than $1,000,000 each occurrence and $3,000,000 annual aggregate for bodily injury and property damage, including contractual liability, personal injury, products and completed operations, (b) Commercial Umbrella insurance with limits of not less than $5,000,000, (c) Pollution Liability insurance, on an occurrence form, with limits not less than $1,000,000 each occurrence and $3,000,000 annual aggregate, with any deductible not to exceed $25,000 each occurrence. (2) Other insurance requirements. (a) Said policy or policies shall include the Town and its officers and employees as additional insureds, (b) Said policy or policies shall be endorsed to provide 30 days' advance written notice of cancellation or any material change to the Town, (c) Should any of the required insurance be provided under a claims-made form, a permittee shall maintain such coverage continuously throughout the term of a personal wireless service facility permit, and, without lapse, for a period of three years beyond the expiration or termination of the permit, to the effect that, should occurrences during the term of the 3 permit give rise to claims made after expiration or termination of the permit, such claims shall be covered by such claims-made policies, (3) Proof of Insurance. Before the Town will issue a personal wireless service facility site permit, a permittee shall furnish to the Town certificates of insurance and additional insured policy endorsements with insurers that are authorized to do business in the State of New York and that are satisfactory to the Town evidencing all coverages set forth in this Subsection V. 9. Zoning Board of Appeals Application – The application materials correctly assert that a height variance is required for exceeding the allowable height of 30 feet, in accordance with Town Code §270-16, as the PWSF is proposed to be 138 feet tall. Please submit an area variance application at the following link: Zoning Board of Appeals - Zoning Board of Appeals Area Variance Application - ViewPoint Cloud (opengov.com) When submitting the Zoning Board of Appeals area variance application, please submit a narrative describing the project, drawings/plans of the project, the applicable environmental assessment form, an agricultural data statement (if applicable), and a fee (when prompted by the permitting system). 10. Electrical Permit Application - An electrical permit application needs to be submitted, in addition to the building permit application, at the following link: Code Enforcement & Zoning Department - TOI - Electrical Permit Application - ViewPoint Cloud (opengov.com) 11. PWSF Permit Application – A PWSF permit application needs to be submitted at the following link: https://ithacany.portal.opengov.com/categories/1071/record-types/6571 12. Town Code Chapter 125-C requires the following items to be provided in addition to what has already been provided: a. One hard copy set of plans needs to be submitted as part of the process for the building permit, b. A statement that the work shall be performed in compliance with Chapter 270, Zoning, the Uniform Code, the ECCCNYS, the ECS, this chapter, and other applicable state and local laws, ordinances, and regulations, c. It appears that the documents were submitted by an engineering firm and not a sole practitioner professional engineer, which requires the firm's certificate of authorization number to be placed on the title block, d. Please provide a statement of special inspections for this project, e. Please provide the building permit fee, when prompted by the permitting system, f. Please provide proof of workers compensation and disability or the proper exemption documentation from the NYS Worked Compensation Board. 13. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)/Engineering Comments – The Engineering Department has the following comments and requires the following information: a. Please identify the: i. Total Area of disturbance for the project, ii. Total Cut and Fill Volumes associated with the project, iii. Total New Impervious Area associated with the project, 4 b. Based solely on the length of trenching indicated on the site plan, a Simple SWPPP will be required (at a minimum). Depending on the total area and volume of disturbances the SWPPP level required may escalate to a Basic or Full, c. Please fill out a SWPPP application on the Town of Ithaca online permitting system Engineering page at: https://ithacany.viewpointcloud.com/categories/1080, d. The SWPPP requirements, including required submission materials are outlined in Chapter 228 of the Town of Ithaca Code, which can be found here: https://ecode360.com/IT1944, [A Simple SWPPP is required for any projects that exceed 10,000 sf but not greater than 1 acre of disturbed area, exceed 50 cubic yards but not more than 250 cubic yards of excavation/fill, or 300 linear feet of utility trenching. A Basic SWPPP is required for any projects that exceed 10,000 sf but not greater than 1 acre of disturbed area or exceed 250 cubic yards of excavation/fill. A Full SWPPP is required for any projects that exceed 1 acre of disturbance or 10,000 sf of new Impervious cover. If the project exceeds 1 acre, a NYS SPDES Permit will be required.] 14. Application/Review Fees – The following application fees apply to this Project: a. Planning Board Preliminary Site Plan Review/Special Permit Development Review Fees - $400, based on project cost asserted by applicant on Development Review Application Form (special permit fee is included when site plan approval and special permit are sought at the same time) b. Planning Board Final Site Plan Development Review Fee - $200 (½ preliminary site plan fee) c. Zoning Board of Appeals Area Variance Fee - $150* d. Building Permit Fee – $1400 (based on project cost – includes electrical permit fee)* e. PWSF Fee – $775* f. Operating Fees (TCO/CO)* - No CO fee. TCO is ½ building permit fee (may not be required) *Building Department fee schedule: https://www.town.ithaca.ny.us/resource_library/otherdocuments/. Please note that there is an annual renewal fee for PWSF permits TOTAL APPLICATION/REVIEW FEES: $2,925 In addition to the list above, the following errors were noted in the submitted documentation, specifically: 1. Applicant cover letter, Page 1 - The wrong Town Code reference is mentioned in the last paragraph, where it states that “telecommunications facilities are permitted in the C zoning district upon the issuance of site plan approval and a special use permit from the Planning Board (Code §270-219 (B)). The correct Town Code reference is §270-219. D (5). 2. Applicant cover letter, Page 2 – The Town of Ithaca Planning Board no longer requires twenty-five (25) copies of the 11 x 17 Site Plans. Please instead submit twelve (12) paper copies of the plans (in addition to the three large size sets and digital uploads, as listed on the preliminary site plan review checklist provided via email on 11/16/2023 and 11/17/2023). 3. Applicant cover letter, page 2 – Please revise the site plan and special permit fees that are listed to reflect the correct fees, as noted above. 5 4. Full Environmental Assessment Form– The NYSDEC eliminated the Visual Addendum in 2012, when the Short and Full Forms were updated (https://www.dec.ny.gov/regulatory/permits- licenses/seqr/eaf-workbooks; also states in the 2020 SEQR Handbook “DEC created revised model environmental assessment forms (EAF) and repealed appendix B (visual EAF addendum), which was incorporated into the new full EAF).” Please remove the Visual Addendum from the submitted Form. 5. Exhibit H: Radiofrequency Search Ring Justification, page numbered 14 and titled “Explanation of Sunny View Search Area” – the last paragraph lists Italy as one local area that has coverage and capacity issues that will be resolved with the current proposal. Please revise accordingly. Please submit additional materials via the proper digital portals mentioned above, and all other materials listed above to my attention at the address on the letterhead. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions or require clarification. I can be reached by phone at (607) 273-1721, extension 121 or by email at cbalestra@town.ithaca.ny.us. Sincerely, Christine Balestra, Senior Planner Cc: Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town Brett Morgan, Airosmith Development, Inc. Marty Moseley, Town of Ithaca Director of Code Enforcement Jeffrey Twitty, Esq., Nixon Peabody LLP C.J. Randall, Town of Ithaca Director of Planning David Squires, Chair, Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Fred Wilcox, Chair, Town of Ithaca Planning Board 1 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Uploaded to Town of Ithaca OpenGov online submission system, sent via E-mail to jlusk@nixonpeabody.com, and via U.S. Mail on Friday, June 7, 2024 June 7, 2024 Mr. Jared C. Lusk, Esq. Nixon Peabody, LLP – Attorneys for Bell Atlantic Mobile Systems, LLC d/b/a Verizon Wireless 1300 Clinton Square Rochester, NY 14604-1792 Dear Mr. Lusk, On Thursday, May 30, 2024, the Town of Ithaca (“Town”) received additional application materials related to the construction of a proposed Personal Wireless Service Facility (PWSF) at 111 Wiedmaier Court, Tax Parcel No. 56.-4-1.22, via the Town of Ithaca OpenGov online submission system and via Federal Express. Pursuant to the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC’s) regulation at 47 CFR § 1.6003 defining the presumptive “reasonable period of time” provision in 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(ii) for municipalities to act on siting applications, and Town Code §270-219. E (7), the Town is hereby notifying you in writing within 10 days of the Town’s receipt of the additional application materials that the application is still incomplete. The relevant shot clock is therefore tolled until the following materials are provided and the Town determines that the application is complete: 1. Evidence that a significant gap in coverage exists (Town Code §270-219.G (2) (s) [2]) – Exhibit V acknowledges the following application requirement, but none of the submittals provide the required material. The Town Code requires in-kind call testing for each frequency at which the applicant provides personal wireless services. The applicant shall provide the Town with the actual testing data recorded during such tests, in a simple format which shall include each frequency, in table format: a. The date and time for the test, b. The location, in longitude and latitude, of each point at which signal strength was recorded, c. Each signal strength recorded, measured in decibel milliwatts (dBm), for each frequency. 2. Dropped call records (Town Code §270-219.G (2) (s) [4]) – Exhibit V acknowledges the following application requirement, but none of the submittals provide the required material. The applicant shall also provide dropped call records and denial of service records evidencing the number, TOWN OF ITHACA NEW YORK 2 percentage, and locations of voice calls that were unable to be initiated or maintained between wireless telephones and landlines connected to the national telephone network. 3. Economic analysis study (Town Code §270-219.G (2) (v)) – Exhibit Y acknowledges the following application requirement, but the economic analysis was not conducted on properties located within 500 feet of the parcel boundaries on which the PWSF is located. The Town Code requires the submission of an economic analysis of the property value impacts that the construction and operation of the PWSF may have on all adjacent properties located within 500 feet of the parcel boundaries on which the PWSF is located. 4. Insurance requirements (Town Code §270-219. V (1) – Insurance requirements as follows will need to be supplied for the building permit process: (1) Minimum Coverages. Each PWSF Permittee shall maintain in full force and effect, throughout the term of a PWSF Permit, an insurance policy, or policies. Such policy or policies shall, at a minimum, afford insurance covering all of the Permittee's operations, as follows: (a) Commercial Umbrella insurance with limits of not less than $5,000,000, (b) Pollution Liability insurance, on an occurrence form, with limits not less than $1,000,000 each occurrence and $3,000,000 annual aggregate, with any deductible not to exceed $25,000 each occurrence. 5. Electrical Permit Application - An electrical permit application needs to be submitted, in addition to the building permit application, at the following link: Code Enforcement & Zoning Department - TOI - Electrical Permit Application - ViewPoint Cloud (opengov.com) 6. Town Code Chapter 125-5C requires the following items to be provided in addition to what has already been provided: a. One hard copy set of plans needs to be submitted as part of the process for the building permit, b. A statement that the work shall be performed in compliance with Chapter 270, Zoning, the Uniform Code, the ECCCNYS, the ECS, this chapter, and other applicable state and local laws, ordinances, and regulations, c. It appears that the documents were submitted by an engineering firm and not a sole practitioner professional engineer, which requires the firm's certificate of authorization number to be placed on the title block, d. Please provide a statement of special inspections for this project, e. Please provide the building permit fee, when prompted by the permitting system, f. Please provide proof of workers compensation and disability or the proper exemption documentation from the NYS Worked Compensation Board. 7. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)/Engineering Comments – The Engineering Department still requires the following information: a. Please fill out a SWPPP application on the Town of Ithaca online permitting system Engineering page, and upload all SWPPP information: https://ithacany.viewpointcloud.com/categories/1080, 3 b. Please include the Construction Sequence/Erosion and Sediment Control Sequence in the construction drawings, c. Please include a contractor certification form certifying compliance with the terms and conditions of the submitted SWPPP. A sample of the form can be found attached (as requested in the SWPPP), d. According to the provided SWPPP, all excess materials from the work will be sent to a state approved solid waste facility. If any of the excess material is spread outside of the limits of disturbance or sent to another site within the Town limits, a revision of the drawings shall be required to be submitted for review. 8. Consultant Escrow Fee (§270-219.Q, §153-2D) – The following minimum consultant escrow fee applies to this Project: $3,000.00, pursuant to Town Code §270-219.Q, which states: (1) The Town, at the expense of the applicant, may employ its own consultants to examine the application and related documentation. The consultants that the Town may retain include, but are not limited to, professional structural and/or electrical engineers, attorneys, and other experts reasonably required by the Town to competently and fully evaluate any application and the resulting construction. Such consultants may be requested, among other matters, to make recommendations as to whether the criteria for granting approvals and permits have been met, including whether the applicant's conclusions regarding a significant gap in coverage, co- location, safety analysis, visual analysis, and structural inspection are valid and supported by generally accepted and reliable engineering and technical data and standards and whether the personal wireless service facility as constructed will be in compliance with the approved plans and in accordance with generally accepted good engineering practices and industry standards. (2) To assure sufficient funds are available to the Town to pay for the consultants referred to in the preceding subsection, an applicant shall be required to deposit review fees in escrow, in accordance with the terms of, as the same may be amended from time to time. The Town Board shall set from time to time by resolution the minimum initial escrow deposit for any personal wireless service facility application which anticipates construction of any type of tower exceeding 50 feet. The Town Board set the minimum initial escrow deposit at $3,000 in Town Board Resolution No. 2023-110. The shot clock remains tolled while the application remains incomplete. Please advise whether the Town to place this application on Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals agendas for their considerations and actions while the application remains incomplete. Nothing in this letter shall be construed to waive any application requirements or any consequences of an incomplete application. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions or require clarification. I can be reached by phone at (607) 273-1721, extension 121 or by email at cbalestra@townithacany.gov. Sincerely, Christine Balestra, Senior Planner Cc: Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town Rod Howe, Town of Ithaca Town Supervisor Brett Morgan, Airosmith Development, Inc. Marty Moseley, Town of Ithaca Director of Code Enforcement C.J. Randall, Town of Ithaca Director of Planning David Squires, Chair, Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Jeffrey Twitty, Esq., Nixon Peabody LLP Fred T. Wilcox, III, Chair, Town of Ithaca Planning Board PROJECT TITLE STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN Contractor’s Certification All contractors and subcontractors identified as implementing any erosion control measures shall sign a copy of the following certification statement: “I hereby certify that I understand and agree to comply with the terms and conditions of the SWPPP and agree to implement any corrective actions identified by the qualified inspector during a site inspection. I also understand that the owner or operator must comply with New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) regulations for stormwater discharges from construction activities and that it is unlawful for any person to cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards. Furthermore, I understand that certifying false, incorrect or inaccurate information is a violation of the referenced permit and the laws of the State of New York and could subject me to criminal, civil and/or administrative proceedings.” To be completed by president, secretary, treasurer, vice president or any person who performs similar policy or decision-making functions for the above-listed contracting firm: Name: (Please Print) Title: Firm: Address: Telephone Number: SWPPP Elements Responsible For: Signature: Date: To be completed by the on-site “trained contractor” that will be on site on a daily basis when soil disturbances are being performed: Trained Contractor’s Name: (Please Print) Title: Telephone Number: Site Address: Signature: Date: Town Code Enforcement Department Comments 8-14-24 1 Comments from Marty Moseley, Director of Code Enforcement, in bold underlined text below: 1. Insurance requirements (Town Code §270-219. V (1) – Insurance requirements as follows will need to be supplied for the building permit process: (1) Minimum Coverages. Each PWSF Permittee shall maintain in full force and effect, throughout the term of a PWSF Permit, an insurance policy, or policies. Such policy or policies shall, at a minimum, afford insurance covering all of the Permittee's operations, as follows: (a) Commercial Umbrella insurance with limits of not less than $5,000,000, (b) Pollution Liability insurance, on an occurrence form, with limits not less than $1,000,000 each occurrence and $3,000,000 annual aggregate, with any deductible not to exceed $25,000 each occurrence. a. The applicant asserts that these will be provided following the receipt of zoning approvals. This is acceptable and will be reviewed when they are submitted for approval from the Town Code Enforcement Department, prior to construction occurring. Please note that by advancing though the planning and zoning process the applicant acknowledges that the timeline for a building/electrical permit may be delayed due to the delay in providing the above requested materials. 2. Electrical Permit Application - An electrical permit application needs to be submitted, in addition to the building permit application, at the following link: Code Enforcement & Zoning Department - TOI - Electrical Permit Application - ViewPoint Cloud (opengov.com) a. The applicant asserts that these will be provided following the receipt of zoning approvals. This is acceptable and will be reviewed when they are submitted for approval from the Town Code Enforcement Department, prior to construction occurring. Please note that by advancing though the planning and zoning process the applicant acknowledges that the timeline for a building/electrical permit may be delayed due to the delay in providing the application materials 3. Town Code Chapter 125-5C requires the following items to be provided in addition to what has already been provided: a. One hard copy set of plans needs to be submitted as part of the process for the building permit, i. The applicant asserts that construction drawings will be submitted upon receipt of zoning approvals. By advancing through the Planning and Zoning process the applicant acknowledges that the timeline for a building permit may be delayed due to the delay in providing such drawings as previously requested. b. A statement that the work shall be performed in compliance with Chapter 270, Zoning, the Uniform Code, the ECCCNYS, the ECS, this chapter, and other applicable state and local laws, ordinances, and regulations, i. The applicant has submitted this in exhibit DD. This is required to be placed on the construction drawings. See response above pertaining to construction drawings and permit issuance. Town Code Enforcement Department Comments 8-14-24 2 c. It appears that the documents were submitted by an engineering firm and not a sole practitioner professional engineer, which requires the firm's certificate of authorization number to be placed on the title block, i. The applicant has submitted in exhibit R. This is required to be placed on the construction drawings. See response above pertaining to construction drawings and permit issuance. d. Please provide a statement of special inspections for this project, i. We agree with the applicant that they have provided the requested information in exhibit EE. e. Please provide the building permit fee, when prompted by the permitting system, i. The applicant has paid for the PWSF permit application (PWSF-24-2). The applicant has asserted that they will comply with payments for the remainder of the applications that are required of the applicant. f. Please provide proof of workers compensation and disability or the proper exemption documentation from the NYS Worked Compensation Board. i. The applicant has identified that this information will be provided upon receipt of the zoning approvals. By advancing through the Planning and Zoning process the applicant acknowledges that the timeline for applicable permits may be delayed due to the delay in providing the above documents. 4. Consultant Escrow Fee (§270-219.Q, §153-2D) – The following minimum consultant escrow fee applies to this Project: $3,000.00, pursuant to Town Code §270-219.Q, which states: (1) The Town, at the expense of the applicant, may employ its own consultants to examine the application and related documentation. The consultants that the Town may retain include, but are not limited to, professional structural and/or electrical engineers, attorneys, and other experts reasonably required by the Town to competently and fully evaluate any application and the resulting construction. Such consultants may be requested, among other matters, to make recommendations as to whether the criteria for granting approvals and permits have been met, including whether the applicant's conclusions regarding a significant gap in coverage, co-location, safety analysis, visual analysis, and structural inspection are valid and supported by generally accepted and reliable engineering and technical data and standards and whether the personal wireless service facility as constructed will be in compliance with the approved plans and in accordance with generally accepted good engineering practices and industry standards. (2) To assure sufficient funds are available to the Town to pay for the consultants referred to in the preceding subsection, an applicant shall be required to deposit review fees in escrow, in accordance with the terms of, as the same may be amended from time to time. The Town Board shall set from time to time by resolution the minimum initial escrow deposit for any personal wireless service facility application which anticipates construction of any type of tower exceeding 50 feet. The Town Board set the minimum initial escrow deposit at $3,000 in Town Board Resolution No. 2023-110. a. The applicant has provided the $3,000 escrow amount. COMMISSIONER Katherine Borgella DEPUTY COMMISSIONER M. Megan McDonald 121 E. Court St, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 | Phone: (607) 274-5560 | tompkinscountyny.gov/planning Creating and implementing plans that position Tompkins County communities to thrive. September 13, 2024 Christine Balestra, Senior Planner Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga St. Ithaca, NY 14850 Re: Review Pursuant to §239 -l, -m and -n of New York State General Municipal Law Proposed Action: Special Use Permit, Site Plan, and a Area Variance for proposed Telecommunications Tower located at 111 Wiedmaier Court, Tax Parcel #56.-4-1.22, Roberts WC Land LLC, Owner; Jared Lusk, Esq., Applicant. Dear Ms. Balestra: This letter acknowledges your referral of the proposed action identified above for review by the Tompkins County Department of Planning and Sustainability pursuant to §239 -l, -m and -n of the New York State General Municipal Law. We have determined the proposed action will have no significant county-wide or inter-community impact. We look forward to receiving notification on the final action taken by your municipality within 30 days of decision, as required by State law. Sincerely, Katherine Borgella, AICP Commissioner of Planning and Sustainability (gSipllm Department of •(Wt )•)Planning & XSustainability MEMORANDUM To:Town of Ithaca Planning Board From:The Town of Ithaca Conservation Board -Environmental Review Committee Date:09/24/2024 RE:Telecommunication Tower and Stone Quarry Rd Driveway Telecommunication Tower In reviewing the proposed application for a new 134’Verizon Wireless telecommunication tower located at 111 Wiedmaier Court a long standing member of the Conservation Board informed us about "PB Resolution No.2008 -013"made by the Planning Board on February 5,2008.While we are aware that the project was closed,we question if there truly has been an adequate restoration of the hundreds of trees the property owner Wiedmaier cleared from the last large subdivided lot (Tax Parcel No.56.-4-1.22).It appears barren from the view south from Rt.79.If a wooded area in a conservation zone can be razed to its subsoil,and then profitably leased for an industrial communications project,what good is such zoning?We recommend not approving a special permit or site plan for this project. Stone Quarry Rd Driveway We appreciate the applicant's efforts to understand the site and drainage issues.The resulting plan that aims to implement best practices and a driveway route that carefully balances preservation of current vegetation and reuse of materials on site with reasonable curvature, slope,and width of the proposed driveway is likely to produce the best outcomes.The Environmental Review Committee recommends approval for special permits and site plan for this driveway project. Respectfully submitted Lori Brewer Lindsay Dombroskie Eva Hoffmann Michael Roberts ; H®'vVC -‘.^v &£&&.•>'V r i-wm,v,. SSBa»Mi fe The full application materials were to large to make one PDF, please see link that includes all application materials received, by date M Verizon Cell Tower Proposal - 111 Wiedmaier Court AbbyHomerFrom:Sent:To:Subject:JillUllian/DennisAnello<judax2l4©gmail.com>Monday,September30,20242:44PMTownOfIthacaPlanningConcernre:NewAntennasforSc**WARNING**ThisemaiLcomesfromanoutsidesource.PLeaseverifythefromaddress,anyURLLinks,and/orattachments.AnyquestionspleasecontacttheITdepartmentRe:Verizon’sappLicationtoplaceanewLargetowerintheTownofIthacaat79andBurnsRoadHelLo,ThoughIdonotLiveinthevicinityofthenewproposedVerizontower,IdoLiveintheTownofIthaca,andamconcernedaboutmyneighborshealthandsafety.PLeaseseethebelow2resources,whichIbelievegivereasonforprudentcautionontheadditionofthisnewlargetower.Iamaformerphysicsteacher,andIwouldliketoaskthatyoureadtheseresources,andthattheybeincLudedintheinformationyoumakeavailabLetothepublic.1.WITHGOODREASONradioprograminterviewwithDeborahO’DeLl,professorofbiologyattheUniversityofMaryWashington:“Doestheradiationemittedbyourcellphonesharmus?”https://www.withgoodreasonraio.org/episode/do-cell-phones-cause-cancer-2/Doestheradiationemittedbyourcellphonesharmus?ProfessorDeborahO’Dellrecentlyfinishedastudythatfoundcellphoneradiationcancausechangestoourcells.2.ArticLefromTheNationmauazine:HowBigWirelessMadeUsThinkThatCellPhonesAreSafe:ASpecialInvestigationThedisinformationcampaign—andmassiveradiationincrease—behindthe5Gandcelltowerrollouts.https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/how-big-wireless-made-us-think-that-cell-phonesare—sate-ial-investiation/IamrequestingthatVerizon’sapplicationtoplaceanewlargetowerintheTownofIthacaat79andBurnsRoadbedenied.Thanksforyourworkonthisissue.DennisAnelloFormerPhysicsTeacher(highschool),FormerAdjunctFaculty,Physics&Math(SpringfieldTechnicalCommunityCollege)Ithaca1./3 AbbyHomerFrom:Sent:To:Subject:JeroneGagliano<jeroneg@gmailcom>Tuesday,October1,20242:12PMTownOfIthacaPlanningPublicCommenttoDenyNewVerizonTowerApplication[**WARNING**ThisemaiLcomesfromanoutsidesource.PLeaseverifythefromaddress,anyURLLinks,and/orattachments.AnyquestionspLeasecontacttheITdepartmentHelloPlanningBoard,Iamwritingtorequestthattheapplicationati11WiedmaierCourtbedeniedbasedon:thesitingLocationproximitytohomesandapartments,therationalewasnotgivenforwhytheyexcludedfouralternatesitelocations,andnoevidenceofindependentdroppedcalldatatodeterminetheneed.IamaNYlicensedprofessionaLengineerandIwasactivelyinvolvedintherewritingoftheCityofIthacaWirelessCodesandamveryfamiliarwiththeprocessandhowtheteLecomapplicantstrytogetaroundcomplyingwiththecode.Infact,IcorrectlydemonstratedtotheCityCouncilandCityPlannerduringapublicmeetingtwoyearsagohowAT&T’svarianceapplicationforsmallceLlsnexttohomesdidnotmeetournewcodesastheyneverproducedthevaliddroppedcalldataourcodesrequired.Despitethis,theCitycavedtoAT&T’spressurestatingthatthiswasthefirsttimeworkingwiththenewcodesandwouldtryhardernexttime.ItwasverydishearteningandwillmakeitmoredifficulttodenyotherteLecomsseekingthesamevariance!Youareupagainstasimilarscenario.Ifyougrantthisapplication,othertelecomswillfollowsuit.Additionally,thistowerwillonLygrowwithmoreandmoreantennasovertheyearsjustlikethelargeoneon96byIthacaColLegethathasgrownfromtonowmorethan30antennas!ThismonstrouseyesoreLookssooutofplaceevenwithbuildingssurroundingit,canyoiiimainethissamestructurenestledinthequainttreesthatwewillseeeverytimewedrivebyon79?TheNewHampshireCommissionstudythatyouarefamiliarwithstatesthatthesecelltowersshouldbekeptatleast500meters(1,640ft)awayfromresidencestoprotectthecurrentandfuturehealthandwellbeingofourcommunity.WhiletheconsultingreportstatesthattheproposedRFlevelswiltbewithintheFCClimits,wanttoremindyouthatthoseFCClimitsareoutdatedbyovertwodecadesandtheyhavebeenorderedbytheUSdistrictcourtthatthesafeRFLimitsmustbereevaluated.LookingattheGooglemapoftheproposedsite,a1,640ftradiuswouldincludeatleast30homesplustheapartmentcomplexthatisabout500feetawayfromtheproposedtower.Section1GaoftheEnvironmentalAssessmentFormwasLeftuncheckedintheimpactreportyetIwouLdarguethattheapartmentcomplexissimilartoagrouphomeandfallswithinthelistofentitiesuponwhichtheyshouldassesstheimpact.ThereforegrantingthisapplicationknowinulyputsTownofIthacaresidentsatriskofnegativehealthimpacts.InreviewingthereportIdidnotseeanyevidenceofthedropcalldatafromdrivebymeasurementsandtheywerenotmadebyanindependentparty.Ataminimum,theapplicantmustprovidetheseactual4mpcallmeasurementscertifiediromanindependentspeciaiiflinordertoassessifthisapplicationmeetstheneedundertheTownofIthacawirelesscodes.BewarnedthatVerizonwilltrytooverstatethedroppedcallsbycitinganynetworkdata(e.g.4G)“drops”,notdroppedcalls.(triedtoexplainthisfacttoH theCityofIthacainreviewingAT&T’sreportthattheirclaimednumberof“drops”wasimpossibLeandwouldhavemeantthateveryresidentintheareawasusingAT&TserviceandhadcLoseto10droppedcaLlseverydayindowntownIthaca!Additionally,theappLicantshouldprovidethefulljustificationastowhytheotherfourproposedsiteswerenotselected.IfthereisindeedaneedasjustifiedbymeetingthedroppedcallrequirementsoftheTownofIthacacodes,thentheresidentsandthePlanningBoardshouldknowabouttheotherpotentialsitestomakethebestdecisionfortheTownofIthaca.Remember,youputsomuchtimeandeffortintocraftingtheupdatedwirelesscodesinordertogivetheTownoffthacathepowertodecidewhereandwhennewwirelessinfrastructureisneededandhowitcanbestmeettheneedsandhealthoftheresidents.Sincerely,JeroneGagliano,PE2 AWayHomerFrom:CiRandall<cjrandall@townithacany.gov>Sent:Thursday,September25,20242:56PMTo:AbbyHomerSubject:Fw:SupposedlymonitoredwoodsrestorationatillWiedmaierCt,“SunnyViewSite”forVerizontowerprojectconsideredbyPlanningBoardWouldyoupleaseforwardthefollowingcorrespondencetoPBmembers?Thanks!C.J.OriginalMessageSubject:supposedlymonitoredwoodsrestorationat111WiedmaierCt,“SunnyViewSite”forVerizontowerprojectconsideredbyPlanningBoardDate:Wed,25Sep202417:01:53-0400From:“JamesVVHamilton”<jameswaldobluefrog.com>To:townclerk@townithacany.govCc:DianeFlorini<diflorini@hotmail.com>,jwhamilton<james_walter_hamiltonhotmail.com>ThanksforsendingmetheNoticeofPlanningBoardActionNearMe,receivedintoday’smailat1603SlatervilleRoad.IwouldlikethePlanningBoardtoconsiderWiedmaier’sSupposedwoodsrestorationforanillegalhilltopremovalintheSixmileCreekConservationZone.TheproposedVerizonWireless‘SunnyViewSite”at111WiedmaierCourtwouldputa138-foottowerona“previouslydisturbed”site.This“priordisturbance”illegallyremovedawoodedridgein2007,turningitintoabarrenflatspotwith“notreesorothervegetationtoremovetoaccommodatethetowerandassociatedfacilitiesandaccessdrive.”(ProjectDescription,PBPacket,Wiedmaiercelltower,10-1-24.pdf)IfthePlanningBoardunderstandsthissiteisstillcleared,thenwherearethe250treesthatweresupposedtobegrowingonitasrequiredbyarestorationplansixteenyearsago?ThePlanningBoardresolved(No.2008-013)onFebruary5,2008that”approximately250trees”shouldbeplantedonthedisturbedlot.Butwherearetheynow?Onpage3ofthe“Part3—EvaluationoftheMagnitudeandImportanceofProjectImpacts,”theSitePlanApproval,SpecialPermit,HeightVariancenotesthatthepropertyownerofthisproposedcelltowersitewasrequiredtoplantapproximately250treestoremediatetheillegaltreeclearingandhilltopremovalhedidin2007.Supposedlythosetransplanted250treesandotherlandscapingwas“monitoredforaperiodoffiveyears,whichwasaconditionofPlanningBoardapproval.”This“Historyofimpactsonplantsandanimals”alsostatesthat“Nearlyalloftheplantingssurvivedorwerereplaced.Nonewillbedisturbedaspartoftheproposedproject.”BeforeVerizonmovesitstowerontothis“sunnyviewsite,”IwouldliketohavesomeproofthatthesupposedTownmonitoringoftherestorationplantrulydididentifyapproximately250trees1 transplantedtoremediatetheillegalclearingofthewoodedridgethatwasdestroyedin2007.FromaGoogleMapsatelliteviewin2024,Icanseemaybe2dozenyoungtreesaroundthebarrensite.FromBurnsRoadtothenorth,thehillsideistoosteeptoseetheflattenedtopwherethewoodedridgewasremoved.FromSlatervilleRoad,theviewoftheclearedsiteshowsnosignthataoncewoodedareaintheConservationZonedownhillofthefourresidentialbuildingshasbeenrestoredtoanythingnearanaturalstate.Whomonitoredtherestorationplan?Wherearetheapproximately250treesthatweresupposedtoremediatetheillegalclearcuttingandridgeremovalat111WiedmaierCourt?TheTown’sconservationzonesarenotmerelyaestheticnotions,asthesection270-10oftheTown’szoningcodeexplainingthePurposeofConservationZonesmakesclear.TheSixmileCreekConservationZoneissupposedto“preventunnecessarydestructionofwoodlandareas,”especiallyasdirectlydownhillofthe“SunnyViewSite”thecreekflowsintotheupperreservoirabovethe60-footdam,providingtheCityofIthacawithitsmunicipalwater.Woodsinawatershedlikethisneedprotection,andiftheTown’smonitoringofthetreerestorationplantrulydidfind250treesremediatingtheclearcutlot,proofoftheirexistenceshouldbemadeperfectlyclearbeforethelandownerispermittedtoleasethissiteforVerizon’stower.Iwilltrytoattendthepublichearingonthisprojectnextweek.Pleaseinthemeantimemakesuretherereallyandtrulyareapproximately250treesrestoringthesitetoitsnaturalvalue.Iwouldlikeasiteplanoftheconstructionproposedforthetowertoclearlyidentifyatleast200oftheseremediatingtrees,whichsofarhavenotbeenvisibletoneighbors.Sincerely,JamesW.Hamilton1603SlatervilleRdIthaca,NY2 AbbyHomerFrom:Marie/AndrewMolnar<marieandrew93@gmail.com>Sent:Friday,September27,20243:18PMTo:TownOfIthacaPlanningCc:CiRandall;RodHowe;ChrisBalestra;RichDepaoloSubject:Willyoufollowthecodesandsciencetoprotectyourcitizens?**WARNING**ThisemaiLcomesfromanoutsidesource.PLeaseverifythefromaddress,anyURLLinks,and/orattachments.AnyquestionspLeasecontacttheITdepartmentHello,In2021-2022,wewereactiveinhelpingupdatetheTownswirelesscodes.WenowseethatVerizonhasappliedtobuildanewlargetower.It’sclearthatthistowerapplicationfailstomeetthestandardsoftheTown’scodes,includingutilizingtheleastintrusivemeanstofulfillthepurportedneeds.WeconcurwithseveralitemsintheconsultantMichaelJohnson’sreportwhichrecommendsfurtherexamination.Therefore,weaskthePlanningBoardtodenythisapplication.1.FailuretoprovidesufficientinformationprovinganactualneedFromtheJohnsonreport,“Atthistime,itisrecommendedthatthesitingauthorityreguestinformationfromApplicanttomorefullyunderstandthepotentialneedtoserveremaininggapareasandhowapprovalofthecurrentlv-nroposedsitewillinfluencetheplacementandheightoffuturesites.”Forexample,thedrivetestwasdonebyVerizon,NOTbyanindependentreviewer,asJohnsonconcedes.Fromtheirreport,“wecannotvouchforthetestmethodsemployedortheaccuracyofthedataApplicanthasprovided.”2.FaiLuretoresearchotherwaysoffillingtheneedforserviceand/orothersitesAsiohnsonoutLines,VerizonhasfailedtosubmitdetaiLedalternativepLans.So,forexample,Verizoncouldplaceatowerelsewhere,usestrategicallyplacedsmaLlcelLtowerstodeaLwithanyservicegaps,and/orexpLoreco-Locationoptions.Thus,Johnsonrecommends“furtheranalysisregardingrejected(alternative7sitesif.intheopinionofthesitingauthority.thereisanypossibilitythattheycouldprovideanaestheticadvantageforthissiteoriftheboardfeelsthereshnuLdbeevidenceintherecordjQshowthetechnicaland/oraestheticdisadvantagesofthesesitescomparedtotheproposedsite.”Theyalsorecommendperforming“anRFanatysisforanyadditionalnearbysitesidentifiedbymunicipalstaffandothersthathavepotentialforimprovedvisualimpact.”3.Thislargetowerwillpresentaclearnegativeaestheticimpactinanotherwisebeautifularea,asoutlinedintheEnvironmentalAssessmentForm(Part2,page6)4.TheFCCradiation(MPE)limitshavebeenruLedtobeoutofdateinfederalcourt,nottakingrecentscienceintoaccountInaLandmarkcasein2021theDCCircuitCourtofAppeals(ledbyKetanjiBrown-Jackson)ruledagainsttheFCC(EnvironmentalHealthTrustv.FCC)sayingthattheirradiationlimitswereinsufficient,nothavingaddressedthescienceofharmonthisissue.ThecourtorderedtheFCCtodoacompletereviewofitsLimitsgiventhethousandsofstudiesdonesincetheirestabLishmentin1997.(TheFCChasyettocomply,LikeLybecausetheycontinuetobecapturedbycorporateLnlex.cstiaccordingtoHarvard’sCenterforEthics.)Agood2-minutecliponthisisMinimalLy,thiscallsintoseriousquestionthevalidityoftheFCClimits,whichareaLreadyamongthehighestintheworLd,100timeshigherthanincountrieslikeItaly,Switzerland,RussiaandChina.5.Anunknownincreaseinenergyusemayviolatethetown’sEnergyCodeThisnewtowerwillrequireasignificantamountofnewenergy,suchthat,asyourownreportadmits,“ItisunknownifthefacilitywiltneedtocompLywiththeTownofIthacaEnergyCode.”DespiteteLecomcompaniesdownplayingenergyuse,inreaLitycelLtowersuseagreatdealofenergy,andthuswewouldrecommendfurtherin-depthstudyonhowmuchthiswouldactualLyuseandifitwouldcomplywiththetown’sEnergyCode.6.Harmtolocalresidents1 ItisshockingtonoteinSection16oftheEnvironmentalAssessmentForm(Part2)thatthereisanacknowledgementthattherewillbeimpactonhumanhealth,butnofurtherdetailisprovideAsweexhaustivelydetailedtwoyearsago-anddespiteadelugeofdisinformationfromthetelecomcompaniesandpartiessympathetictothem—thousandsofpeer-reviewedstudieshaveshownthatradiationfromcelltowers(pulse-modulated,microwaveradiation)isharmfultohumans.NewHampshirehasbeenthefirststatetoofficiallystudythisissue,empoweringaCommissionofscientiststodoso.Afteroverayearofextensivereview,thisCommissionvotedoverwhelminglytoraisetheredflagoncellantennas,andtheyrecommendedthatanycellantennasshouldbeatleast1640feetfromhomesorschools.Fromtheirreport:ThisCommissionacknowledgesthelargebodyofpeer-reviewedresearchthatshowsthatthetypeofradiationgeneratedbywirelessdevicescanhaveadeleteriouseffectonhumans,especiallychildren,aswellasanimals,insects,andvegetationTheWorldHealthOrganizationandthewholeinsuranceindustryarehedgingtheirbetsagainstthisradiationbecauseofpotentialharm...AlargenumberofindependentscientistshaveconcludedthatthethresholdsforJapanandtheU.S.areunsafe...WhyaretheFCCexposurelimitssetfortheUnitedStates100timeshigherthancountrieslikeRussia,China,Italy,andSwitzerland?...Whyhavethousandsofpeer-reviewedstudiesshowingsignificantDNAdamage,brainandhearttumors,infertility,andmanyotherailments,beenignoredbytheFCC?...Alikelyexplanationisthat[theyare‘captured’...whoseCommissionmemberscomefromtheindustrytheyareoverseeing.Particularlyinterestingisthis1-minuteclipfromanengineeringprofessoremeritusontheofficialNHCommissionstudyingthisissue.Heisanexpertinthisfieldandwasoriginallyaskepticofthedangers.Andhereisa1-minuteclipofanEPAscientistspeakingonthis.Tellingly,thetelecomcompaniesthemselveshavewarnedtheirshareholdersoftheriskoflawsuitsduetotheeffectsofcellradiation(*quotesbelow).Infact,anEcologInstituteReportcommissionedbyT-MobileandDeTeMobilDeutscheTelekomMobilNetrecommendedanexposurelimitl000xlowerthantheFCC’scurrentpowerdensitylimitafterreviewingtheresearchonbiologicaleffects.Itisoneofthegrossestethicalmiscarriagesoftodaythatthecompaniesknowthisradiationisharmful,yettheycontinuetorollthemout.JoelM.Moskowitz(Ph.D.andtheDirectoroftheCenterforFamilyandCommunityHealthatUCBerkeley’sSchoolofPublicHealth)justreleasedanup-to-datereviewofthesciencebehindthisrisk,whichcanbefoundathttps://drive.google.com/file/d/13EuxkmgcaalwmJyQoLBABMfEHgCsOyJ/viewThemassiveamountofscienceshowingharmiswhytheWorldHealthOrganizationclassifiesthisradiationinthesamecategoryofcarcinogenasDDTandlead.Forallthesereasons,weurgetheBoardtojointhegrowingnumberofotherlocaltownplanningboardsdenyingnewcelltowersanddenythisapplication.Wepleadwithyoutoputthehealthandwell-beingofourbelovedcommunityabovethegreedofcorporations.Thankyouforyourattentiontothisimportantmatter.AndrewMolnarandMarieSkweir*CelITowerCompaniesWarnShareholdersofRiskFromCellTowerRadiation:Verizon10-KReport“Ourwirelessbusinessalsofacespersonalinjuryandwrongfuldeathlawsuitsrelatingtoallegedhealtheffectsofwirelessphonesorradiofrequencytransmitters.Wemayincursignificantexpensesindefendingtheselawsuits.Inaddition,wemayberequiredtopaysignificantawardsorsettlements.”CrownCastle10-KReport“Wecannotguaranteethatclaimsrelatingtoradiofrequencyemissionswillnotariseinthefutureorthattheresultsofsuchstudieswillnotbeadversetous.Ifaconnectionbetweenradiofrequencyemissionsandpossiblenegativehealtheffectswereestablished,ouroperations,costs,orrevenuesmaybemateriallyandadverselyaffected.Wecurrentlydonotmaintainanysignificantinsurancewithrespecttothesematters.”AT&T10-KReport“Inthewirelessarea,wealsofacecurrentandpotentiallitigationrelatingtoallegedadversehealtheffectsoncustomers2 oremployeeswhousesuchtechnologiesincluding,forexample,wirelessdevices.Wemayincursignificantexpensesdefendingsuchsuitsorgovernmentchargesandmayberequiredtopayamountsorotherwisechangeouroperationsinwaysthatcouldmateriallyadverselyaffectouroperationsorfinancialresults.”T-MOBILE10-KReportOurbusinesscouldbeadverselyaffectedbyfindingsofproductliabilityforhealthorsafetyrisksfromwirelessdevicesandtransmissionequipment,aswellasbychangestoregulationsorradiofrequencyemissionstandards.Vodaphone2017ReportranksEMFasa‘PrincipalRiskwith“High”impact“Electro-magneticsignalsemittedbymobiledevicesandbasestationsmaybefoundtoposehealthrisks,withpotentialimpactsincluding:changestonationallegislation,areductioninmobilephoneusageorlitigation.”3 AbbyHomerFrom:Sent:To:Subject:TomStern<tstern952@gmail.com>Friday,September27,20244:15PMTownOfIthacaPlanningCelltowerplacementonBurnsRd.andrt.79**WARNING**Thisemailcomesfromanoutsidesource.Pleaseverifythefromaddress,anyURLLinks,and/orattachments.AnyquestionspleasecontacttheITdepartmentDearPlanningBoardMembers,IstronglyurgeyoutorejecttheapplicationforaCellphonetowerbyVerizon.Thesafetyofthesegianttowersisquestionable,andtherehasntbeenademonstratedneedforatoweroftheproposedsize.P’easeactinthebestinterestsofyourconstituentsinthismatterandvotedownVerizon’sproposedCellPhoneTower.Thankyou,Sincerely,ThomasStern13 AbbyHomerFrom:JillKeilner<jillikellner@gmail.com>Sent:Friday,September27,20245:03PMTo:TownOfIthacaPlanningSubject:proposalforVerizontoputanewlargecelltowerat79andBurnsRoad.**WARNING**Thisemailcomesfromanoutsidesource.PLeaseverifythefromaddress,anyURLLinks,andlorattachments.AnyquestionspLeasecontacttheITdepartmentDearBoardMembers,IamwritingtoaskthatyoudenytheapplicationofVerizontobuildanewceLltowerat79andBurnsRoad.Itdoesnotmeetcoderequirementsanditisveryunclearthatthereisaneedforthistower.ThereforetheproposaLshouLdbedenied.IamveryworriedaboutthehealthofallthepeoplewhowiLlbeaffectedbythisinstallation.Iwon’ttakeanymoreofyourtimegoingintothedetaiLs.PleasenotethatIamabsolutelyagainstthistower.SIncerely,JiltKellner1321EllisHollowRoadIthaca AbbyHomerFrom:JoeMarshall<jdu8480@gmail.com>Sent:Saturday,September28,20245:11AMTo:TownOfIthacaPlanningSubject:Newcelltower**WARNING**ThisemaiLcomesfromanoutsidesource.Pleaseverifythefromaddress,anyURLjLinks,and/orattachments.AnyquestionspLeasecontacttheITdepartmentPleasedonotallowVerizontobuildanewcellToweronRte79andBurnsRd.Theproposaldoesnotmeetspecs,anditwillcontributetohealthproblemsinhumansandanimals.Thankyou.JoeMarshallTrumansburg,NYJ1. AbbyHomerFrom:JoeVolpe<joevolpe2O©gmail.com>Sent:Saturday,September28,202410:48AMTo:TownOfIthacaPlanningSubject:WirelessTowerApplicationfor79/BurnsRoad**WARNING**ThisemaiLcomesfromanoutsidesource.Pleaseverifythefromaddress,anyURLlinks,and/orattachments.AnyquestionspleasecontacttheITdepartmentHeLlo,AssomeonewhoLiveswithinatenthorsoofamileoftheproposedlocationforanewVerizoncelltowerIamreachingouttoexpressmyconcern.WhileIhaveinfaithyou,theboard,itseemstomethattheproposaldoesnotmeetourcurrentcodesandshouldbedeniedand/orsentback.Thanksforyourconsiderationandforaltyoudoforus.JoeVolpe&Familylo9TudorRoad1 AbbyHomerFrom:Sent:To:Subject:Jaazaniah<jrzornoOl@gmailcom>Saturday,September28,20242:52PMTownOfIthacaPlanningSitePlanApprovalandSpecialPermit—VerizonWireless“SunnyViewSite”**WARNING**ThisemaiLcomesfromanoutsidesource.Pleaseverifythefromaddress,anyURLLinks,and/orattachments.AnyquestionspLeasecontacttheITdepartmentDearTownofIthacaPlanningBoard,BigTechisatitagain,andIamcountingonyoutoseethroughtheirpLoy!VerizonandCo.LostintheirbidtomanipulatethetownofIthacaandputinplacelaxordinancesgoverning50inourcommunity.NowtheyaretryingtoskirtaroundanddefangthosereguLationsbyapplyingforanexceptiontoalilowthemtoinstaLlatowerat79andBurnsRd.sincetheirproposaldoesnotmeetthetowncodes.Moreover,theyhavenotshownthatthereisarealneedforthistowerandthatthisisthesafestpLaceforit.Youcanseetheirgambithere,right?IftheycangetanexemptiontoputtheirtowerinatthatLocation(withoutdoingalltheworktheyaresupposedtodofirst)theprecedentwillbesettoallowthemtopullthesamestuntagainandagainuntilthetown’sregulationshavebeenrenderedtoothlessandirrelevant.Don’ttallforit!Ittheywantthattower,makethemworkforitandshowthatitisabsoLuteLynecessary.ThepeopleofthetownofIthacaarecountingonyoutoentorceourregulations.Sincerely,ieffJeffZorn202PineTreeRd.Ithaca,NY14850C:607-339-732811 AbbyHomerFrom:Sent:To:Subject:EamonnMurphy<ithacamurphy@gmail.com>Saturday,September28,20247:28PMTownOfIthacaPlanningVerizonCellTowerApplication**WARNING**Thisemailcomesfromanoutsidesource.Pleaseverifythefromaddress,anyURLLinks,and/orattachments.AnyquestionspleasecontacttheITdepartmentDearPlanningBoardmembers,IamwritingtourgeyoutodenyVerizon’sapplicationtobuildalargecelltoweratroute79andBurnsRd.AtowerLikethiswouldhaveamajornegativeaestheticimpactonabeautifulareaanddominatethelandscapeformiLesaround.SurelyVerizoncanfindalessimpactfutsitefortheirneeds.VerizonhasnotprovidedclearevidencethatthereisevenaneedforsuchatowerinthisLocationandfurthermoretheapplicationdoesnotmeetourcurrenttowncoderequirements.Forthesereasonslamaskingyoutodenythisapplication.Sincerely,EamonnMurphy106LandmarkDriveIthaca,NY148501q AbbyHomerFrom:Sent:To:Subject:IrmaPeress<peressirina@gmail.com>Sunday,September29,20248:43AMTownOfIthacaPlanningOpposeVerizon’sproposedcelltoweratBurnsRdand79**WARNING**Thisemailcomesfromanoutsidesource.PLeaseverifythefromaddress,anyURLLinks,and/orattachments.AnyquestionspleasecontacttheITdepartmentDearPlanningBoardMembers,AsaTownofIthacaresident,IurgeyoutoopposeVerizon’sproposedcelltoweratBurnsRdand79.Thereisnocleardemonstratedneedforsuchatower,andthetowerdetailsdonotconformtotheTownofIthacaCodepertainingtowirelessantennasandtowers.TownofIthacaresidentsdependonyoutoprotectthemfromthehealthharm,aestheticsofournaturalareaharm,andpropertyvalueharmposedbybigcorporationslikeVerizonwithunnecessaryindustrialdevelopmentsuchasthisproposedtower.Sincerely,IrmaPeress1‘1 AbbyHomerFrom:FazileeBuechel<fazilee@gmail.com>Sent:Sunday,September29,20247:35PMTo:TownOfIthacaPlanningSubject:VerizonWirelessCellTowerApplication**WARNING**Thisemailcomesfromanoutsidesource.PLeaseveritythefromaddress,anyIJRLLinks,and/orattachments.AnyquestionspLeasecontacttheITdepartmentDearBoardMembers,IamwritingtorespectfullyrequestthatyoudenyVerizonWireless’applicationforanewcelLtower.ItdoesnotmeettheTown’swirelesscoderequirements.ManypeoplehaveworkedhardtoupdatetheTown‘swirelesscodesandensurethattheyserveallresidents.Thereisalsoclearlynoneedforsuchatower.Wirelessserviceisalreadymetfortheresidents.AsaresidentofIthaca,Iamconcernedwiththepotentialimpactonhealth,energyuse,andaesthetics.Pleasehonorthecommunity’scoderequirementsanddenythisapplicationforanewtower.Respectfully,FazileeBuechel AbbyHomerFrom:Sent:To:Subject:JennHeatley<jennheatley@gmail.com>Monday,September30,20248:14AMTownOfIthacaPlanningconcernsre:newVerizontowerproposalfor79&Burns**WARNING**ThisemaiLcomesfromanoutsidesource.PLeaseverifythefromaddress,anyURLLinks,and/orattachments.AnyquestionspLeasecontacttheITdepartmentDearMembersofthePlanningBoard,IamwritingtoexpressmyconcernregardingtheapplicationbyVerizonforanewtowerintheareaofPt.79&BurnsRd.#1--Ihaven’tseenanyevidenceindicatingthatweneedanotherceLluLartower.#2--TheirappLicationdoesnotfuLlymeetourupdatedcodes.Ithinkit’svitaLtosafeguardourcommunityfromanyunnecessaryexpansionandexposure.Thankyoufortakingthesepointsintoconsideration,andforaLLtheworkyoudoforourcommunity.Sincerely,JennHeatley1321ELLisHoLlowRd.Ithaca,NY148501I” AbbyHomerFrom:KentChamberlin<Kent.Chamberlin@unhedu>Sent:Monday,September30,20241:33PMTo:TownOfIthacaPlanningSubject:RecommendationsfromNewHampshireCommissionRegardingCellTowers**WARNING**ThisemaiLcomesfromanoutsidesource.Pleaseverifythefromaddress,anyURLlinks,and/orattachments.AnyquestionspleasecontacttheITdepartmentDearPtanningBoardMembers,lamwritingtopassatongabriefcommentre(atingtothefindingsoftheNewHampshireCommissionpertainingtocelltowers.Ifyouhaveanyquestionsaboutthisvideo,orifyouwouldLiketoLearnmoreabouttheCommission,pLeasefeetfreetocontactme.Kindregards,KentChamberlin.PhDProfessor&ChairEmeritusDetofElectrical&ComputerEngineeringUniversityofNewHampshireFulbrightDistinguishedChairPresident,EnvironmentalHealthTrustwebsitehttps://cepsunhedu/electrical-computer-engineering1