No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Packet 2024-10-29TOWNOFITHACAPLANNINGBOARDShirleyA.RaffenspergerBoardRoom,TownHall215NorthTiogaStreetIthaca,NewYork14850Tuesday,October29,20246:30P.M.Membersofthepublicarewelcometoattendin-personatTownHallorvirtuallyviaZoom.Thepublicwillhaveanopportunitytoseeandhearthemeetingliveandprovidecommentsin-personorthroughZoom(byraisinghandicon)athttps:I/usO6web.zoom.uslj/83643764382.Ifthepublicwouldliketoattendthemeetingforviewingpurposesoniy,itisrecommendedtowatchthelivestreamvideoonYouTube(https://www.youtube.com/channellUCC9vycXkJ6klVlibjhCy7NQflive).AGENDASEQRDetermination:PersonalWirelessServiceFacility(Tower)—111WiedmaierCourt.2.PUBLICHEARING:ConsiderationofPreliminaryandFinalSitePlanApprovalandSpecialPermitforapersonalwirelessservicefacilitylocatedat111WiedmaierCourt,offSlatervilleRoad/NYSRoute79.Theproposalinvolvestheconstructionofa138’+1-monopoletowerwith9antennas,twoequipmentcabinets,agenerator,andotherequipmentwithina50’x50’+/-chainlinkfencedarea.TheprojectisanUnlistedActionundertheStateEnvironmentalQualityReviewActandissubjecttoenvironmentalreview.S.RobertsWCLand,LLC,Owner;VerizonWireless,Applicant;JaredC.Lusk,NixonPeabody,LLP,Agent.3SEQRDctcrmination:MaplcwoodPhaseIIProjectMapleAvenue.4;PUBLICHEARINC:ConsiderationofaRecommendationtotheTownBoardRegardingProposedRezoningfortheMaplewoodPhaseIIProjectonMapleAvenue,locatedbetweentheMaplewoodGraduateStudentApartmentcomplexandtheEastLawnCemetery.Theproject,whichrequiresarezoningfromMultipleResidenceandHigh-DensityResidentialZonestoaPlannedDevelopmentZone(PDZ),involvesconsolidatingfourparcelsandconstructingsix(6)fivestoryapartmentbuildings,containing615units/S00bedsinstudio,onebedroom,andtwo-bedroomunitconfigurations.Theprojectwillalsoincludeintcatedamenity/servicespaces,parkingareas,trailsandpedestrianfacilities,openspaces,stormwatcrfacilities,andothersiteimprovements.TheprojectisaTypeIActionundertheStateEnvironmentalQualityReviewActandissubjecttoenvironmentalreview.CornellUniversity,Owner/Applicant;MiehelePalmer,WhithamPlanning,Design,LandscapeArchitecture,PLLC,Agent.5.Personstobeheard.6.ApprovalofMinutes.7.OtherBusiness.8.Adjournment.C.J.RandallDirectorofPlanning607-273-1747NOTE:IFANYMEMBEROFTHEPLANNINGBOARDISUNABLETOATTEND,PLEASENOTIFYCHRISTINEBALESTRAAT607-273-1747orCBALESTRAETOWNITHACANY.GOV.(Aquorumoffour(4)membersisnecessarytoconductPlanningBoardbusiness.)AccessingMeetingMaterialsOnlineSitePlanandSubdivisionapplicationsandassociatedprojectmaterialsareaccessibleelectronicallyontheTown’swebsiteathftps://townithacany.ov/meetin-calendar-aendas/underthecalendarmeetingdate. TOWNOFITHACAPLANNINGBOARDPUBLICHEARINGNOTICEThePlanningBoardwillholdpublichearingsonTuesday,October29,2024,startingat6:30P.M.onthefollowingmatters:ConsiderationofPreliminaryandFinalSitePlanApprovalandSpecialPermitforapersonalwirelessservicefacilitylocatedat111WiedmaierCourt,offSlatervilleRoad/NYSRoute79.Theproposalinvolvestheconstructionofa138’+/-monopoletowerwith9antennas,twoequipmentcabinets,agenerator,andotherequipmentwithina50’x50’+1-chainlinkfencedarea.TheprojectisanUnlistedActionundertheStateEnvironmentalQualityReviewActandissubjecttoenvironmentalreview.S.RobertsWCLand,LLC,Owner;VerizonWireless,Applicant;JaredC.Lusk,NixonPeabody,LLP,Agent.ConsiderationofaRccommcndationtotheTownBoardRegardingProposedRezoningfortheMaplewoodPhaseIIProjectonMapleAvenue,locatedbetweentheMaplewoodGraduateStudentApartmentcomplexandtheEastLawnCemetery.Theproject,whichrequiresarezoningfromMultipleResidenceandHigh-DensityResidentialZonestoaPlannedDevelopmentZone(PDZ),involvesconsolidatingfourparcelsandconstructingsix(6)fivestoryapartmentbuildings,containing615units/800bedsinstudio,onebedroom,andtwobedroomunitconfigurations.Theprojectwillalsoincludeintegratedamenity/servicespaces,parkingareas,trailsandpedestrianfacilities,openspaces,stormwaterfacilities,andothersiteimprovements.TheprojectisaTypeIActionundertheStateEnvironmentalQualityReviewActandissubjecttoenvironmentalreview.CornellUniversity,Owner/Applicant;MiehelePalmer,WhithamPlanning,Design,LandscapeArchitecture,PLLC,Agent.Membersofthepublicarewelcometoattendin-personatTownHallorvirtuallyviaZoom.Thepublicwillhaveanopportunitytoseeandhearthemeetingliveandprovidecommentsin-personorthroughZoom(byraisinghandicon)athttps://us06web.zoom.us/j/83643764382.Ifthepublicwouldliketoattendthemeetingforviewingpurposesonly,itisrecommendedtowatchthelivestreamvideoonYouTube(https://www.youtube.comlchannel!UCC9vycXkJ6klVlibjhCy7NQ/live).Anypersonwishingtoaddresstheboardwillbeheard.Inaddition,commentscanbesentviaemailtoclerks@townithacany.govuptotheendofbusinessthedayofthemeetingandallcommentswillbeforwardedtotheboard.Additionalinformationisavailableathttps://townithacany.gov/.C.J.Randall,DirectorofPlanning Pg. 1 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD September 17, 2024 Draft MINUTES Present: Fred Wilcox, Chair; Cindy Kaufman, Caitlin Cameron, Liz Bageant, Bill Arms, Gary Stewart (out 8pm), and Kelda McGurk CJ Randall, Director of Planning, Christine Balestra, Senior Planner, Nick Quilty-Koval, Planner Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town, David O’Shea, Director of Engineering, Emily Rodgers, Civil Engineer, Dana Magnuson, Senior Code Enforcement Officer; and Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk Mr. Wilcox opened the meeting at 6:30p.m. 1. Consider establishing the Town of Ithaca Planning Board as Lead Agency in the environmental review for the proposed Maplewood Phase II Project on Maple Avenue, located between the Maplewood Graduate Student Apartment complex and the East Lawn Cemetery. The proposal involves consolidating four parcels and constructing six (6) five-story apartment buildings, containing up to 650 units/800 beds in studio, one bedroom, and two-bedroom unit configurations. The project will also include integrated amenity/service spaces, parking areas, trails and pedestrian facilities, open spaces, stormwater facilities, and other site improvements. This is a Type I Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review. Cornell University, Owner/Applicant; Michele Palmer, Whitham Planning, Design, Landscape Architecture, PLLC, Agent. Scott Whitham introduced other project members in attendance (The Team). The Team began with a video depicting a “fly through” of the project from various angles and locations to show an on the ground feel of project and current sight views from different roads, including the difference between 4- and 5-story buildings, visuals of the mechanicals, and the existing tree buffers. Slides also included depictions of the building layouts, parking layouts, bike storage, and pedestrian, and multi-modal transportation ways. Traffic analysis slides were presented. It was noted that this is a unique situation in that there is the Maplewood 1 project to look back at that was recent and can be used as an exact example for the calculations. Traffic volumes have decreased in the area in the last 5 years. Some of that decrease could be attributed to people shifting to working from home, but they are erring on the side of caution in estimating impacts so far. PB 2024-09-17 (Filed 9/24) Pg. 2 Ms. Balestra stated that this really is unique in that all the fears and complaints we heard about Maplewood 1 and the traffic implications have turned out not to be a factor and we can compare apples to apples in this project. Maplewood 1 went through an extensive traffic study, and she can pull those and compare numbers from those studies and these estimates. The Board said that would be a good idea. Ms. Cameron asked how parking spaces would be managed, such as assigned parking. The Team responded that residents could pay for certain parking spots. Ithaca Carshare has asked for and The Team has included one centrally located and dedicated spot for them. There will be a hub for Ithaca Bikeshare pick up/return. Concerns regarding pedestrian crossing areas and the odd Route 366 and Campus Road intersection and students going through the coal plant property were mentioned. Ms. Randall responded that they are looking at all of that and are open to suggestions. Landscaping and open space was discussed with Board members noting that there was one complaint about Maplewood residents using the basketball court at the Belle Sherman School and therefore putting pressure on the use by others. The Team noted that these plans are sketch plans only and there will be additional details at the next phase. Specifically, to the complaint, the person has reached out to Cornell in the past and Cornell has had conversations with the principal of the school, and there are many positive comments about having such a diverse population nearby to interact with. There are some questions as to whether the people using the court are in fact Maplewood residents. Cornell said they would be looking at that and the college is upgrading its recreational fields and courts on campus also. Ms. Randall added that she has been talking to the Town’s Park Manager and Senior Planner Mike Smith, who heads trails and recreation in her department, to look at potential recreational needs and plans for the overall area. The Board turned to the draft SEQR form and answers the Board should think about. Of note, there was a statement in the FEAF Part 1 that construction operations would occur 7 days a week, from 10am – 4:30 p.m. The Board was asked to think about whether the town would want construction to occur 7 days per week. Ms. Kaufman wanted to talk about the aesthetics of the materials used on the outside of the buildings and share a prototype she created with suggestions on varying materials and colors that take inspiration from the woods. She said when doing the “fly through,” it is not as massive looking as from afar, and she felt some of the suggestions she had could help with that. She said she appreciated the consistency between the two projects, and she would be looking at the pedestrian view or experience in the next phases. PB 2024-09-17 (Filed 9/24) Pg. 3 Ms. Randall noted that the Planning Committee would be adding design criteria to the Planned Development Zone language, and the Town Board would refer the draft to the Planning Board for comment. PB Resolution 2024-017: SEQR – Establish Lead Agency Maplewood Phase II Development, Maple Avenue Tax Parcel No.’s 63.-2-5, 63.-2-6, 63.-2-7.1, 63.-2-7.3 Whereas: 1. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, at its meeting on July 2, 2024, considered a Sketch Plan for the proposed Maplewood Phase II Project on Maple Avenue, located between the Maplewood Graduate Student Apartment complex and the East Lawn Cemetery. The proposal involves consolidating four (4) parcels and constructing a community center and six (6) five-story apartment buildings, containing up to 650 units/800 beds in studio, one- bedroom, and two-bedroom unit configurations. The project will also include integrated amenity/service spaces, parking areas, trails and pedestrian facilities, open spaces, stormwater facilities, and other site improvements. Site improvements and amenity spaces include an outdoor terrace, fitness and wellness spaces, landscaping, and lighting. Cornell University, Owner/Applicant; Michele Palmer, Whitham Planning, Design, Landscape Architecture, PLLC, Agent; 2. The proposed project, which requires Site Plan approval and Special Permit by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board and a rezoning to a Planned Development Zone (PDZ) by the Town of Ithaca Town Board, is a Type I action pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR Parts 617.4 (b)(3) and (b)(5)(iii), respectively, as well as Town of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Code section 148-5B(2) as the project as proposed involves a zoning change and the construction of 250 or more residential units (30 or more per Town Code) that will be connected to existing community or public water and sewage systems; 3. At its meeting on August 6, 2024, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board proposed to establish itself as the Lead Agency to coordinate the environmental review of the above- referenced proposal. Potential Involved and Interested agencies were notified of its intent to serve as Lead Agency on August 7, 2024; 4. The Planning Board, on September 17, 2024, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, application materials, studies, and a narrative plan set titled “Maplewood Phase II Preliminary Site Plan Submission,” dated 07-19-2024, and supplemental materials and drawings, dated 08-26-2024, submitted by Whitham Planning Design Landscape Architecture, PLLC as well as Full Environmental Assessment Form Parts 2 and 3 prepared by Town Planning staff; now, therefore be it Resolved: PB 2024-09-17 (Filed 9/24) Pg. 4 That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, having received no objections from other Involved Agencies, establishes itself as Lead Agency to coordinate the environmental review of the above- described proposal. Moved: Caitlin Cameron Seconded: Liz Bageant Vote: ayes – Cameron, Bageant, Wilcox, Arms, McGurk and Kaufman 2. Persons to be heard – None 3. Approval of Minutes – Motion made by Mr. Wilcox, seconded by Ms. Bageant to accept the draft minutes of July 2, 2024, as amended by Ms. Brock as final; unanimous. Motion made by Mr. Wilcox, seconded by Ms. Kaufman, to accept the draft minutes of July 16, 2024, as final; unanimous. 4. Other Business – Mr. Wilcox stated that he wanted to talk about the Meinig Field House project and the City's SEQR determination that there is no potential for significant adverse environmental impact. He said that he has learned this over the years, where Planning Board members would want to vote “no” on a project for reasons that we can’t vote no. What that means is that we can't vote “no” because of a potential environmental impact. A member cannot sit here and say “I think artificial turf is harmful, therefore I'm going to vote no.” The SEQR determination has already been made that the use of artificial turf does not have the potential to have a significant adverse environmental impact in this project. Therefore, you can't cite it as a reason for voting no when the project eventually comes back to us. Mr. Arms asked for verification on the Game Farm Road project, saying that he understands that the segmentation was allowed because it will get the same level of environmental review; and in that instance, the Town will be Lead Agency in the environmental review, correct? Mr. Wilcox responded that that was correct. It will be a separate project, and it will go through each step of review by this Board. Next Meeting – Ms. Balestra reviewed upcoming projects and canvassed for a quorum. The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Submitted by, Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board Members FROM: Christine Balestra, Senior Planner DATE: October 22, 2024 RE: Site Plan Approval and Special Permit – Verizon Wireless “Sunny View Site” Personal Wireless Service Facility (Telecommunications Tower), 111 Wiedmaier Court Please find enclosed additional 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 following materials are attached: 1. Revised Full EAF Parts 1-3 with maps and attachments 2. Revised draft resolutions prepared by staff – SEQR and Site Plan/Special Permit 3. Revised consultant report prepared by William P. Johnson and Steven M. Ciccarelli, titled “Proposed Wireless Telecommunications Services Facility - RF Site Review for Verizon Wireless / Sunny View Site,” dated October 21, 2024 4. Copy of email sent by town staff to consultant after the 10/1/24 PB meeting 5. Letter from Jared C. Lusk, dated October 22, 2024, containing additional application materials requested by the board at the 10/1/24 PB meeting Summary of Federal Requirements/PB Actions 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 from the October 1, 2024, Planning Board meeting were 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 Planning Board began their review of this project at the October 1, 2024, Planning Board meeting but postponed the SEQR determination and decision to a future meeting, when the applicant could provide additional material, and the consultant hired by the town could revise their report. In the meantime, the applicant gave an introductory presentation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on October 22, 2024. Summary of Project Description (revised - from staff memo for October 1st PB meeting) 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 cabinets and associated facilities, but the board could require one as a condition of approval (the board discussed this on October 1st and the applicant has provided a landscaping plan among the attachments). 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. TC Planning Dept GML 239 referral mtgs 10/1 & 10/29/24 mtg 11/2024 response rec'd 9/13/2024 .46 +/-(per SWPPP) Closest facilities are Coddington Road Community Center (4800+/- feet away), East Ithaca Preschool (T. Dryden, 4500+/- feet away), and Ithaca Media Arts (4800+/- feet awaty). There are no hospitals or group homes anywhere near the site. Unnamed stream along eastern property boundary Unregulated by state/federal agencies 18-24 inches 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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: ______________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ Please See Part 3 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 Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 3 - Evaluation of the Magnitude and Importance of Project Impacts and Determination of Significance Part 3 provides the reasons in support of the determination of significance. The lead agency must complete Part 3 for every question in Part 2 where the impact has been identified as potentially moderate to large or where there is a need to explain why a particular element of the proposed action will not, or may, result in a significant adverse environmental impact. Based on the analysis in Part 3, the lead agency must decide whether to require an environmental impact statement to further assess the proposed action or whether available information is sufficient for the lead agency to conclude that the proposed action will not have a significant adverse environmental impact. By completing the certification on the next page, the lead agency can complete its determination of significance. Reasons Supporting This Determination: To complete this section: •Identify the impact based on the Part 2 responses and describe its magnitude. Magnitude considers factors such as severity, size or extent of an impact. •Assess the importance of the impact. Importance relates to the geographic scope, duration, probability of the impact occurring, number of people affected by the impact and any additional environmental consequences if the impact were to occur. •The assessment should take into consideration any design element or project changes. •Repeat this process for each Part 2 question where the impact has been identified as potentially moderate to large or where there is a need to explain why a particular element of the proposed action will not, or may, result in a significant adverse environmental impact. •Provide the reason(s) why the impact may, or will not, result in a significant adverse environmental impact •For Conditional Negative Declarations identify the specific condition(s) imposed that will modify the proposed action so that no significant adverse environmental impacts will result. •Attach additional sheets, as needed. Determination of Significance - Type 1 and Unlisted Actions SEQR Status: † Type 1 † Unlisted Identify portions of EAF completed for this Project: † Part 1 † Part 2 † Part 3 Agency Use Only [IfApplicable] Project : Date : FEAF 2019 Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, as noted, plus this additional support information and considering both the magnitude and importance of each identified potential impact, it is the conclusion of the as lead agency that: † A. This project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. † B. Although this project could have a significant adverse impact on the environment, that impact will be avoided or substantially mitigated because of the following conditions which will be required by the lead agency: There will, therefore, be no significant adverse impacts from the project as conditioned, and, therefore, this conditioned negative declaration is issued. A conditioned negative declaration may be used only for UNLISTED actions (see 6 NYCRR 617.7(d)). † C. This Project may result in one or more significant adverse impacts on the environment, and an environmental impact statement must be prepared to further assess the impact(s) and possible mitigation and to explore alternatives to avoid or reduce those impacts. Accordingly, this positive declaration is issued. Name of Action: Name of Lead Agency: Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency: Title of Responsible Officer: Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency: Date: Signature of Preparer (if different from Responsible Officer) Date: For Further Information: Contact Person: Address: Telephone Number: E-mail: For Type 1 Actions and Conditioned Negative Declarations, a copy of this Notice is sent to: Chief Executive Officer of the political subdivision in which the action will be principally located (e.g., Town / City / Village of) Other involved agencies (if any) Applicant (if any) Environmental Notice Bulletin: http://www.dec.ny.gov/enb/enb.html Page 2 of 2 1 Part 3 – Evaluation of the Magnitude and Importance of Project Impacts Verizon Telecommunications Tower State Environmental Quality Review Full Environmental Assessment Form Actions: Site Plan Approval, Special Permit, Height Variance Location: 111 Wiedmaier Court, Tax Parcel No. 56.-4-1.22 Decision-Making Bodies: Town of Ithaca Planning Board & 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, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 56.-4-1.22. 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 th is 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 adjacent residents, and 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 (plus 4’ lightning rod), 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 of the tower itself but could mitigate aesthetic impacts of the ground equipment on adjacent residences . 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 near the proposed project. The two nearest personal wireless service towers are located at least three miles away from the project (Cornell monopole on Dryden 5 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. 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 that is 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 While there is competing science upon different frequency emissions upon human health, especially for transmitters and receivers located over 150’ in the air, the FCC has wholly occupied this field and preempted federal, state, or local review of this issue (human health effects) when the project meets the minimum guidelines promulgated by the FCC. This application has met those minimum requirements, and further inquiry into alleged or potential health impacts is thus precluded under federal law. Pursuant to Town Code §270-219.Q, the Town of Ithaca hired a consultant team to examine and evaluate the application and related documentation. The consultant team 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. The consultant’s written report dated September 20, 2024, revised October 21, 2024, made the finding that the Applicant provided a Radio Frequency Emissions Compliance Report (Exhibit P) dated March 14, 2023 , 6 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. Decision-Making Body: Town of Ithaca Planning Board Reviewer: Christine Balestra, Senior Planner Review Dates: September 24, 2024 & October 22, 2024 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: SEQR Verizon Wireless Personal Wireless Service Facility 111 Wiedmaier Court Tax Parcel No. 56.-4-1.22 Planning Board, October 29, 2024 WHEREAS: 1. This action is Consideration of Preliminary & Final 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 Wireless Personal Wireless Service Facility proposal; and 3. The Planning Board, on October 29, 2024, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a completed 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; additional application materials dated October 22, 2024, including Exhibits FF and GG and revised drawings titled “Bell Atlantic Mobile Systems LLC d/b/a Verizon, Site Name: Sunny View WBS#: VZ-00049818.C.9341, MDG#: 50000072226,” with sheets T-1, AD-1, SB-1, C-1A, C-1B, C-2, C-3, C-4A, C-4B, C-5, and ECS-1 through ESC-7, prepared by Tectonic, dated 02/16/24 and revised 10/21/24; consultant report prepared by William P. Johnson and Steven Ciccarelli, dated September 20, 2024, and revised October 21, 2024; 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 Wireless 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 & Final Site Plan & Special Permit Verizon Wireless Personal Wireless Service Facility 111 Wiedmaier Court Tax Parcel No. 56.-4-1.22 Planning Board, October 29, 2024 WHEREAS: 1. This action is Consideration of Preliminary & Final 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 Wireless Personal Wireless Service Facility proposal, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a completed 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 29, 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; additional application materials dated October 22, 2024, including Exhibits FF and GG and revised drawings titled “Bell Atlantic Mobile Systems LLC d/b/a Verizon, Site Name: Sunny View WBS#: VZ-00049818.C.9341, MDG#: 50000072226,” with sheets T-1, AD-1, SB-1, C-1A, C- 1B, C-2, C-3, C-4A, C-4B, C-5, and ECS-1 through ESC-7, prepared by Tectonic, dated 02/16/24 and revised 10/21/24; consultant report prepared by William P. Johnson and Steven Ciccarelli, dated September 20, 2024, and revised October 21, 2024; 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 at a considerable distance from existing residences; Page 2 of 4 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; 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 area 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, revised October 21, 2024. Page 3 of 4 (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: [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. [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. This is consistent with the findings of the consultant report prepared by William P. Johnson and Steven M. Ciccarelli, dated September 20, 2024, revised October 21, 2024. See also application materials Exhibits Z, AA, and BB. [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, application materials Exhibit Q, and the consultant report prepared by William P. Johnson and Steven M. Ciccarelli, dated September 20, 2024, revised October 21, 2024. Page 4 of 4 [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 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 & Final 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. [Staff note: Any conditions before final site plan approval, if not granted at same time as preliminary approval?] b. c. Before issuance of a building permit, receipt of any necessary variances from the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals, d. Before issuance of a building permit, submission of revised plans that show a permanent physical barrier around the “no disturbance” zone, 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. Per the requirements of Town Code, §270-219 P (2), 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. William P. Johnson RF Engineering Consultant PO Box 20263 Rochester, NY 14602 October 21, 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 for Verizon Wireless / “Sunny View” Site 111 Wiedmaier Court (Tax Parcel No. 56-4-1.22) Proposed 134’ New Monopole Tower plus 4’ Lightning Rod (138’ overall) Dear Ms. Balestra, Per your email of October 3, 2024, this revised preliminary report will address only the RF engineering issues specified in Town Code §270-219 R (2) that the planning board must consider whether there is a showing of current “need” and an existing “significant gap” in wireless telephone service. We were directed during the planning board’s October 2, 2024, meeting to revise our preliminary report and follow only Town Code requirements for purposes of RF engineering analysis. NEED Town Code §270-219 R (1) (c) [2] contains specific RF engineering requirements necessary for special permit approvals and defines the limitations for evaluation of those requirements. 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. Verizon Wireless (“Applicant”) uses LTE (acronym for “Long Term Evolution”) technology that dynamically allocates available bandwidth for user transmissions using “resource Town of Ithaca Planning Board, October 21, 2024 Page 2 of 5 elements.” Resource elements are small bandwidth channels contained within their licensed spectrum bands that can be dynamically aggregated based on the momentary throughput demands of users. Generally, aggregation of more resource elements corresponds to higher information rate transfers measured in “Bits per Second” (BPS). Traditionally there was a distinction of how analog voice calls and digital signaling data exchanges were transmitted to and from Personal Wireless Services Facilities (PWSFs). Using LTE technology, whether the exchange of information relates to voice information that has been digitally transformed or digital data, the entire transmission is sent and received using digital information signaling formed in packets. Packets are collections of digital information “bits” that are framed with headers, cyclic redundancy code information for forward error correction, and other information to facilitate reliable decoding within limits of system capability and subsequent reconstruction of the information in a useable form. If the encoded information arrives at a receiver (i.e. the mobile device or the PSWF) with less than sufficient signal strength to allow reliable decoding, the transmitted information will contain “bit errors” due to system noise levels that are inherent in any electronic communication system. Bit errors ultimately prevent proper reconstruction of the original information. When this happens, the communication link breaks down (e.g. a “dropped” call) and may be disconnected by the LTE controllers. Applicant proposes deployment of several frequency bands of operation. The frequency bands discussed in the permit application materials are “low-band” (700/850 MHz) and “mid-band” (1900/2100 MHz). We suspect Applicant will also deploy additional mid-band spectrum in the 3700-3980 MHz range (the partially re-purposed satellite downlink C-band) that is used by Applicant for fixed-wireless broadband service. Neighbor site “Brookdale” gamma sector provides existing low-band RF coverage and capacity to the target improvement area as shown in Applicant’s Exhibit H page 15 and 17. The “Brookdale” site is too far away to provide any usable mid-band RF coverage or capacity. In accordance with Town Code, Applicant must show not just “need” but a “compelling need” that is affected by not just “gaps” but “significant gaps” in their service area. Town Code defines the meaning and limitations of these terms. Town Code requires the analysis relate only to “the ability of wireless telephones to make and receive voice calls to and from landlines that are connected to the national telephone network.” Town Code is silent on the evaluation threshold of acceptable levels of access failure due to low signal level or capacity- related issues, only that there is the ability to make and receive voice calls. Town Code §279- 219 R (2) (a) states that “an applicant's claim of need for future capacity does not constitute evidence of a significant gap.” Town Code does not specifically envision use of digital LTE metrics for real-time evaluation of reliable communication or user capacity limitations but instead relies upon “In-kind call Testing” as defined in Town Code §279-219 B. The LTE capacity metrics such as those presented in Exhibit H are plotted for the worst-case capacity demand levels each day. When the board considers the existence of a “significant gap,” Town Code §279-219 R (2) (a) requires evaluation of “whether the applicant's customers are Town of Ithaca Planning Board, October 21, 2024 Page 3 of 5 affected for only a limited period of time.” Applicant provided Exhibit Z materials to meet the requirements of Town Code definitions of compelling need and significant gap. We will address these in order: Compelling Need - Town Code §279-219 R (1) (c) [2] In addition to the existing low-band RF coverage shown in Exhibit H pages 15 and 17, Exhibit Z slides 10 and 11 shows “dropped connections” and “access failure” locations for all frequency bands discussed in the exhibit. Low-band signals propagate with less loss than mid-band signals but low-band spectrum represents only about 10% of Applicant’s bandwidth. These data are collected by the LTE controller using GPS data reported from the user’s mobile device. We note that the maps are titled “Dropped Connections” and “Access Failures” which, from an LTE perspective, may not be only voice call dropped connections or access attempts. However, the fact that LTE sessions were dropped or could not be initiated implies generally that voice calls in progress could also be dropped or attempts to dial out may not be successful. Based on the map locations markers, the dropped connections and access failures were in a mix of outdoor, in-vehicle and in-building locations along and between area roads and demonstrates the potential inability to place and receive phone calls for convenience and emergencies. The wireless communication environment is such that when unavoidable “fading” occurs, connections may be dropped, but it does not mean that every existing connection or access attempt will fail as long as conditions provide at least minimal signal strength and user capacity at the PWSF serving the area. The issue in either case is predictable reliability. The data shows that reliability is poor in the test area. We therefore conclude that Applicant has shown a “compelling need” since wireless reliability in the targeted improvement area is poor. Significant Gaps - Town Code §279-219 R (1) (c) [2] Application materials Exhibit H slides 15 and 17 show existing low-band RF coverage. Slides 19 and 21 show existing mid-band RF coverage. Using the Town Code, §279-219 R (1) (c) [2] [a] requirements, identification of 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.” Since Applicant shows RF coverage for low-band in Exhibit H slides 15 and 17 above -105 dBm, a minimal level for outdoor service, and some areas where RF coverage is above -95 dBm, Town Code arguably precludes a finding of a “significant gap” even though there is no mid-band service in most of the targeted improvement area. Based on the information in Exhibit H for low-band, we would anticipate that low-band mobile device connections inside vehicles and inside buildings may be unreliable for in-vehicle and in-building users since penetration of vehicles and structures reduces signal strength. Applicant’s Exhibit Z page 9 states that the Dropped Call Rate Town of Ithaca Planning Board, October 21, 2024 Page 4 of 5 (DCR) for the proposed service area is 11.84% compared to their standard DCR of 1%. The stated DCR is for both low-band and mid-band operation. If a call is in progress in mid-band frequencies when a user transits into an area the mid-band call will drop. If a user is already in an area that lacks mid-band service and there are either low-band capacity limitations or insufficient low-band signal strength (e.g. in-vehicle or in-building locations) it is likely that access will be denied or, if initiated, the connection may drop. We note here that considering the lack of RF coverage shown for mid-band in Exhibit H pages 19 and 21, the capacity issues presented in Exhibit H for neighbor site “Brookdale” gamma sector, and the in-vehicle drive test results for low-band in Exhibit Z a different finding may be possible in accordance with Town Code §279-219 R (2). With respect to Town Code and the stated limitations on analysis there is arguably no finding of “significant gaps” based only on the RF propagation plots for existing low-band RF coverage. We recognize that low-band may not be Applicant’s preferred frequency of operation since mid- band frequencies provide approximately 90% of Applicant’s licensed operational bandwidth and it heavily used for mobile device data services such as Internet access, mobile navigation applications such as Waze and Google Maps, and text access to the E911 system. Minimal Intrusion on the Community Town of Ithaca Code §270-219 R (1) (c) [8] states requirements for mitigation of aesthetic impacts. Mitigation can include changes to location, height, and design. Alternative Sites Application materials Exhibit I discusses the site selection and alternate sites. Applicant considered five sites, of which one (Ste E) is the proposed site. 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 was initially provided by Applicant for those conclusions in the record. During the planning board’s meeting on October 2, 2024, Applicant’s RF engineer presented propagation plots to the planning board that showed the alternative sites did not provide the same service levels for low-band RF coverage along Route 79. We recommend that those plots be included in the record to document the reasons for rejecting the alternative sites. If the planning board eventually finds that both a compelling need and a significant gap have been adequately demonstrated by Applicant outside of Town Code limitations or that the provisions of Town Code §279-219 R (2) apply, we recommend further analysis that includes mid-band services RF coverage and capacity issues regarding any rejected sites that appear to have an aesthetic advantage that may provide service to the targeted improvement area. Town of Ithaca Planning Board, October 21, 2024 Page 5 of 5 Minimum Height Applicant provided parametric height analysis for both low-band and mid-band RF coverage at Antenna Center Line (ACL) heights of 140’, 130’, 120’ and 110.’ Since Town Code precludes the use a frequency band that may be preferred by Applicant to justify a significant gap area, we note that absent finding of an existing significant gap in the targeted improvement area or that the provisions of Town Code §279-219 R (2) do not apply, the question of proposed height is moot. If the planning board later finds that there is a significant gap or that Town Code §279-219 R (2) applies, we recommend use of mid-band RF propagation plots and neighbor site “Brookdale” gamma sector LTE capacity data offered in Exhibit H, and/or the drive test and dropped connection data in Exhibit Z to evaluate minimum height justification to address that aspect of minimal intrusion on the community. Design Stealth designs disguise a support structure to blend in with the surrounding area. Stealth designs such as artificial trees or clock towers may be applicable in some cases. In the present case, the proposed tower structure to support the proposed ACL is 134’ which likely precludes effective use of most stealth designs. Other approaches can include use of multiple shorter support structures, co-location on existing shorter structures, distributed antenna systems, and small-cell installations where visual impact is critical. Some design approaches impact RF engineering issues. The applicant has not proposed any such stealth or other mitigation measures at this time. Very truly yours, William P. Johnson RF Engineering Consultant ChrisBalestraFrom:ChrisBalestra<CBalestra@townithacany.gov>Sent:Thursday,October3,20249:50AMTo:WilliamPiohnsortCiRandall;ChrisBalestraCc:FredWilcox(fredwilcoxiii@gmail.com)Subject:TownPBdiscussionfrom10-1-24meeting:VerizonCellTower,WiedmaierCourtImportance:HighFollowUpFlag:FollowupFlagStatus:FlaggedHiBillandSteven,ThePlanningBoardhadaverylongdiscussionabouttheproposedVerizontoweronTuesdaynight(10/1).Mostoftheconversationsurroundedthesitelayoutandaformertreeremovalandstormwaterviolation.However,therewerealsoseveralcommentsmadeaboutyourpreliminaryreportandRFanalysisingeneral.FollowingistheYouTubelinkfromthemeeting(pleasenote:you’lllikelyheareveryoneatthemaintableandonZoomjustfine,butyoumayhavetroublehearingJaredLusk(attorneyforVerizonfl:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeUDBxDMmd4&t=6475sTherearealotofpointsinthevideofromthePBmeetingthatwillbevaluableforyou,butAttorneyfortheTownSusanBrockrequestedseveralrevisionstoyourreportthatshelistedatthemeetingandthatwereagreedtobytheBoard.YouarefreetoconsultwithSusandirectlytodiscussthesectionsofyourreporttoberevised.Shecanbereachedat-Thespecificdiscussionaboutrevisionsbeginsat2:18:15ontheYouTubevideo.I’mparaphrasinghere,butessentiallythetownwouldlikeyoutoreviseyourreportto:.Pleaseremoveallstatementsaboutlegalstandards(besidesanalysisoftheapplication’sconformancetoTownCodestandards).Theseotherstatementsareoutsideyourscopeofwork.Susanstatesatthebeginningofthemeeting,at11:50,thatyourreportandtheapplicant’smaterialshavebothappliedthewronglegalstandards.Forexample,thereportsetoutthewrongstandardfor“effectiveprohibition”infootnote1onpage2.ItusesadefinitiontheFCCpronouncedinits2018DeclaratoryRulingandOrder.Whereas,theIthacaTownCodedefinitioninSection270-219.Busesthe2Circuit’sdefinition:“DenialbytheTownofaPWSFapprovalorpermitforapersonalwirelessservicefacilitythatistheleastintrusivemeansofremedyingasignificantgapinpersonalwirelessservicecoverage(theabilityofwirelesstelephonestomakeandreceivevoicecallstoandfromlandlinesthatareconnectedtothenationaltelephonenetwork).”2.PleaseapplythespecificstandardsandwordingthatarelistedintheTownCode,Section270-219.R,anddrawyourconclusionsregardingneedfortheproject,gapsincoverage,etc.,basedonthosestandards.Thereport’s“SiteJustification”section,startingonp.6,doesnotanalyzetheapplicationusingtheTownCodestandardsatSection270-219.R(initalicsbelow).TheBoardandSusanwouldlikeyoutoapplythesestandardsandusethewords“significantgap”and“landline”inyouranalysis(along withotherrelevantTownCodewording)tospecificallyconnectyourfindingstothestandardsintheTownCode.:“ExceptasprovidedinSubsedji71t)-Lk4cç’t1PithWl1fliardmayapproveaspecialpermitorspecialpermitmodificationrelatingtooPWSFonlyifthePlanningBoardfinds:(c)Allofthefollowingadditionalstandardsaremet:[2]Need.Theapplicanthasprovenacompellingneedtoaddressanysignificantgapsintheapplicantspersonalwirelessservices(theabilityofwirelesstelephonestomakeandreceivevoicecallstoandfromlandlinesthatareconnectedtothenationaltelephonenetwork)throughtheproposedfacilitiesandnotthroughanyothersolution,andthefacilitypresentsaminimalintrusiononthecommunity.[a]Todeterminewhetheragapissignificant,thePlanningBoardshallconsider,amongotherthings,droppedcallandfailurerates,whetheragapisrelativelylargeorsmallingeographicsize,whetherthenumberoftheapplicantscustomersaffectedbythegopisrelativelysmallorlarge,whetherornotthelocationofthegapissituatedonalightlyorheavilytraveledroadorinasparselyordenselyoccupiedarea,andwhethertheapplicant’scustomersareaffectedforonlyalimitedperiodoftime.Asignificantgapcannotbeestablishedsimplybecausetheapplicant’spersonalwirelessservicesoperateonafrequencywhichisnotthefrequencymostdesiredbytheapplicant.Anapplicantsclaimofneedforfuturecapacitydoesnotconstituteevidenceofasignificantgap.[14Inmakingthefindingofcompellingneed,thePlanningBoardshallconsidertheevidenceofasignificantgap,theapplicantsconsiderationofothersitesandothermeansofaddressingthegaps,andthefeasibilityofaddressingthegapsthroughtheuseofothersitesorothermeans.”3.Pleaseremovetheeditorialcommentonpage10ofthereport(showninboldhere):“TheTownofIthacacoderequiresin-kindcalltestinganddroppedcallrecords.Whilethisinformationisnottypicallyincludedinmodern-daysubmittals,Applicantprovidedthisinformation....”Again,pleasefeelfreetocommunicatedirectlywithSusanBrockabouttheseproposedchanges.Regardingotheritemsrequestedatthemeeting,theapplicantwasaskedformoreinformationaboutthepossibilityofinstallingmore,shortertowerswithinthenetworkratherthantheonetalltower(e.g.,canthesamegapincoveragebeachievedwithseveralmicrocellsontelephonepoles,orperhapstwoshortertowers2 3 Regarding other items requested at the meeting, the applicant was asked for more information about the possibility of installing more, shorter towers within the network rather than the one tall tower (e.g., can the same gap in coverage be achieved with several microcells on telephone poles, or perhaps two shorter towers in other locations?) The Attorney for Verizon indicated that they would provide that information soon, but that it would not be available for the October 15th Planning Board meeting. This led to a discussion about the next available Planning Board meeting. The regularly scheduled meeting after October 15th is November 5th – election night. The Board decided to cancel that meeting and to change the meeting date to Tuesday, October 29th . I know that we did not discuss your availability for that day. We also do not know if the applicant will be able to provide the requested information for that date (all documents would need to be received by the town by Monday, October 22nd at 4pm at the latest). So, that leaves us with two questions for you and Steve: 1. Will you be able to attend a meeting on October 29 (via Zoom) if the project is on that agenda? 2. Will you be able to revise your report by October 22 for the mail out for that meeting? I will call you by Friday about all of this, but I wanted you to have the link and the information as soon after last night’s meeting as possible. Cheers, Chris Christine Balestra, Senior Planner Town of Ithaca Planning Department 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Ph: (607) 273-1721, ext.121 Cell: (607) 227-0956 Email: cbalestra@townithacany.gov EXHIBIT GG Network Engineering Group 225 Jordan Road Troy, New York 12180 N e t w o r k E n g i n e e r i n g - U P N Y 1 2 7 5 J o h n S t r e e t , S u i t e 1 0 0 W est H e n r iet t a , N e w Y o r k 145 8 6 Oct. 21st, 2024 Hon. Members of the Planning Board Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY, 14850 RE: Evidence from a licensed engineer that smaller and shorter towers will not achieve the necessary coverage goals sought by VZW (not smaller towers on the same property, but smaller/shorter facilities in the area, possibly collocated on existing structures and/or telephone poles, and the like) Honorable Members of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board: During the PB meeting held on Oct 1st, 2024, some members of the public raised the suggestion of shorter towers located elsewhere, instead of a 134’ tall monopole at 111 Wiedmaier Court. Verizon RF engineering team reviewed these suggestions and concluded that shorter towers (or smaller cells) will fail to achieve the site objectives for the following reasons. • The proposed “Sunny View” site is proposed as a macro telecommunication tower since it is designed to be the backbone (anchor) network solution throughout the area it is intended to provide coverage. When compared with a small cell site alternative (or a cluster of smaller cell sites) in a rural area like this which is subject to significant terrain, large geographic coverage area and laced with foliage challenges the small cell coverage capability is unsuitable. Small cells or smaller macro tower sites would be blocked (shadowed) by terrain and foliage rendering them ineffective. This macro tower site will provide the requisite coverage throughout the objective area, contiguous for several miles, making this solution appropriate for the challenging morphology and less densely populated area. Small cell sites are intended to cover a much smaller area, typically a few hundred feet, and are better suited for dense urban environments or specific locations where their smaller footprint can be engineered to provide hotspot coverage or capacity enhancements (complimentary to the area macro site). Macro sites have the structural capability of deploying Verizon’s numerous licensed bands of spectrum through the more capable macro antennas where small cells are limited in antenna size/number/weight not to mention small cells do not offer the necessary physical space to house all of the equipment needed to support this proposed site’s radio configuration. • A macro site must be installed on a strategically and centrally located tall structure (relative to the objective area) for several key reasons. For instance, LOS (Line Of Sight), towers that are above area “clutter” provide a clear line of sight between the antenna and the devices it serves, which is crucial for maintaining adequate and reliable signals, especially for higher frequency bands including but not limited to AWS, PCS, and C-band. These higher frequency bands have shorter wavelengths but wider bandwidth capabilities. Another reason is coverage footprint (service area). As antenna height increases so does the site’s coverage capabilities. In order for the proposed site to be effective throughout this objective area the antennas must be located above area clutter in order to overcome physical obstructions such as buildings, trees, and terrain features. By strategically locating the antenna above these obstacles, the signal can propagate without excessive and unwanted signal degradation allowing the site to serve the users as intended. In this case Verizon Wireless RF has determined that one centrally located solution of adequate elevation (130’ ACL at the proposed location) will resolve the identified area problems and minimize community impact (minimize tower proliferation). Previously discussed alternatives of lowering the antenna centerline will result with the site being incapable of solving the area problems. Further discussion of adding additional smaller sites resulting with a higher number of towers in this area is counterintuitive to minimizing community impact and results with multiple sites that do not achieve objectives perpetuating the need for even more sites and greater community impact. • In summary an alternative deployment located on new or existing smaller structures (including utility poles) is impractical as they have too many limitations including but not limited to low antenna centerline, equipment space/size/power constraints, and structural limitations causing gaps in coverage and inability to achieve objectives stated in the RF Justification. Simply put utility poles or other smaller towers or structures are not capable of supporting the equipment and coverage requirements needed for this project area. In view of the aforementioned details, in order for the “Sunny View” facility to successfully achieve the necessary RF objectives, it must be a macro site on a new 134’ tall monopole (130’ ACL) instead of a small cell site (or a cluster of smaller cell sites) on new or existing structures. This macro solution will provide adequate and reliable coverage to the southern portion of the Town of Ithaca known as the “Sunny View” project area. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, Wasif Sharif Wasif Sharif Radio Frequency (RF) Design Engineer 2b\LC+-i-oIzc/zLlFrom:Marie/AndrewMolnar<marieandrew93@gmail.com>Sent:Wednesday,October23,20243:59PMTo:TownOfIthacaPlanningSubject:Fwd:[cell-tower]EffectsofExposuretoElectromagneticFields:Thirtyyearsofresearch(Dr.HenryLai)ForwardedmessageFrom:‘JoelM.Moskowitz’Date:Wed,Oct23,2024at2:57PMSubject:[cell-tower]EffectsofExposuretoElectromagneticFields:Thirtyyearsofresearch(Dr.HenryLai)To:CHE-EMF(CollaborativeonHealthandtheEnvironment-EMF)<hrnf@hetharidenvironmnt.org>EffectsofExposuretoElectromagneticFields:ThirtyyearsofresearchElectromagneticRadiationSafetyOctober23,2024Thepreponderanceofresearchpublishedfrom1990throughOctober2024hasfoundsignificanteffectsfromexposuretoradiofrequencyradiationaswellastoextremelylowfrequencyandstaticelectromagneticfields.Dr.HenryLai,ProfessorEmeritusattheUniversityofWashington,EditorEmeritusofthejournal,ElectromagneticBiologyandMedicine,andanemeritusmemberoftheInternationalCommissionontheBiologicalEffectsofEMF,hascompiledsummariesoftheresearchonthebiologicaleffectsofexposuretoradiofrequency(RFR)andextremelylowfrequency(ELF)andstaticelectromagneticfields(EMF).Hissetofabstractswhichcovertheperiodfrom1990toOctober2024constituteacomprehensivecollectionoftheresearch.Dr.LaireportsthatthepreponderanceoftheresearchhasfoundthatexposuretoRFRorELFEMFproducesoxidativeeffectsorfreeradicals,anddamagesDNA.MoreoverthepreponderanceofRFRstudiesthatexaminedgenetic,neurologicalandreproductiveeffectshasfoundsignificanteffects.AmonghundredsofstudiesofRFR,71%to89%reportedsignificanteffects.AmonghundredsofstudiesofELFandstaticfields,75%to90%reportedsignificanteffects.AccordingtoDr.Lai,95%of237low-intensity(SAR<0.40W/kg)radiofrequencyradiation(RFR)exposurestudiespublishedsince1990reportedsignificanteffects:“ThismeansthatbiologicalsystemsareverysensitivetoRFR.”Moreover,“ItisclearthatthecurrentRFRexposureguidelinesarenotvalidintheprotectionofthehealthdetrimentaleffectsofRFR.”1 ICurrently,thereareabout2,500studiesinDr.HenryLai’scollectionofresearchontheeffectsofexposuretoRFRandstaticorELFelectromagneticfields(EMF).Theabstractsforthesestudiescanbedownloadedbyclickingonthelinksbelow.<SNIP>httns://bit.lv/LaiSaferEMRJoelM.Moskowitz,Ph.D.,DirectorCenterforFamilyandCommunityHealthSchoolofPublicHealthUniversityofCalifornia,BerkeleyElectromagneticRadiationSafetyWebsite:https://www.saferemr.comFacebook:https://www.facebook.com/SaferEMRTwitter:@berkeleyprcYoureceivedthismessagebecauseyouaresubscribedtotheGoogleGroups“Celltower”group.Tounsubscribefromthisgroupandstopreceivingemailsfromit,sendanemailtocelltower+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.Toviewthisdiscussionvisithttps://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ce[(-tower/CAAc%3Di5K0%2Bj-g%2B%2BZvh4HnSk%2BmrotQNFeN-aeXHH44XahPxGPpRg%4omai[.gmail.com.2 uC1c\D119)ZLFrom:JamesWHamilton<jameswaldoJbluefrog.com>Sent:Friday,October25,20249:54:06AMTo:TownOfIthacaClerksDepartment<clerks@townithacany.gov>;CiRandall<cjranda(ltownIthacany.gov>Cc:LoriBrewer<ljb7(corneLl.edu>;FrankCantone<facantone@grnaR.coin>;IngridZabel<jngiEidzabel607Egmai[.com>;LindsayDombroskie<glinesaycgrnaiLcoin>Subject:neighbor’scommentforPlanningBoardpublichearing10/29/24onproposedSunnyViewVerizontowerThanks,Ci,forthenoticeofthesecondpublichearingfortheproposedVerizonSunnyViewcelltowernextdoor.Inoticeyou’restillusingtheoldtownclerkctowxiithacany,govemailaddress.Youshouldchangeyour“NoticeofPlanningBoardActionNearYou”templatetousethecurrentieiks@townithacany.gQvaddress.Andthanks,TownClerks,formakingsurethePlanningBoardgetsthisimportantmessageforconsiderationofa“FinalSitePlanApproval.”Youcansendthemjusttoday’scommentimmediatelybelow,thoughIincludemypreviousSeptember25messageasrelevanttothiscomplaint.Onpage16(of25pp.)inthesupplementalappmaterialsfortheVZWtowerat111WiedmiaerCourttitled“AERIALMAPWITHPROPOSEDOVERLAY,”asupposed“EXISTINGFORESTEDLAND(TYP)”referstothesameclearcutbulldozedland“toberestoredaswoods”inthePB’sMarch2010sitemapshownbyChrisBalestraattheOctober1stPBpublichearing.Butthispurported“forestedland”isdefinitelyNOTforested,norhasiteverbeen“restoredaswoods.”WhenIvisitedtheruinedsiteonOctober8,2024withfourothermembersoftheTownofIthaca’sConservationBoard,wefoundveryfewsurvivingtreesfromthePlanningBoard’s2008restorationplan.If250treesweresupposedtorestorethewoods,lessthan10percenthavesurvived,andthesearefarfromtheoutsideedgesofwhatVerizoniscalling“EXISTINGMEADOW/RANGELAND.”Thoughnotinclearfocusintheimaginary“forestedland,”shownonPage16,“AerialMapwithProposedOverlay,SheetNoESC-1,“thefewsurvivingtreesintendedto“restore”thedestroyedwoodswerecloseenoughtotopsoilpushedtotheedgeoftheflattenedridgetobeabletosurvive.Butthereisnopossiblewaytoclaimthatthewoodstherebefore Wiedmiaerremovedithasbeenrestored!Verizonistakingadvantageofthe“nodisturbancearea,”tolimititslandscapingtoafewplantsrightnexttotheproposedmonopolepad,wheresometopsoilwillbedroppedintoaholeduginwhatisnowcompactedsubsoilleftfromWiedmiaer’sillegalhilltopremoval.Thissite,inaconservationzoneintheSixmileCreekwatershedthatprovidesthecityofIthacawithitsmunicipalwater,wasneverintendedtobe“meadoworrangeland.”Atinyefforttomasksomeindustrialequipmentfromthe“sunnyview”ofnearbyresidentsorfromvisitorsonSlatervilleRoadisnowaytotreatdamagedlandinaConservationZone.InsteadofinsistingthatVerizon’sdevelopmentplanstayoutofa“NoDisturbanceZone”thathasbeensothoroughlydisturbedastoservenohealthyecologicalfunction,thePBshouldinsistthattheimaginary“existingforestedland”showninVerizon’s‘aerialmapwithproposedoverlay”berestoredaswoods.AninventoryofthefewtreessurvivingtherestorationplanoutlinedinthePlanningBoard’sResolutionNo.2008-013condition1.g.(“Ifatleast95%ofthetreesplantedasdepictedonLandscapePlanSheetLOldonotsurviveonanannualbasis,replacementin-kindofsaidtreesonanannualbasisforaperiodof5yearsandthesubmissionofaperformancebondsatisfactorytotheAttorneyfortheTowntoassurethereplacementofsuchtreesforaperiodofatleast5years”)oughttoassureboththeTownofIthacaandnearbyresidentsthatthepurported“forestedland”ontheSunnyViewsiteisinfactdemonstrablythere.RodHoweinresolutionno2008-013movedthatWiedmaierfollow“arestorationplanwhichcallsforapplyinganativeseedmixandplantingapproximately250trees,”butawastelandofcompactedsubsoilgrowinghardyperennialbunchgrassisnot,infact,anykindofwoods.Acelltowerbuiltonplansincludingafictional“forest”inablurryaerialmapshouldbebasedonamuchmorefirmandfactualfoundation.Pleasedonotgive“FinalSitePlanApproval”toaplanincludingamapofaconservationzonewatershedwoodsthatisnot,infact,thereinreallife.Sincerely,JamesHamiltonmemberoftheConservationBoardsince2005Townresidentat1603SlatervilleRoad,Ithaca,NYsince1980 PUbLc’\u3From:Marie/AndrewMolnar<marieandrew93@gmail.com>Sent:Monday,October28,20243:58PMTo:TownOfIthacaPlanningCc:ChrisBalestra;CiRandallSubject:VerizonfailstoupholdourcarefullycraftedTowncodesAttachments:FactSheet_PropertyValuesReductionvO.41.1.pdf;Realtorsattesttopropertyvaluesdropping.pdf;PropertyDevaluationDuetoCellPhoneTowers.pdf**WARNING**Thisemailcomesfromanoutsidesource.Pleaseverifythefromaddress,anyURLlinks,and/orattachments.AnyquestionspleasecontacttheITdepartmentPlanningBoardmembers,WearewritingonbehalfoflocalIthacanstoaskthatyoudenyVerizon’sapplicationforanewcelltower.Verizon,likemanyothertelecomcompanies,seemstobelievetheyhaveanentitledrighttodoastheypleaseinIthaca,asnotedinJaredLusks’memostating“VerizonisentitledtoreceivethenecessaryzoningapprovalsfromtheTown.”ThisiswhollyincorrectandmanipulativelanguageintendedtointimidatetheBoard.Ourlocalmunicipalityretainsthelegalrighttodenyanytoweronanynumberofbases.Specifically,intheintroductionoftheEngineeringNecessityCase,theywrote:Notet1wwhileVerizonWe1essprovidessufficientevidencetoestablishtheexistenceofacoiwagegapandcapacityneedfrthiscase,theFCChasceinfinnedthatfederalfewthestrequieaprovklertoestablishtheexistenceofacogefcapacitygaptoestablishtheneedforasiteTheieatese.era1waysbywhichanapplicantcanestablishsiteneed.SeeAceratingWbelessBroadbandDeploymentbyRemovIgBarrisstolnfrastnicturelnvestmenFCC18-13385FR51867,at137(Octabe’15.2018)(contlrmrngthatthetestforestablisIganeffectipohitionswlwtlw‘astateorIigaIraq&rementmateriallyinhibitsaprovider’sabilitytoengeinanyofavarietyofactivitsrelatedtotspro,sionofacoveredserhice,andthistestismet‘notont’whent1ingacoagegapbutalsowhendensilyingawreisssnetvdç.ntrothiciignewseiwcesorotherwisewnprovfrgservkecapabilities”)(emphasisWhattheyarequotinghereisfromthe2018FCCorder,whichisNOTtheLawintheSecondCircuitThefederalcourtsontheSecondCircuitstillmustfollowthesignificantgapincoverageandleastintrusivetechnologicallyfeasible“solution”test.WeaskthePlanningBoardtodenythisapplicationbecause:1)Verizonhasfailedtoprovidealltheevidenceofagapinphonelvoicecoverage2)Verizonhasfailedtocomplywithourcodesandprovidedetailedinformationaboutalternativelocations3)Thetowerwilladverselyaffecttheaestheticsofthisbeautifullocation4)Thetowerwillreducepropertyvaluesofthehomesinthearea5)Thetowerwillharmwildlifeinthearea1.FAILURETOPROVIDETHEREQUIREDPROOFOFAGAPFORPHONECALLSManycitizensandsomeBoardmembers,includingLizBageantandSaraReynolds,askedVerizontoprovideindependentdroppedcallanddrive-bytesting.Thisisbecausetelecomcompaniesareknowntoprovideinaccurateinformationwhentryingtoprovesuchagap,andthustheycannotberelieduponasthesoleproviderofevidence.Verizonhasfailedtodoso.AstothedataVerizonDIDprovide,theTown’sindependentRFConsultantstated“wecannotvouchforthetestmethodsemployedortheaccuracyofthedataApplicanthasprovided”Verizoncontinuestoputcapacityandcoverage”togetherintheiranalyses,whichisnotwhatisneededtomeetcode.The“data”(notin-kindcalltesting)thatVerizonprovidedonlyshows“droppedconnections”and“accessfailures”whichisNOTthesameas1 droppedcalls,andisnotthedataourcoderequires,TheREconsultantconcludes,withrespectfthestatedlimitationsonanalysisthereisarguablynofindingof’-fiwroiiyofrthRF$,sgetioij3lotsforexistinglow-bandRFcoverage”OurTownCodeisclear:“Evidencethatagapexistsshallincludein-kindcaLLtestingforeachfrequencyatwhichtheapplicantprovidespersonalwirelessservices.”Andin-kindcaLltestingisdefined:“IN-KINDCALLTESTINGTestingdesignedtomeasurethegapinpersonalwirelessservicecoverageassertedbyanapplicant.In-kindcalltestingforaclaimedgapinpersonalwirelessservicesinbuildingsmeanscalltestingperformedinbuildingstoestablishtheexistenceorabsenceofsuchagap,unlesstheapplicantprovidesanaffidavitswornunderpenaltiesofperjurydemonstratinggoodfaithbutunsuccessfulattemptstosecureaccesstobuildingstoconductsuchtesting.In-kindcalltestingforaclaimedgapinpersonalwirelessservicesinvehiclesorintheopenairmeanscalltestingperformedinvehiclesorintheopentoestablishtheexistenceorabsenceofsuchagap.”Weaskedforthat,andVerizonhastwicefailedtoprovidethisdatauponwhichtheBoardcouldmakeaninformeddecision.2.NONCOMPLIANCEWITHTHETOWNCODES:NOTSUBMITTINGDETAILSOFALTERNATESITESAtthelastmeeting,thePlanningBoardexplicitlytoldVerizontocomplywiththetowncodesandsubmitmoredetailedanalysisofalternatesitesand/orarrangements,suchasoneortwosmallertowers.Perourcodesrewhatapplicationsforthesefacilitiesmustinclude:Ifsiteplanapprovalandspecialpermitarerequired,andifco-locationontoanexistingstructureisnotproposedandisnotfeasible,analternativesiteanalysisofallpotentiallylessintrusivealternativesitesnotinvolvingco-locationwhichtheapplicanthasconsidered.Thisalternativesiteanalysisshalldocumenteachsite’srespectivelocation,elevation,andsuitabilitytoremedyasignificantgapinthecoverageoftheapplicant’spersonalwirelessservices(theabilityofwirelesstelephonestomakeandreceivevoicecallstoandfromlandlinesthatareconnectedtothenationaltelephonenetwork).Forsuitablealternativesitesthatanapplicantclaimsareunavailable,theapplicantshallsubmitevidenceofgood-faitheffortstosecureuseofeachsuchsitefromitsowner.§270-219G(2)(r)InregardstotheminimalanalysisVerizonhadconductedonfourothersites,theREConsultantWilliamJohnsonstates:NotechnicalevidencewasinitiaLlyprovidedby[Verizon]forthoseconclusions[thatfourothersiteswouLdnotsuffice]intherecord..).Duringtheplanningboard’smeetingonOctober2,2024,Applicant’sRFengineerpresentedpropagationplotstotheplanningboardthatshowedthealternativesitesdidnotprovidethesameservicelevelsforlow-bandREcoveragealongRoute79.WerecommendthatthoseplotsbeincludedintherecordtodocumentthereasonsforrejectingthealternativesitesWerecommendfurtheranalysisthatincludesmid-bandservicesRFcoverageandcapacityissUsardingñj,FIeJectedsitedanaestheticadvantagethatmayprovideservicetothetargetedrecommenduseofmid-bandREpropagationplotsandneighborsite“Brookdale”gammasectorLTEcapacitydataofferedinExhibitH,and/orthedrivetestanddroppedconnectiondatainExhibitZtoevaluateminimumheightjustificationtoaddressthataspectofminimalintrusiononthecommunity.2 Insteadofcomplyingwithourcodes,Verizonhaspaidalawfirm,NixonPeabody,tosubmitabriefexplainingwhytheydon’tneedto.AsexpertcelltowerattorneyRobertBergatteststofriaformallettertotheBoard,thisMxonletterisfilledwithrmsleadinginformationThebottomlineVerizonisrequiredbyfederallawandourcodestofindtheleastintrusWemea1&filltheservicegap,whichincludesprovidingextensiveanalysesoalternativesites.3.ADVERSEAESTHETICIMPACTAsyouheardfrommanylocalcitizens,thisproposedplacementofVerizon’s135footwirelesstelecommunicationstowerwillcausethefacilitytostandoutlikeasorethumb,dominatetheskyline,andrisewellaboveallexistingstructures,treesandvegetation,justadjacenttoabeautifulnaturalreservoirandwell-lovedpark.Thiswillinflictsubstantialadverseaestheticimpactsuponthenearbyhomesandbeautifullocale.Federalcourtshaveconsistentlyheldthatadverseaestheticimpactsareavalidbasisfordenyingwirelessfacilitiesapplications.Moreover,becauseoffederallaw,this138foottowerisislikelytobeincreasedtoaheightof158feet,1causingevenmoreadverseaestheticimpacts.And,rememberthatwhileVerizoniscurrentlytheonlycarrierplanningtousethetower,theproposedfacilitywillbeconstructedtosupportuptofourtotaltelecommunicationscarriers!Canyouimaginewhatthatwilllooklikethere?4.ADVERSEIMPACTONPROPERTYVALUESThiswirelesstelecommunicationstowerwouldinflictasevereadverseimpactontheactualvalueofnearbyresidentialproperties,especiallybecauseitwouldbehighlyvisible,particularlyfrommultiplehomesandpropertiesaswellasfromeveryonetravelingonRoute79.WhileVerizonhassubmittedevidencefromthreehandpickedrealestateappraiserssayingthatpropertyvalueswouldnotchange,edencefromnymeroussourcesattestsotherwiseInfact,theimpactissowell-known,thattheUSDepartmentofHousingandUrbanDevelopmentrequire’sitscertifiedappraiserstotakethepresenceofnearbycelltowersintoconsiderationwhendeterminingthevalueofasinglefamilyresidentialpropertyCountlessrealestateappraisers2andbrokershaverenderedprofessionalopinionsonwhatcommonsensedictates:Whenwirelessfacilitiesareinstalledunnecessarilyorwithinviewofaresidence,thehomessuffermateriallossesinvalueupto2O%.Intheworstcases,facilitiesbuiltnearexistinghomeshavecausedthehomestoberenderedwhollyunsaleable.4PerhapsthisiswhyInasurveyconductedbytheNationalInstituteforScience,LawandPublicPolicy,79%ofrespondentssaidundernocircumstanceswouldtheyeverpurchaseorrentapropertywithinafewblocksofacelltowerorantennas.Moreevidencecanbefoundintheattacheddocumentshere.We’veattachedadocumentthathasanumberoflettersfromrealtorsfromOaklandMl,atownshipthatdeniedacelltowerinMayofthisyear.5.ADVERSEIMPACTONWILDLIFEIthasbeenwelldocumentedthatcelltowerradiationhasadverseimpactsontrees,othervegetation,bees,andotherwildlife.Forexample,alandmarkthree-part2021researchreviewoneffectstowildlife(ReviewsonEnvironmentalHealthbyU.SexpertsincludingformerU.SFishandWHdNfesenioroJogistAlbertManville)statesthatcurrentscienceshouldtriggerurgentregulatoryactioncitingmorethan1,200scientificreferenceswhichfoundadversebiologicaleffectstowildlifefromevenverylowintensitiesofnonionizingradiationwithfindingsofimpactstoorientationandmigration,reproduction,mating,nest,denbuildingandsurvivorship.TheDepartmentofInteriorwrotealetterin2014detailingseveralpublishedstudiesshowingimpactsofwirelessradiofrequencyradiation(RFR)tobirds,statedthat,“Thereisagrowinglevelofanecdotalevidencelinkingeffectsofnon-thermal,non-ionizingelectromagneticradiationfromcommunicationtowersonnestingandroostingwildbirdsandotherwildlifethird-partypeer-reviewedstudiesneedtobeconductedintheU.S.tobeginexaminingtheeffectsfromradiationonmigratorybirdsandothertrustspecies.”Formuchmoreinformation,seehereandhere.Wearedisappointedthatitseemslikethesehundredsofstudieshavenotbeenconsideredinthetownenvironmentalassessment.Ithacahasalwaysbeenastrongvoiceandadvocateforalllivingbeings,especiallyourwildlife.WeaskthattheBoardcorrectsthisoversightanddeniesthisapplicationfortheharmitwillinflictuponournaturalenvironment.Forallthereasonsstatedabove,werespectfullyimploretheBoardtodenyVerizon’sapplication.3 Thankyouforyourcarefulconsideration,MarieandAndrewMolnar1Ifsuchtowerwerebuilt,Verizoncouldunilaterallychoosetoincreasetheheightofthetowertoasmuchas158feet,andtheTownwouldbelegallyprohibitedfromstoppingthemfromdoingso,duetotheconstraintsoftheMiddle-ClassTaxReliefandJobCreationActof2012,whichprovidesthatnotwithstandingsection§704oftheTelecommunicationsActof1996oranyotherprovisionoflaw,aStateorlocalgovernmentmaynotdeny,andshallapprove,anyeligiblerequestforamodificationofanexistingwirelessfacilityorbasestationthatdoesnotsubstantiallychangethephysicaldimensionsofsuchfacilityorbasestation.See47U.S.C.§1455(a).UndertheFCC’sreadingandinterpretationof§6409(a)oftheAct,localgovernmentsareprohibitedfromdenyingmodificationstowirelessfacilitiesunlessthemodificationswill“substantiallychange”thephysicaldimensionsofthefacility,pole,ortower.TheFCCdefines“substantialchange”toincludeanymodificationthatwouldincreasetheheightofthefacilitybymorethanten(10%)percentoftheheightofthetower,plustheheightofanadditionalantenna,plusadistanceoften(10)feettoseparateanewantennafromthepreexistingtopantenna,uptoamaximumheightincreaseoftwenty(20)feet.2Seee.g.aFebruary22,2012articlediscussingaNJappraiser’sanalysiswhereinheconcludedthattheinstallationofaWirelessFacilityincloseproximitytoahomehadreducedthevalueofthehomebymorethan10%,gotohttp://bridqewater.atch.com/articles/araiser-t-mobile-cell-tower-will-affect-property-valuesSee,e.g.,areportpublishedin“TheEmpiricalEconomicsLetters,”18(8):August2019ISSN16818997byJosephHaleandJasonBeckconcludedthattheproximityofcelltowersdoeshaveanegativeeffectonthesalepricesofnearbyhomes.Seealso,“WirelessTowersandHomeValues:AnAlternativeValuationApproachUsingaSpatialEconometricAnalysis,”byErmannoAffuso,J.ReidCumingsandHuubinLe,publishedinFebruaryof2017.Thisstudyusedahedonicspatialautoregressivemodeltoassesstheimpactofwirelesscommunicationtowersonthevalueofresidentialproperties.Thisreportalsoconcludedthattheproximityofacelltowerhasanegativeimpactonthesaleprocessofnearbyhomes.Inaseriesofthreeprofessionalstudiesconductedbetween1984and2004,onesetofexpertsdeterminedthattheinstallationofaWirelessFacilityincloseproximitytoaresidentialhomereducedthevalueofthehomebyanywherefromI%to20%.Thesestudieswereasfollows:•TheBondandHue-ProximateImpactStudy-TheBondandHuestudyconductedin2004involvedtheanalysisof9,514residentialhomesalesin10suburbs.ThestudyreflectedthatcloseproximitytoaWirelessFacilityreducedpriceby15%onaverage.•TheBondandWang-TransactionBasedMarketStudy•TheBondandWangstudyinvolvedtheanalysisof4,283residentialhomesalesin4suburbsbetween1984and2002.ThestudyreflectedthatcloseproximitytoaWirelessFacilityreducedthepricebetween20.7%and2l%.•TheBondandBeamish-OpinionSurveyStudy•TheBondandBeamishstudyinvolvedsurveyingwhetherpeoplewholivedwithin100’ofaWirelessFacilitywouldhavetoreducethesalespriceoftheirhome.38%saidtheywouldreducethepricebymorethan20%,38%saidtheywouldreducethepricebyonly1%-9%,and24%saidtheywouldreducetheirsalepriceby10%-19%.4UnderFHAregulations,noFHA(federallyguaranteed)loancanbeapprovedforthepurchaseofanyhomewhichissituatedwithinthefallzoneofaWirelessFacility.SeeHUDFHAHOCReferenceGuideChapter1-hazardsandnuisances.Asaresult,therearecasesacrossthecountrywithinwhich:(a)ahomeownerpurchasedahome,(b)aWirelessFacilitywasthereafterbuiltincloseproximitytoit,and(c)asaresultofsame,thehomeownerscouldnotselltheirhome,becauseanybuyerwhosoughttobuyitcouldnotobtainanFHAguaranteedloan.See,e.g.,October2,2012Article“..CellTowerisRealEstateRoadblock”athttp://www.wfaa.com/news/consumer/Ellis-County-Couple--Cell-towermaking-it-impossible-to-sell-home--i72366931.html.4 4G/5GWireless&“Small”AntennasFactSheetPropertyValuesReductionMontgomeryCountyGovernmentStatesCellTowersNearHomesDecreasePropertyValuesInafilinginalawsuitagainsttheFederalCommunicationsCommission,theCountysaidthroughitsexpertsthat”...theplacementofsmallcells—dependingontheirsizeandvisibility—mayaffectneighboringpropertyvalues....evenassmallreductioninvalueofhomesinaneighborhoodmayhaveamulti-milliondollareffect.”Experttestimonystatesthat“studieshaveconcludedthatavisibleantennaupto1,000feetawayresultsinpropertyvaluereductionof1.82%foraresidentialhomeor$3,342inthemarketstudied.”1•94%ofPeopleSaidaNearbyCellTower...WouldNegativelyImpactInterestInAPropertyOrThePrice“AsurveyconductedinJune2014bytheNationalInstituteforScience,LawandPublicPolicy(NISLAPP)inWashington,D.C....showshomebuyersandrentersarelessinterestedinpropertieslocatednearcelltowersandantennas,aswellasinpropertieswhereacelltowerorgroupofantennasareplacedontopoforattachedtoabuilding.And79%saidundernocircumstanceswouldtheyeverpurchaseorrentapropertywithinafewblocksofacelltowerorantennas.Andalmost90%ofrespondentssaidtheywereconcernedabouttheincreasingnumberofcelltowersandantennasintheirresidentialneighborhood,generally.”23•ReductioninTaxAssessmentbyMontgomeryCo.AppealsBoardforProbableCellTowerThePropertyTaxAssessmentAppealBoardforMontgomeryCountyloweredaRockvillehome’sassessment:“Comparableswarrantareductioninvalue.Probabilityofneighboringcelltoweralsoaffectsvaluenegatively.April2011,reversingdeterminationbytheDepartmentofAssessmentsandTaxation.4•WirelessTowersinVisualRange“valuesdeclining...upto9.78%forhomeswithintowervisibilityrangecomparedtohomesoutsidetowervisibilityrange”•20-25%DevaluationFoundinPeer-ReviewedStudyforHomesNearCellTowers“TheImpactofCellPhoneTowersonHousePricesinResidentialNeighborhoods6bySandyBond,PhD,andKo-KangWang.Apeer-reviewedstudyfoundHomesnearcellphonetowersweredevalued20%to25%.•5GRequiresCuttingDownTreesinYards—ReducesValueBySeveralThousandDollars5Grequiresdirect“lineofsight”fromthecellantennainfrontofthehouse,orfromseveralhousesaway,toeachhouse.SomanythousandsoftreesinMontgomeryCountywouldneedmajorbranchesremovedorcuttingdown.•TwoReasonsBuyersMayRefusetoBuyNear“Small”Antennas—HealthRiskandAestheticsThiswilltranslateintolowerhomevalues.Thissitelistsarticles,videosandstudiesshowingdecliningpropertyvaluesaroundcelltowerinstallations8vO.41.12020-02-24©2020mocoSafeG.org 4G/5GWireless&“Small”AntennasFactSheetIPropertyValuesReductionReferences1“CommentsofSmartCommunitiesSitingCoalition”(ofwhichMontgomeryCountyisone)beforetheFCC.March8,2017.“StreamliningDeploymentofSmallCellInfrastructurebyImprovingWirelessFacilities/WTDocketNo.16-421)”SeeExhibit3.https://montgomervcountymd.gov/cable/resources/files/towers/documents/mobilitie%2ocomments%20-%20Smart%20communities%20siting%2ocoalition%20(2017).pdf2https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20140703005726/en/Survey-National-lnstitute-Science-Law-Public-Policy#.VNRBPp3F-Sohttps://electromagnetichealth.org/electromagnetic-health-blog/survey-property-desirability/negatively(Parents’CoalitionofMontgomeryCounty,Maryland)Seephotocopybelow.WirelessTowersandHomeValues:AnAlternativeValuationApproachUsingaSpatialEconometricAnalysis(JournalofRealEstateFinance&Economics,May1,2018)6https://www.emfanalysis.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Impact-of-CelI-Towers-on-House-Prices.pdf‘https://www.greenblue.com/na/how-trees-increase-property-values/8https://www.emfanalysis.com/property-values-declining-cell-towers/Johnson,Jeromy/EMFSolutions,“ProtectYourFamilyfromEMFPollution:PropertyValuesDecliningNearCellTowers.”(EMFSolutions)2011-2019.hups://www.emfanalysis.com/propertv-values-declining-cell-towers/ScientistsforWiredTechnology,“CellTowerInstallationPlansLowerPropertyValues”(ScientistsforWiredTechnology)2017-2019.https://scientists4wiredtech.com/what-are-4g-5g/cell-tower-installation-plans-lower-property-values!PhotocopyofreductionintaxassessmentforahouseinRockvillebytheAppealsBoardforMontgomeryCounty:rr#-iiC.•.d,:fj..-o;r’rp:.-eI‘4.i3C1.2N-1i1A”•UeeL,I’.’...P-rrJez’ntr‘--:.‘;rvsbIvO41.12020-02-24©2020mocoSafeGorg asoSCliiWca,dw.ndAvtrnw.5irrningttam.MI4flutic.:4K’b4tb’tltflORE:ProposedCellTowerLocationAdjacentTo:3/14/202432.SSSloneyCreekRoadOaklandTownship.MI48363AscendEquestrianTowhomUtmayconcern;lamalicensedfull-timeRealEstateSalesperson,andamemberofboththeGreaterMetropolitanAssociationofRealtors(OMAR)andtheNorthOaklandCountyBoardofRealtors(NOCROR).Withover30yearsofexperiencebothlistingandsellinghomesandproperties1primarilyInOaklandCotmty,IhaveextensiveknowledgeandfamiliaritywithOaklandTownshlp.ManyvisitstothecarwashhavebeenrequiredafterreturningfromshowingprospectivebuyersthetruebeautyandnatureofOaklandTownship,andwhytheys%ot4dstronglyconsidermakingittheirnewhameThisexperiencestraattheheartofwhy,InmyprofessionaloØnbn,theWsstallatlcmoFtheproposedcelltowerwilladverselyaffectboththevalueof32S5StoneyCreekRoad,andtheoperationofAscendEquestrian.ProspectivebuyersalwayskeeptwomainthingsInmind:locationandaesthetic.Noonepreferstoliveneara195-foot-tallcelltower,astheyareunsightlyandalwaysvisible,andwillchooseanotherlocationIfpossible.ThisIsespeciallytueInOaklandTownship.whenoneofthemaindecIsIonstolivethereInthefirstplateistoenjoythenaturalsetting.AddIt1onabythemarketabilItyofapropertyIsdImInishedastherearefewerbuyersinterested(evenatareducedpike).takinglongertosellandexposingthepropertyownertogreatermarketrisksTheseFactorswilldecreasethepropertyvaluebyarnlnhnuniof1520%.inaddition,theperceptionofwhatacelltowerbringstoanarea,evenIfnotborneoutinfact,alsodirectlyaffectsvalue-prospectivebuyerswillawikltheselocationsbasedonhowtheyFeel.Acelltower,andrelatedsupportequipmentandbulldlnp,today-whatwilltheFuturebringtothislocationasneedschange?PerceptionIsrealityInthemarketplace.TheoperationsofAscendEquestrianrelyInlargepartontheirsetting-clientscomeouttoenjoytheirhorsesInthebeautyofthenaturalsurroundings,HowmanywilchoosetofindanotherlocationduetothevisualImpactoftheproposedcelltowerisunknown,butnotins€nkficantSincerely,ioSamesBerkshireHathawayHomeServicesKeeRealty SignatureSotheby’sStilEFpJATlGta,PatrY3/14120244[SSOLd‘a%ndward8I;nmgII3Tn.M4O39248644.7000246-6.4482268na1uttflPW1b,nr1IRE:CellToweraffecting3255StoneyCreekRoadTbwhomItmayconcern:IamalocalReaiesteteAgentwithou’er30arsexperienceInmyprolession.IdealwithhighendHorsePropertiesandFarmsintheMetamora,MichiganandNorthOaklandCounty.MichiganInmyopiniontramextensiveexperienceIwouldtellyoutheCellTowerwouldnegativelyeffectthepriceofthepropertybetween15%-30%.Notonlythatbutcloseto90%ofmyclientswoukirefusetoconsiderlookingatorbuyingtheproperty.ThevisualobstructionmadebytheCellTowerwouldtakeawaypeaceandtranquilitythatmyclientsmovetothecountrytOachieve,MyclientsIntheareaIservicehavegretsuccessusingSateUteInternetendPhoneService,IwouldseenoreasonthataCtLTower(eyesore)wouldbeneeded.Sincerely3B.LeeEmbreyLicensedRealestateAgentSignatureSothebysInternationalReaLeslate915OldWoodward,Birmingham,Ml48009 BERKSHIREHATHAWAYKEEREALTYHOMESEPVICESMarch14.2024CharterTownshipofOakland4393CoffinsRdRochester.MlDearOaklandTownshipboardofIrustees,,Havingbeeninthelocalrealestatebusinessforthelast40yearsasaBrokerandreallorIamconfidentinslatingthatCelllowerfacilitiesalteringnaturalviewssubstantiallydecreasepropertyvalues.Typically,propertieswillsell1020%lowerthanpropertiesfreeanddearfromthaiequipmentinslghl.InmyopinionandexpertenceprospectivebuyersleanawayfrompurchasingahomethatislocatedneartransmissionequipmentThesepropertiesalsolendtostayonthemarketlongerandtypicallysuslainareductioninValue.Thepropertyat255StoneyCreekRdhashadanequestrianlacilitytheresInce1967.Theoutdoorarenawouldhavea19-storycelltowerloomingoverthisbeautlMnaturallywoodedproperty.Horses,riders,spectators,andstudentsallhavehadthepleasureofenjoyingthebeautifulnaturalview(orover50years..ThIstowercouldcausepotentiallossofIncometotheownersofthefacilityshouldhorseownerschoosetomoveandrentpastureswithoutacelltowernearby.Inmyprofessionalopiniontheplacementofacellularfacilityadjacentto3255StoneyCreekRd.willsubstantiallydecreasethevalueoWNspropertyandshouldtheychoosetosellitwouldtakeadditionalmonthstocloseonasaleofthatproperty,evenatareducedprice.Sincerety, TopgentRealtyToWhomitMayConcern:March15th2024MynameisCharlesTarnou,Broker/CEOofTopAgentRealtyinTray.Inmy15+yearsofexperienceI’venoticedchatcellcowerscanhaveahugeimpactonthevalueofhome&Inmyprofessionalopinion,thepresenceofacelltowerintheareaofapropertycandeclineItsmarketvalueforafewreasons.Reasonssuchastheproximityofthetowerandtheaestheticsofthesurroundingareamaycausedec••lineInvalue.Inregardstotheproximityofthetower,thecloserthetoweris,themoreitwilldeclinethevalue.AestheticaLlyspeaking,homeownerssimplydonotlikethelookoflargecelltowers.Asfarastheamountofdecline,thedeclinecanbearound15%-45%ofthevalue!CharlesTamouCEO/BrokerCEO@TopAgentMLcom ChristiBraxton402HIckoryLaneLapeer,Mi48446Filename:LettertoDisputeBuildingofCellTowerC31524CMBdocxMarch15.2024ToWhomitMayConcern,IamafriendofLawrenceFoltenyiwhoseproperties,Heandhissisterownthatarelocatedat3255and3265MoneyCreekRd.,Oakland,Ml43.363,Thefirstaddressisofthehorsebarn,paddocks,andridingarenas.ThesecondaddressIsthehomethatmyfriendsgrewupIn,ariduseforretreats.AsaretiredAppraiserIdobelievethattheCelltowerInquestionwouldlmpactthevalueofthesurroundinghomes.Thereisaformulathatiscurrentlypopularamongappraisentouseupto7%MarketValueDecreaseforCelltowersandotherlargeutilitytypestructuresandwhilethatIsaguideline,asanappraiseryouneedtobeobjectiveandlookateverysituation.Withoutdoingafullappraisal,antimarketanalysis,itwouldbehardtosaytheexactamountofdecrease.IcanstalethattheimpactonthevaluewouldstandIntheareaofyouwouldbetakingawaytheverydrawofaruralarea,thenaturalcountrysidewithbeautifulopenvistas,withsuchadominatestructure.BeforeadecisionismadeIwouldaskyoutowalkthetranquilityofthebeautifulwoods,ponds,lam,landandallIt’sgorgeousscenery.Iftheybuildthishuge19storycelltowerattheproposedlocation,whichisadjacenttotheirproperty,andseehowftwillnegativelyImpacttheviewsandnaturalbeautythatisoutthere.Therefore,weaskthatyoupleasedotherightthingandrejecttheproposaltobuildthis19itorycelltowerwhichwoulddominatetheskylineandtakeawayfromthemajesticbeautythatthisareacurrentlyprovides.Thankyouverymuchforyourunderstandingandconsiderationinthismatter.Shscerpiy.1’‘V/4?&J/<f(iIChristiBraxton CRJANEflYIOYAREALESIAI1.LIVETHEDREAMJaneKonoyaKWDOMAiN210SOldWoodwardAve#200Birmingham.Mi48009janekcë?kwsom(248)497-2706March15,2024CharterTownshipofOaklandBoardofTrttsteesCharterTownshipofOaklandHall4393CollInsRoad.RochesterMichigan48306DearMembersoftheCharterTownshipciOaklandBoardofTrustees,Iwritetoyouasaconcernedreaiioiwith&gnificantexperienceinOaklandCounty,representingthevoicesathomeownersandresidentswhoaredeeplytroubledbytheproposaltoconstrucla19-storycellphoneloweronProperlyID:10-7-400-009.Thisdevelopment,ifapproved,wouldundoubtedlycastashadowofdetrimentoverthesurroundIngproperties,.prticulariythosesItuatedat3255StoneyCreekRd(PropertyID:10-7-400-012)and3265StoneyCreekRd(ProperlyID:10-7.400.011).Drawinguponmyprofessionalexpertiseandextensivetenureinboththelinanceandrealestateindustries,Icanconfidentlyassertthaiallowingsuchatowertobeerectedwouldprecipitateatangibledechneinproperlyvaluesfortheneighboringresidences,Fewerbuyersarelikely10makeoilersonsurroundingproperties,lhehomeswillsitonthemarketforlongerandthefinalsalespricewillbesignificantlylowerIhansimilarpropertieswithoutadjacentcellularlransrnisslonequIpment.BasedonrnarkelanalysIsandpastobservations,Iestimatethattheimplementationofatoweringstructureolthisnaturewouldresultinareductionofpropertyvaluesbyapproximately12-18%inthisarea,giventheruralfeelofthesurroundingproperties.Inconclusion.IImploretheOaklandTownshipBoardofTrusteestocarefullyconsidertheimplicationsofapprovingtheconstructionola19-storycellphoneloweronProperlyID:10-7-400-009.Thenegativeimpactonpropertyvaluesandcommunitycohesionfaroutweighanypotentialbenefitsthisproecimayotter,ThankyouforyouratleritiontoIhismatter.Istandreadytoprovideanyadditionalinformationorassistancethatmayberequiredtomakeaninformeddecision, Sincerely,St.JansKonoyaHeallorKWDOMAIN9aatRealEstateC1sunt•)4B-4Q12)O0onoh.kwconiOAF1IF’%t•eiI.LêY’ITNIQ*IMI BERKSHIREHATHA\’VAYI11iR.A!.T’HQMFSFf?VtSBoardofTrusteesOaklandTownship,Michioan4393CollinsRoad.Rochester,Ml48306[warMembersoftheBoardofTnistees,IamwritingtoexpressmyconcernsregardingtheproposedconstructionofacelllowerfacilityinOaklandTownship.AsaseasonedrealtorwithaprimaryfocusinOaklandCountyandOaklandTownshipsince2015.Ihaveextensiveexperienceinassessingprapert?valuesandmarketbendsin11warea.Basedonmyprofessionalopinionandfirsthandexperience,IfirmlybelievethatthepresenceofacelltowerfacilityCisignificantlyimpactthesaleabdilyandvalueofnearbyhomes.PioperlieslocatedincloseproximitytosuchfacilitiesoftenfacelongerlistingperiodsandmaynitWnateiysella;aconsiderablediscount,rangingfrom15%to20%belowmarketvalue.OaklandTownshippridesItselfonitscommitmenttopreservingnatureandmaintainingitsabundanceofparks.ntroducinyatoweringstructuresuchasa195-toot-tail,20-storycelltowercontradictsthetownship’svaluesandcoulddetiirnentallyaffectthedesirabilityofresidentialpropertiesinthevicinity.ThereluctanceofpotentialbuyerstoinvestinhomesnearcelltowerFacilitiesIsunderstandable,givenconcernsaboiaestheticdepreciation,financialloss,andpotentialdisruptionstoIhesurroundingenvironment.AsstewardsofOaklandTownship’swelfareandprosperity,Iimploreyoutoreconsidertheproposedconstructionofthecoillowerfaclhtv.IurgetheBoardofTrusleestoprioritizethelong-terminterestsandwell-beingofOaklandTownshipresidenisbyexploringalternativelocationstarthecelltowerfacilityorimplementingmeasurestomitigateitsimpactonproperlyvaluesandthecomrnunltv1squalityoflife,Thankyouforconsideringmyperspectiveonthismatter.ItrustthatyouwillweighsOfactorscarefullyandmakeadecisionthatalignswiththebestinterestsofOaklandTownshipariditsresidents.Sincerely\ttNicoletteJenarasRealtorBerkshireHathaway,HamaServices881)5.OldWoodwèrdAve,Birmingham,Ml48009 PRIMEAPPRAISALS3/14/2024Towhomftmayconcern,Basedonmy10+yearsofexperienceasaResidentialAppraiserandalicensedRealtor1IhavePoundthatthemajorityofthetimethatacommercialbuildingbeingincloseproximitytoaresidentialpropertyhasanadverseeffectonmarketability.Theproposed19story,195-foot-tallcommunicationsfacilitybeinglocatednearresidentialproperties,inmyopinion,willaffectthevalueofthcsehomesinanadversemanner.Inturn.thiswillleadtoalowernumberofbuyersinthefuture.Sincerely,ioeyBarashCertifiedAppraiserLicensedRealtor SILVERSTONEREALtESTATEn—SHello,MynameisMallAbro,aBrokeratSilverstoneRealEstate.IbringsevenyearsofdedicatedservicetoresidentialpropertiesinOaklandCounty.Forfourconsecutiveyears.Ihaveachievedthestatusofbeingamongthetop5%insalesofalllicensedagentsinOaklandCounty,atestamenttomycommitmentandsuccessintherealestateindustryDrawingfrommyextensiveexpenence,Ifirmlyassertthattheproposedinstallationofacelltowerorwirelessfacililycanexertanotableimpactonthevalueandmarketabilityofneighboringresidences,potentiallyreducingthemby15to20%.Thisperspectiveisinformednotonlybymarkettrendsbutalsobypracticalinsightsgainedfromassistincjnumerousclientsv.lwj,duetoconcernsaboutradiationemissions(tornsuchinstaflatioris,.haveoptedtoforegopropertiestheyotherwiseadmired.-4.1524 BERKShiREIL\TlL\\VAYIISivitt’%KrcRilty210WestUniversity,Suite4,Rochester,Mi4830624R651-1200March112024DearTimandKelleyRettgerThankyoufoitheopportunitytosubmitanopinionletterregardIngtheproposedcelltowerinyourneighborhoodand:specificallyhowItwillaffectthevalueofyourhomeat1720LochinvarBlvd.Oakland,Ml48363.IamalicensedReal[stateBrokerintheStaleofMichigan,andhavebeenlicensedasaSaleProfessionalforover10yearsInmyprofessionalopinion,theresidentialrealestatemarketinOaklandandMacombCOUt1t1PSrespondsnegativelytoutilitytowersofanysort-celltowersandtransmissionlirnisspecificallyWorkingwithbuyers,thiscomesupfrequentlyoftenIftowersorlinesarevisiblethebuyerwon’tevengointothehouse,muchtessmakeanoffer.Professionally,IwouldvalueahouselowerIfacelltowerorhighvoltagetransmissionlinewerevisibleorwithin2500feetofthehouse,visIbleornotWhilethenumberdependsonmanyfactors,Iurncomfortablewithanumberof7-10%lowerasageneralruleversusthesamehouseoutsidethatradiusof2500feet.Inadditiontopricing,cellandtransmissiontowersalsoaffecttimeonthemarket-again,inmyprofessionalopinionandexperiencethisproximitycanadd15to40daysonmarket,resultinginadditionalcoststoyou. Belowpleasefindprofessionalcitationsregardingthisissueitisprevalentovertheentirecountry,andanongoingissue.Specifically,pleasenotethattheUSGovernmentthroughHODexplicitlyrequiresthattheappraisalnotewhetherornotatoweriswithinthevicinity.TheJournalofRealEstateFinanceandEconomicsfoundthatforpropertieslocatedwithin072kilometers(2362leetloftheclosestceOtower,propertyvaluesdeclined246%onaverage,andupto918%forhomeswithintowervisibilityrangecomparedtohomesoutsidelowervisibilityrange.“Inaggregate,propertieswithinthe0.72*ilometerbandloseover$24milliondollars.TheUSDepartmentofHousingandUrbanDevelopment(HUD)longconsiderscelltowersas“HazardsandNuisances.TM“WithregardtonewEHAoriginations,theguideprovidesthat“theappraisermustindicatewhetherthedwellingorrelatedpropertyimprovementsarelocatedwithintheeasementservingahighvoltagetransmissionlinerradio/TVtransmissiontower,cellphonelower,microwaverelaydishortower!orsatellitedish,”whichisradio,TVcable.etc.‘ifthedwellingorrelatedpropertyimprovementislocatedwithinsuchaneasement,theDEUnderwritermustobtainaletterfromtheowneroroperatorofthetowerindicatingthatthedwellinganditsrelatedpropertyimprovementsarenotlocatedwithinthetower’sengineeredfaildistanceinordertowaivethisrequirement.”“Ifthedwellingandrelatedpropertyimprovementsarelocatedoutsidetheeasement,thepropertyisconsideredeligibleandnofurtheractionisnecessary.Theappraiser!however,isinstructedtonoteandcommentontheeffectofmarketabilityresultingfromtheproximitytosuchsitehazardsandnuisances.” TheCalitorniaAssociationofRealtors”PropertySellersQuestionnairespecifically“celltowers”listedonthedisclosureformforsellersofrealestate.Thesellermustnote‘ne.igliborhoodnoise,nuisanceorotherproblems1mm..andincludescelltowersandhighvoltagetransmissionlinesonthelonglistproblems.Illcanbeoffurtherassistance,pleasedon’thesitateIcask.JerarniKingBerkshireHathawayHorneServices,KeeRealtyMichiganBrokorLicense#6504431382246-980-)047 PropertyDevaluationDuetoCellPhoneTowersTowerSizeandDegreeofDevaluationManyofthetowersdiscussedinthereferencesbelowarerelativelysmall,andtherefore,theeffectsdescribedinmanyofthesmallcelltowerreferencesbelowaremuchlessthantheeffectsfromhighertowers.Specifically,realestatedevaluationmentionedbelowissometimeslessthan5%,evenaslowas1-2%.ButCampanelliLawfirm,whichspecializesinaddressingcellphonetowers,hasstated(bytelephonecommunicationwiththeauthor)thatpropertyvaluesfromlargertowersdecreases5%-30%.ReductionofDevelopment,notjustSalesandSalesPricesItisimportanttonotethatrealestatedevelopment,includingnewsinglehomeconstructionaswellaslargerareadevelopment,isoftendependentonverysmallfinancialmargins.Even1-2%differenceinmargincanmakethedifferencebetweenadecisiontobuild,andadecisiontoholdoff.Soeven1-2%decreasedpropertyvaluesfromcelltowerscandramaticallyaffectrealestatedevelopmentconstructiondecisions.Iflargetowers’devaluationstartsat5%,celltowershaveverystrongpotentialtobasicallyfreezefurtherrealestatedevelopment,areaandregion-wide—notjustreducedsalesprices.TheLong-Term‘TowerPrison’Italsomustbekeptinmindthatwhereassmallcelltransmitterscanbemovedandremoved,ahugetowerisnotpossibletomove,andde-installationisextremelyunlikely.Whichmeansthatthepotentialrealestatepropertydevaluationisfrozennotjusttemporarily,notjustshortterm,ormid-term,butquitelong-term—possiblyforoveracentury.Asortof‘towerprison’fornearbyrealestatesales—anddevelopment.UniversalityofDevaluationThevarietyofgeographicalareas,andthevarietyofsociologicalanddemographicvariablesrepresentedinthereferencesbelowalsomakeitclearthatpropertydevaluationfromcellphonetowersisvirtuallyuniversallyfound,wheneveritisproperlystudied.Therefore,itisareasonableandsafeassumptionthatpropertyvaluesarelikelytooccurinmostareaswherecelltowersareinstalled,anditisnotnecessaryto‘prove’thatanyparticularorspecificareanearaproposedtowerortowerwouldbeanexception.Thegeneralphenomenonofpropertydevaluationfromcelltowersissufficientlyevidencedtothedegreeofuniversalityneededtoindicatethatpropertyvaluewillprobablydecrease.BurdenofProofInotherwords,basedonthereferencesbelow,theburdenofproofrestsonatelecomcompanytoshowwhypropertydevaluationwouldnotoccur,ratherthanaburdenoffurther proofbeingonamunicipalityoradvocatestoshowhowandwhypropertydevaluationwouldoccur.AreminderthatthefinalchecklistpointoftheFCCforEnvironmentalAssessmentisIftheproposedfacilitiesmayhaveasignificantimpactonthehumanenvironment.https://www.fcc.gov/wjreless/support/antenna-structure-registration-asr-resources/filingenvironmental-assessmentREFERENCESforPROPERTYDEVALUATIONfromCELLTOWERS1.TheUSDepartmentofHousingandUrbanDevelopment(HUD)considerscelltowersas“HazardsandNuisances.”“WithregardtonewFHAoriginations,theguideprovidesthat“theappraisermustindicatewhetherthedwellingorrelatedpropertyimprovementsarelocatedwithintheeasementservingahigh-voltagetransmissionline,radio/TVtransmissiontower,cellphonetower,microwaverelaydishortower,orsatellitedish,”whichisradio,TVcable,etc.“Ifthedwellingorrelatedpropertyimprovementislocatedwithinsuchaneasement,theDEUnderwritermustobtainaletterfromtheowneroroperatorofthetowerindicatingthatthedwellinganditsrelatedpropertyimprovementsarenotlocatedwithinthetower’sengineeredfalldistanceinordertowaivethisrequirement.”‘Ifthedwellingandrelatedpropertyimprovementsarelocatedoutsidetheeasement,thepropertyisconsideredeligibleandnofurtheractionisnecessary.Theappraiser,however,isinstructedtonoteandcommentontheeffectofmarketabilityresultingfromtheproximitytosuchsitehazardsandnuisances.”a.HUDrequiresitscertifiedappraiserstotakethepresenceofnearbycelltowersintoconsiderationwhendeterminingthevalueofasinglefamilyresidentialproperty.b.HUDguidelinescategorizecelltowerswith“hazardsandnuisances.”HUDprohibitsFHAunderwritingofmortgagesforhomesthatarewithintheengineeredfallzoneofacelltower.c.”Theappraisermustindicatewhetherthedwellingorrelatedpropertyimprovementsislocatedwithintheeasementservingahigh-voltagetransmissionline,radio/TVtransmissiontower,cellphonetower,microwaverelaydishortower,orsatellitedish(radio,TVcable,etc).”https://archives.hud.gov/offices/hsg/sfh/ref/sfhl-18f.cfm2.HUDBranchChiefTestimonyUSHouseofRepresentatives WrittenTestimonyofBobbiBorlandActingBranchChief,HUDSantaAnaHomeownershipCenterHearingbeforetheSubcommitteeonInsurance,HousingandCommunityOpportunityU.S.HouseofRepresentativesCommitteeonFinancialServiceson“TheImpactofOverheadHighVoltageTransmissionTowersandLinesonEligibilityforFederalHousingAdministration(FHA)InsuredMortgagePrograms”Saturday,April14,2012WithregardtothenewFHAoriginations,theguideprovidesthat:“Theappraisermustindicatewhetherthedwellingorrelatedpropertyimprovementsarelocatedwithintheeasementservingahigh-voltagetransmissionline,radio/TVtransmissiontower,cellphonetower,microwaverelaydishortower,orsatellitedish(radio,TVcable,etc).”https://financialservices.house.gov/uploadedfiles/hhrg-112-baO4-wstate-bborland20120414.pdf3.TheNationalAssociationofREALTORS®andotherrealestateorganizationsareurgingtheFCCtoheedcautionandensurethatitsproposaltoexpandhigh-speed5Gnetworksnationwidedoesn’tviolatepropertyowners’rights:https://magazine.realtor/daily-news/2019/06/24/nar-fcc-s-5g-plan-could-hurt-property-owners4.“CellTowerAntennasProblematicforBuyers”REALTOR®Magazine:“Increasingnumbersofpeopledon’twanttolivenearcelltowers.Insomeareaswithnewtowers,propertyvalueshavedecreasedbyupto20%.”https://magazine.realtor/daily-news/2014/07/25/cell-towers-antennas-problematic-for-buyers5.Acoalitionofrealestategroups,includingNationalAssociationofRealtors,theNationalMultifamilyHousingCouncil,theNationalApartmentAssociation,andtheInstituteofRealEstateManagement,amongothers,submittedalettertotheFCCexpressingconcernoveritsproposedruleregardingover-the-airreceptiondevices.Thecoalitionsaystherulecouldmakeiteasierforantennasandotherdevicestobeplacedonpropertieswithouttheowners’consent.Thecoalitionflaggedthesepotentialissues:a.Therulecouldallowresidentialorcommercialtenantstoinstalla5Gsmallcellorotherwirelessinfrastructureonabalconyorwithinaleasedspacetoboostindividualcoverageandalsotransmitasignaltoothercustomersofthetelecomprovider.b.Therulecouldallowatelecomcarrierwhoalreadyleasesrooftopspacefromapropertyowner(forantennasorotherequipment)tobeabletoattacha5Gsmallcellorotherwireless infrastructureonthatexistingequipmentwithouthavingtochangetheiragreementwiththepropertyowner.c.”Therealestateassociationsbelievestronglythemarketplaceisworking,andsoweurgetheCommissiontoavoidmeasuresthatcouldprovecounterproductive,andtherebyharminvestment,constraincompetition,andlimitconsumeraccesstobroadbandservice.Wearealsoconcernedthatinopportuneregulationcouldraisethecostofdevelopingmultifamilyhousingandcommercialrealestate.”https://magazine.realtor/daily-news/2019/06/24/nar-fcc-s-5g-plan-could-hurt-property-owners6.94%ofPeopleSaidaNearbyCellTower...WouldNegativelyImpactInterestInAPropertyOrThePrice”AsurveyconductedinJune2014bytheNationalInstituteforScience,LawandPublicPolicy(NISLAPP)inWashington,D.C....showshomebuyersandrentersarelessinterestedinpropertieslocatednearcelltowersandantennas,aswellasinpropertieswhereacelltowerorgroupofantennasareplacedontopoforattachedtoabuilding.And79%saidundernocircumstanceswouldtheyeverpurchaseorrentapropertywithinafewblocksofacelltowerorantennas.Andalmost90%ofrespondentssaidtheywereconcernedabouttheincreasingnumberofcelltowersandantennasintheirresidentialneighborhood,generally.”http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20140703005726/en/Survey-National-Institute-Science-Law-Public-Policyhttps://electromagnetichealth.org/electromagnetic-health-blog/survey-propertydesirability!7.ReductioninTaxAssessmentbyMontgomeryCounty,MD.AppealsBoardforProbableCellTowerThePropertyTaxAssessmentAppealBoardforMontgomeryCounty,MDloweredaRockvillehome’sassessment:“Comparableswarrantareductioninvalue.Probabilityofneighboringcelltoweralsoaffectsvaluenegatively.April2011,reversingdeterminationbytheDepartmentofAssessmentsandTaxation.https://www.scribd.com/document/64222439/Probability-of-neighboring-cell-tower-alsoaffects-valuenegatively 8.WirelessTowersinVisualRange“valuesdeclining...upto9.78%forhomeswithintowervisibilityrangecomparedtohomesoutsidetowervisibilityrange”WirelessTowersandHomeValues:AnAlternativeValuationApproachUsingaSpatialEconometricAnalysis(JournalofRealEstateFinance&Economics,May1,2018):https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313840814_Wireless_Towers_and_Home_Values_An_Alternative_Valuation_Approach_Using_a_Spatial_Econometric_Analysis9.20-25%DevaluationFoundinPeer-ReviewedStudyforHomesNearCellTowersTheAppraisalInstitute,thelargestglobalprofessionalmembershiporganizationforappraiserswith91chaptersthroughouttheworld,spotlightedtheissueofcelltowersandthefairmarketvalueofahomeandeducateditsmembersthatacelltowershould,infact,causeadecreaseinhomevalue.DefinitiveworkonthissubjectwasdonebyDr.SandyBond,whoconcludedthat“mediaattentiontothepotentialhealthhazardsof[cellularphonetowersandantennas]hasspreadconcernsamongthepublic,resultinginincreasedresistance”tositesnearthosetowers.ThreestudiesonpropertydevaluationduetocelltowersbyDr.SandyBond:10.“UsingGlStoMeasuretoMeasuretheImpactofDistancetoCellPhoneTowersonHousePricesinFlorida”bySandyBond,AppraisalJournal,Fall2007:http://www.prres.net/papers/BondSquiresUsingGIStoMeasure.pdf11.“TheImpactofCellPhoneTowersonHousePricesinResidentialNeighborhoods”bySandyBond,PhD,andKo-KangWang.Apeer-reviewedstudyfoundhomesnearcellphonetowersweredevalued20%to25%:https://www.emfanalysis.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/lmpact-of-CeIl-Towers-on-House-Prices.pdf12.“CellularPhoneTowers:PerceivedImpactonResidentsandPropertyValues”UniversityofAuckland,paperpresentedattheNinthPacific-RimRealEstateSocietyConference,Brisbane,Australia,January19-22,2003http://www.prres.net/Papers/BondTheImpactOfCellularPhoneBaseStationTowersOnPropertyValues.pdf13.Future5GMMWavesMayRequireCuttingDownTreesinYards—ReducesValueBySeveralThousandDollars https://www.greenblue.com/na/how-trees-increase-property-values/IfthistowerevertransmittedMMwavesinthefuture,thattransmissionwould,undercurrent5GMMwavecapability,requiredirect“lineofsight”fromthe,transmittertoeachhouse.Sohundredsorthousandsoftreeswouldneedmajorbranchesremovedorcuttingdown.14.NASAscientistsellshomeof25yearsinPiedmont,CA(wealthysuburbofSanFrancisco)becausecitycouncilapprovesaDAScelltowernearhishome:http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/11/15/east-bay-homeowners-challenge-proposed-cellphone-towers/15.“Morethan50%ofpeoplewouldnotbuyahouseneara5Gtower”https://www.standard.net.au/storv/7066248/one-in-four-believe-5g-poses-health-risk/16.WLWTMajorMetroTVNewsVideo,#13onthispage:https://www.emfanalysis.com/property-values-declining-cell-towers/checkallthese:https://scientists4wiredtech.com/2019/01/proposed-4g-and-5g-wtfs-lower-property-values!andthese:https://scientists4wiredtech.com/what-are-4g-5g/cell-tower-installation-plans-lower-property-values!17.MontgomeryCounty,MDGovernmentStatesCellTowersNearHomesDecreasePropertyValuesInafilinginalawsuitagainsttheFederalCommunicationsCommission,MontgomeryCounty,Marylandsaidthroughitsexpertsthat“...theplacementofsmallcells—dependingontheirsizeandvisibility—mayaffectneighboringpropertyvalues....evenassmallreductioninvalueofhomesinaneighborhoodmayhaveamulti-milliondollareffect.”Experttestimonystatesthat“studieshaveconcludedthatavisibleantennaupto1,000feetawayresultsinpropertyvaluereductionof1.82%foraresidentialhomeor$3,342inthemarketstudied.”“CommentsofSmartCommunitiesSitingCoalition”(ofwhichMontgomeryCountyisone)beforetheFCC.March8,2017.“StreamliningDeploymentofSmallCellInfrastructurebyImprovingWirelessFacilities/WTDocketNo.16-421)”SeeExhibit3.https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/cable/Resources/Files/Towers/documents/Mobilitie%20Comments%20-%2OSMART%2OCOMMUNITIES%2OSITING%2OCOALITION%20(2017).pdf 18.IndustryCanada(CanadiangovernmentdepartmentpromotingCanadianeconomy),“ReportOntheNationalAntennaTowerPolicyReview,SectionD—TheSixPolicyQuestions,Question6.Whatevidenceexiststhatpropertyvaluesareimpactedbytheplacementofantennatowers?”http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf08353.htmlwebsite19.NewZealandMinistryfortheEnvironment,“Appendix5:TheImpactofCellphoneTowersonPropertyValues”;seeattached.Source:NewZealandMinistryfortheEnvironmentwebsite,http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/rma/nes-telecommunications-section32-augo8/html/pagel2.html20.NewYorkTimes,September7,2000“TheFutureisHere,andIt’sUgly:aSpreadingofTechno-blightofWires,CablesandTowersSparksaRevolt”https://www.nvtimes.com/2000/09/07/technology/future-here-it-s-ugly-spreading-techno-blight-wires-cables-towers-sparks-revolt.html21.NYTimesRealEstatesectionarticleAug.29,2010“APushbackAgainstCellTowers,”onhowrealtorshaveahardtimesellinghomesnexttocelltowers:“Iftheyhavetheopportunitytobuyanotherhome,theydo.”Shesaidcellantennasandtowersnearhomesaffectedpropertyvalues,adding,“Youcanseeabuyer’sdismayoverthesightofacelltowernearahomejustbytheirexpression,eveniftheydon’tsayanything.”http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/reaIestate/29Lizo.html22.NYTimesAug.29,2010(sameday)ondecreasingpropertyvaluesfromcelltowers:http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/realestate/29Lizo.html?r=2&ref=realestate26.“CellTowersAreSproutinginUnlikelyPlaces,”TheNewYorkTimes,January9,2000(fearsthatpropertyvaluescoulddropbetween5and40percentbecauseofneighboringcelltowers)23.NYTimesAug.30,2016:PaloAlto,CA5Gtowers,includingpropertydevaluation:https://www.nvtimes.com/2016/08/30/us/spotty-cell-reception-in-the-heart-of-silicon-valley.html24.NationalAssociationofRealtorsonPropertyDevaluationDuetoCellPhoneTowers: http://www.realtor.org/field-guides/field-guide-to-ceII-phone-towers25.NobPressarticlenotingsuccessfullitigationagainstcellphonetowerinstallationsrelatedtodecliningpropertyvalues:http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/emf-radiofreguency-exposure-from-cell-32210-2.html26.Pressarticlesfromaroundthecountryrelatedtodecliningpropertyvaluesaroundcelltowers:https://sites.google.com/site/nocelltowerinourneighborhood/home/decreased-real-estatevalue27.Glendale,CA:DuringtheJanuary7,2009GlendaleCityCouncilpublichearingaboutaproposedT-mobilecelltowerinaresidentialneighborhood,localrealestateprofessionalAddoraBealldescribedhowaSpanishhomeintheVerdugoWoodlands,listedfor1milliondollars,sold$25,000lessbecauseofapowerpoleacrossthestreet.“Perceptioniseverything,”saidMs.Beallstated.“Itthepublicperceivesittobeaproblem,thenitisaproblem.Itreallydoesaffectpropertyvalues.”SeeGlendaleCityCouncilmeeting,January7,2009,videoofAddoraBeallcomments@2:35:24:http://glendale.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?viewid=12&clipid=122728.WindsorHills/ViewPark,CA:residentswhowerefightingoffaT-Mobileantennaintheirneighborhoodreceivedlettersfromrealestatecompanies,homeownerassociationsandresidentorganizationsintheircommunityconfirmingthatrealestatevalueswoulddecreasewithacellphoneantennaintheirneighborhood.Toseecopiesoftheirletterstocityofficials,lookatthe.ReportfromLosAngelesCountyRegionalPlanningCommissionregardingCUPCaseNo.200700020-(2),fromL.A.CountyBoardofSupervisorsSeptember16,2009,Meetingdocuments,LosAngelesCountywebsite:http://file.Iacounty.gov/bos/supdocs/48444.pdfa.Seepage295,August31,2008LetterfromDonnaBohanna,President/RealtorofSolsticeInternationalRealtyandresidentofBaldwinHillstoLosAngelesBoardofSupervisorsexplainingnegativeeffectofcelltoweronpropertyvaluesofsurroundingproperties.“Asarealtor,Imustdisclosetopotentialbuyerswherethereareanycelltowersnearby.Ihavefoundinmyownexperiencethatthereisaveryrealstigmaandcellularfacilitiesnearhomesareperceivedasundesirable.” b.Seepage296,March26,2008LetterfromrealestateprofessionalBeverlyClark,“Thosewhowouldotherwisepurchaseahome,nowconsidereddesirable,canbedeterredbyafacilityliketheoneproposedandthissignificantlyreducessalespricesanddoessoimmediately...lbelieveafacilitysuchastheoneproposedwilldiminishthebuyerpool,significantlyreducehomessalesprices,alterthecharacterofthesurroundingareaandimpairtheuseoftheresidentialpropertiesfortheirprimaryuses.”c.SeePage298,TheAppraiserSquadCommentAddendum,aboutthereducedvalueofahomeofresidentdirectlybehindtheproposedinstallationafterthecityhadapprovedtheCUPforawirelessfacilitythere:“Thepropertyownerhaslistedtheproperty...andhashadapotentialbuyerbackoutofthedealoncethisparticularinformationofthesatellitecommunicationcenterwasannounced....therehasbeenacanceledpotentialsalethereforeitisrelevantanddeterminedthatthisnewplanningdecisioncanhavesomenegativeeffectonthesubjectproperty.”d.SeePage301,PowerPowerpresentationbyresidentsaboutrealestatevalues:“TheCaliforniaAssociationofRealtorsmaintainsthat‘sellersandlicenseesmustdisclosematerialfactsthataffectthevalueordesirabilityoftheproperty,’including‘knownconditionsoutsideofandsurrounding’it.Thisincludes‘nuisances’andzoningchangesthatallowforcommercialuses.”e.SeePages302-305fromtheBaldwinHillsEstatesHomeownersAssociation,theUnitedHomeownersAssociation,andtheWindsorHillsBlockClub,opposingtheproposedcelltowerandaddressingtheeffectsonhomesthere:“Manyresidentsarepreparedtosellinanalreadydepressedmarketor,inthecaseofonenewresidentwithlittletonoequity,simplywalkawayiftheseantennasareinstalled.f.SeePages362-363,September17,2008,LetterfromresidentSallyHampton,oftheWindsorHillsHomeowner’sAssoc.,ItemK,addressingeffectsoftheproposedfacilityonrealestatevalues.29.SantaCruz,CA:Apreschoolclosedupbecauseofacelltowerinstalledonitsgrounds;“SantaCruzPreschoolClosesCitingCellTowerRadiation,”SantaCruzSentinel,May17,2006;Source,EMFacts:http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/?p=466.30.Merrick,NY:NextGwirelessfacilitiesinstallationresultedindeclininghomerealestatevalues.SeeBestBuyersBrokersRealtywebsiteadfromthisarea,“ResidentsofMerrick,SeafordandWantaughComplainOverPerceivedDecliningPropertyValues:http://www.bestbuyerbroker.com/blog/?p=86. 31.Burbank,CA:CityCouncilpublichearingonDecember8,2009:hillsideresidentandaCalifornialicensedrealestateprofessionalAlexSafarianinformedcityofficialsthatlocalrealestateprofessionalshespokewithagreeabouttheadverseeffectstheproposedcelltowerwouldhaveonpropertyvalues:‘I’vedoneresearchonthesubjectaswellasspokentomanyrealestateprofessionalsinthearea,andtheyallagreethatthere’snodoubtthatcelltowersnegativelyaffectrealestatevalues.SteveHovakimian,aresidentnearBracepark,andaCaliforniarealestatebroker,andthepublisherofHomebyDesignmonthlyrealestatemagazine,statedthathehasseenpropertiesnearcelltowersloseupto10%oftheirvalueduetoproximityofthecelltower...50eveniftheytrytodisguisethemastackyfakemetalpinetrees,asarealestateprofessionalyou’rerequiredbytheCaliforniaAssociationofRealtors:thatsellersandlicenseesmustdisclosematerialfactsthataffectthevalueordesirabilityofapropertyincludingconditionsthatareknownoutsideandsurroundingareas.”SeeCityofBurbankWebsite,Video,AlexSafariancomments@6:24:28:http://burbank.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?viewid=6&clipid=848)32.27Burbankrealestateprofessionals,inDecember2009,signedapetition/statementofferingtheirprofessionalopinionthattheproposedT-MobilecelltoweratBraceCanyonParkwouldnegativelyimpactthesurroundinghomes,stating:“Itisourprofessionalopinionthatcelltowersdecreasethevalueofhomesintheareatremendously.Peerreviewedresearchalsoconcursthatcellsitesdoindeedcauseadecreaseinhomevalue.WeencourageyoutorespectthewishesoftheresidentsanddenytheproposedT-Mobileleaseatthislocation.WealsorequestthatyoustrengthenyourzoningordinanceregardingwirelessfacilitiesliketheneighboringcityofGlendalehasdone,tocreatepreferredandnon-preferredzonesthatwillprotectthewelfareofourresidentsandtheirpropertiesaswellasBurbank’srealestatebusinessprofessionalsandtheCityofBurbank.Higherpropertyvaluesmeanmoretaxrevenueforthecity,whichhelpsimproveourcity.”(SubmittedtoCityCouncil,PlanningBoard,CityManager,CityClerkandothercityofficialsviae-mailonJune18,2010:http://sites.google.com/site/nocelltowerinourneighborhood/home/decreased-real-estatevalue/burbank-real-estate-professionals-statement)33.TheObserver(U.K.)“Phonemastsblighthousesales:HealthfearsarealarmingbuyersasmastsspreadacrossBritaintomeetrisingdemandformobiles,”SundayMay25,2003http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2003/may/25/houseprices.uknews34.ChicagoTribune,January18,2000“QuarreloverPhoneTowerNowCourt’sCall,”(fearofloweredpropertyvaluesduetocelltower) http://cingari.in/carbon-brush-hbsre/rogers-celI-towers.html35.Barrington[Illinois]Courier-Review,February15,1999“TowerOpponentsRingUpaVictory,”CubaTownshipassessorreducedthevalueoftwelvehomesfollowingtheconstructionofacelltowerinLakeCounty,IL.http://spot.colorado.edu/”maziara/appeal&attachments/Newton-43-LoweredPropertyValuation/36.$1.2millionawardedtoacouplebecausea100-foot-tallcelltowerwasdeterminedtohavelessenedthevalueoftheirpropertyandcausedthemmentalanguish:“GTEWirelessLosesLawsuitoverCell-PhoneTower,”HoustonChronicle,February23,1999,SectionA,page11.https://sites.google.com/site/nocelltowerinourneighborhood/home/decreased-real-estatevalue?tmpl=%2Fsystem%2Fapp%2Ftemplates%2Fprint%2F&showPrintDialog=137.AnneArundelBoardofEducationCellTowerPublicComment“Researchindicatesthatover90%ofhomebuyersandrentersarelessinterestedinpropertiesnearcelltowersandwouldpaylessforapropertyinclosevicinitytocellularantennas.”https://ehtrust.org/cell-phone-towers-lower-property-values-documentation-research/38.TheImpactofOverheadHighVoltageTransmissionTowers...onEligibilityForFederalHousingAdministration(FHA)InsuredMortgagePrograms,CommitteeonFinancialServicesU.S.HouseofRepresentatives(Idonotknowifcelltowersarehighvoltage).https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-ll2hhrg75087/html/CHRG-112hhrg75087.htm39.Mostpeopleareunawarethatonceatowerisbuilt,itcangoupto20feethigherwithnopublicprocess.Inotherwords,a100foottowercanbeincreasedto120feetafteritisconstructedandthecommunitywillhavenoinput.MiddleClassTaxReliefandJobCreationActof2012,Sec.6409(a)TheFCChasproposedandiscurrentlyconsideringrulestoclarifyandimplementtherequirementsofSection6409(a)oftheMiddleClassTaxReliefandJobCreationActof2012.Undersection6409(a),“aStateorlocalgovernmentmaynotdeny,andshallapprove,anyeligiblefacilitiesrequestforamodificationofanexistingwirelesstowerorbasestationthatdoesnotsubstantiallychangethephysicaldimensionsofsuchtowerorbasestation.”TheFCCconsiderseligiblefacilities’requeststoincluderequestsforcarrierco-locationsandfor replacingexistingantennasandgroundequipmentwithlargerantennas/equipmentormoreantennas/equipment.TheFCChasproposed,aspartoftheserules,applyingafour-prongedtest,whichcouldleadtocelltowersincreasinginheightby20-plusfeetbeyondtheirapprovedconstructionheights.Applyingthetestmayalsoleadincreasesinthesizesofcompounds,equipmentcabinetsandshelters,andhazardousmaterialsusedforback-uppowersupplies,beyondwhatwasoriginallyapproved.Underthistest,a“substantialincreaseinthesizeofthetower”occursif:1)[t]hemountingoftheproposedantennaonthetowerwouldincreasetheexistingheightofthetowerbymorethan10%,orbytheheightofoneadditionalantennaarraywithseparationfromthenearestexistingantennanottoexceedtwentyfeet,whicheverisgreater,exceptthatthemountingoftheproposedantennamayexceedthesizelimitssetforthinthisparagraphifnecessarytoavoidinterferencewithexistingantennas;or2)[t]hemountingoftheproposedantennawouldinvolvetheinstallationofmorethanthestandardnumberofnewequipmentcabinetsforthetechnologyinvolved,nottoexceedfour,ormorethanonenewequipmentshelter;or3)[t]hemountingoftheproposedantennawouldinvolveaddinganappurtenancetothebodyofthetowerthatwouldprotrudefromtheedgeofthetowermorethantwentyfeet,ormorethanthewidthofthetowerstructureattheleveloftheappurtenance,whicheverisgreater,exceptthatthemountingoftheproposedantennamayexceedthesizelimitssetforthinthisparagraphifnecessarytosheltertheantennafrominclementweatherortoconnecttheantennatothetowerviacable;or4)[t]hemountingoftheproposedantennawouldinvolveexcavationoutsidethecurrenttowersite,definedasthecurrentboundariesoftheleasedorownedpropertysurroundingthetowerandanyaccessorutilityeasementscurrentlyrelatedtothesite,https://www.congress.gov/112/plaws/pubIg6/PLAW-112pub196.pdfhttps://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7521070994.pdf40.TheCaliforniaAssociationofRealtors’PropertySellersQuestionnairelists“celltowers”onthedisclosureformforsellersofrealestate.Thesellermustnote“neighborhoodnoise,nuisanceorotherproblemsfrom...”andincludescelltowersonthelonglistproblems.https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/Real-Estate-Seller-Propertv-Questionaire-reduced12-17-1.pdf41.“WirelessTowersandHomeValues:AnAlternativeValuationApproachUsingaSpatialEconometricAnalysis”(JournalofRealEstateFinance&Economics,May1,2018)Forpropertieslocatedwithin0.72kilometersoftheclosesttower,resultsrevealsignificantsocialwelfarecostswithvaluesdeclining2.46%onaverage,andupto9.78%forhomeswithintowervisibilityrangecomparedtohomesoutsidetowervisibilityrange;inaggregate,propertieswithinthe0.72-kilometerbandloseover$24milliondollars(‘lmpactof CommunicationTowersandEquipmentonNearbyPropertyValues”preparedbyBurgoyneAppraisalCompany,March7,2017)https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/Cell-Towers-Home-Values.pdf42.”ln32yearsofexperienceasaRealEstateAppraiserspecializingindetrimentalconditions,takings,adverseimpactsandright-of-way,Ihavefoundthataesthetics(orrathertheadverseimpactonaesthetics)ofexternalitiesroutinelyhasthelargestimpactonpropertyvalues.Asaresult,proximitytotowersofalltypes(cell,windturbine,andelectrictransmission)hasanimpactonpropertyvalues.Thesameistruewithallsortsofsurfaceinstallationssuchaspumpstationsandcommunicationequipmentboxes.ThiswouldapplytonewsmallcellandDASequipment,althoughagain,onewouldexpectthatthelessintrusivethefacility,thelesssignificanttheimpact.SmallcellandDASinstallationscanbeunsightly,bulky,inconsistent,andevennoisy.”“TheCostofConvenience:EstimatingtheImpactofCommunicationAntennasonResidentialPropertyValues”(LandEconomics,Feb.2016)https://gattonweb.uky.edu/Facultv/blomquist/LE%202016%2oLocke%2oBlomquist%2otowers.pdf43.“TheLoDownonCellTowers,NeighborhoodValues,andtheSecretiveTelecoms”“Thebestestimateoftheimpactisthatapropertywithavisibleantennalocated1,000feetawaysellsfor1.82%($3,342)lessthanasimilarpropertylocated4,500feetaway.Theaggregateimpactis$10.0millionforpropertieslocatedwithin1,000feet”https://dissidentvoice.org/2015/12/the-lo-down-on-cell-towers-neighborhood-values-and-the-secretive-telecoms/44.“FakeMetalTrees”“Despitetheobviousadvantagesofcelltowersforcommunication,they’reacommonsourceoftensionforlocalcommunities.Here’swhy.”https://tedium.co/2015/08/04/celI-towers-nimby-trees/45.“ExamininginvisibleurbanpollutionanditseffectonrealestatevalueinNewYorkCity”“UnderstandingEMFvaluesofbusinessandresidentiallocationsisrelativelynewfortherealestateindustry.Cellphonetowersbringextrataxrevenueandbetterreceptiontoasection ofthecity,butmanyareskepticalbecauseofpotentialhealthrisksandtheimpactonpropertyvalues.Increasingnumbersofpeopledon’twanttolivenearcelltowers.Insomeareaswithnewtowers,propertyvalueshavedecreasedbyupto20%.”https://nyrej.com/examining-invisible-urban-pollution-and-its-effect-on-real-estate-value-innew-york-city-by-william-gati46.BestBestandKriegerLettertoMs.MarleneH.Dortch,SecretaryFCCSeptember19,2018“RE”SmartCommunitiesandSpecialDistrictsCoalition—ExParteSubmission:AcceleratingWirelessBroadbandDeploymentbyRemovingBarrierstoInfrastructureInvestment,WTDocketNo.17-79;AcceleratingWirelineBroadbandDeploymentbyRemovingBarrierstoInfrastructureInvestment,WCDocketNo.17-84”“Further,theassumptionthatthereislittletoconsiderinasmallcellapplicationisbeliedbythedefinitiontheCommissionadoptsfor“smallwirelessfacility”:whileitjustifiesitsrulesbasedontheassumptionthatmanysmallcellsarethesizeofapizzabox,apizzaboxisabout1/2cu.ft.insize,whiletheCommissionproposestoexpeditepermittingofequipmentcabinets28Cu.ft.insize—astackof56pizzaboxes—onfrontlawnsthroughouttheCountry.ConsideringthattheSmartCommunities’priorfilingsshowthattheadditionoffacilitiesofthissizediminishpropertyvalues,itisstrangefortheCommissiontoassumethatapprovalcanbegrantedintheregulatoryblinkofaneye.”“AgoodexampleliesintheCommission’sdiscussionofundergrounding.62TheCommissionatonceappearstorecognizethatcommunitiesspendmillionsofdollarsonundergroundingprojects,andthatallowingpolestogoupinareaswherepoleshavebeentakedownhassignificantimpactsonaesthetics(nottomentionpropertyvalues).”https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/cable/Resources/Files/Towers/cellTowerlnfo/Ex%2OParte-Smart%20Communities%20and%20Special%20Districst%2009-19-18-c2%20(1).pdfThefactthefollowingisfromIndiadoesnotmeanitisirrelevanttoJeffersonCounty,IA.Itindicatestheuniversality,andthereforedepthoftheprinciplethatcelltowersdecreasepropertyvalues.47.TheTimesofIndia:“Propertyhitwheresignalmastsrise”July2012“Propertydealersacrossthecitysaythatbuildingswhichhostmobilephonetowershave10-20%lessmarketvalue.“Forgetbuyingtheseproperties,peopledon’twanttotakethemonrenteven,particularlywhentheyhaveachoice.Ifapersonisgoingtoinvestcrores,whywouldhebuyaproperty withatower?”asksPal.AccordingtoLKThakkar,aDefenceColony-basedpropertydealer,whilethecostofthebuildingwhichhasthetowerisrelativelyless,otherbuildingsinthevicinityalsogetaffected.“Noonewantstobuyahousewithin100metresofthebuildingwhichhasthetower.Theratesforsuchpropertiesdropby10-20%,andsometimesevenmore,”saidThakkar,co-ownerofA-OneAssociates.”48.PennsylvaniaAssociationofRealtors:“DoNeighborhoodCellTowersImpactPropertyValues?”https://www.parealtors.org/cell-towers-impact-property-values/49.TMobileHearing:Appraiser:“CellTowersWillAffectPropertyValues”https://patch.com/new-jersey/bridgewater/appraiser-t-mobile-ceIl-tower-wilI-affectproperty-values50.FloridaStateUniversityLawReview:“ThePowerLineDilemma:CompensationforDiminishedPropertyValueCausedbyFearofElectromagneticFields”https://ir.Iaw.fsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1427&context=lr51.NewZealandMinistryoftheEnvironment:“TheImpactofCellPhoneTowersonPropertyValues”https://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/rma/nes-telecommunications-section32-augo8/html/pagel2.html#footnote-2452.Towers,TurbinesandTransmissionLines:ImpactsonPropertyValue(Book)Bond,Sims,Dent:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/978111853321553.HUDBranchChiefTestimonyUSHouseofRepresentativesWrittenTestimonyofBobbiBorlandActingBranchChief,HUDSantaAnaHomeownershipCenterHearingbeforetheSubcommitteeonInsurance,HousingandCommunityOpportunityU.S.HouseofRepresentativesCommitteeonFinancialServiceson“TheImpactofOverheadHighVoltageTransmissionTowersandLinesonEligibilityforFederalHousingAdministration(FHA)InsuredMortgagePrograms”Saturday,April14,2012WithregardtothenewFHAoriginations,theguideprovidesthat:“Theappraisermustindicatewhetherthedwellingorrelatedpropertyimprovementsarelocatedwithintheeasementservingahigh-voltagetransmissionline,radio/TVtransmissiontower,cellphonetower,microwaverelaydishortower,orsatellitedish(radio,TVcable,etc).” https://financialservices.house.gov/uploadedfiles/hhrg-112-baO4-wstate-bborland20120414.pdf54.“CellTowersonSchoolsNearHomesLowerPropertyValues”PGCPSBoardofEducationHearingVideo#2:https://ehtrust.org/cell-phone-towers-lower-property-values-documentation-research/55.WLWTTV“Homeownersspeakoutagainstplanstobuild2cellphonetOwers”Video#3:https://ehtrust.org/cell-phone-towers-lower-property-values-documentationresearch!56.TownshipTrusteeFightsCellTowerConstruction:Video#4:https://ehtrust.or/ce11-phone-towers-1ower-property-va1ues-documentation-rcsearch/ Law Office of Robert J. Berg PLLC 19 Carriage House Lane Mamaroneck, New York 10543 (914) 522-9455 robertbergesq@aol.com October 28, 2024 Members of the Planning Board Fred Wilcox, Chair Caitlin Cameron, Vice Chair William Arms Elizabeth Bageant Cindy Kaufman Sara Reynolds Gary Stewart Alternate member, Kelda McGurk Town of Ithaca 215 N. Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Attention: Christine Balestra, Senior Planner (cbalestra@town.ithaca.ny.us) Re: Bell Atlantic Mobile Systems, LLC, d/b/a Verizon Wireless - Application for Cell Tower Special Use Permit and Site Plan Approval on Property Located at 111 Wiedmaier Court (Tax Parcel No. 56.-4.1.22) in the Town of Ithaca ("Sunny View" Site) Dear Chairman Wilcox and Honorable Members of the Town of Ithaca Planning Commission: Introduction I am the attorney for Ithacans for Responsible Technology and certain Town of Ithaca residents and property owners, most of whom live in close proximity to 111 Wiedmaier Court, the so-called "Sunny View" site on which Bell Atlantic Mobile Systems, LLC, d/b/a Verizon Wireless ("Verizon"), proposes to construct and operate a 138-foot tall monopole cell tower (including a four-foot tall lightening rod, nine associated antennas and equipment) in a proposed 50 foot by 50 foot compound. This site is on a private lot owned by S Roberts WC Land LLC. This lot is located in a Medium Density Residential ("MDR") and Conservation ("C") zone. I have been retained to assist my clients in challenging Verizon Wireless' application. My clients are not opposed to cell towers generally speaking. Rather, they are opposed to the irresponsible siting of a tall, unsightly, uncamouflaged industrial cell tower immediately adjacent (400 feet) to a developed residential neighborhood in a conservation zone such as 2 Verizon is proposing. My letter demonstrates that Verizon has utterly failed to meet its burden of proof under the Section 270-219 of the Town Code, supported by controlling federal case law in the Second Circuit, that requires an applicant for a special use permit for a macro cell tower on private property to (a) establish a significant gap in coverage in its wireless network in the area where it proposes to site the cell tower; and (b) show that its proposed solution is the least intrusive technologically feasible means of solving the demonstrated significant gap in coverage. In summary, I show that Verizon's attorney misleadingly sets up a "straw man" "public necessity" test for this Planning Board to consider when that test only applies to a Zoning Board of Appeals' determination of an application for a "use variance," an iss ue which is outside of the Planning Board's statutory authority and is not even at issue in Verizon's application. Moreover, I explain that Verizon's RF expert fails to answer meaningfully the Planning Board's request that Verizon analyze whether two shorter cell towers or other technology could "solve" Verizon's purported significant coverage gap in place of Verizon's proposed single 138 -foot tall cell tower at the Sunny View site. Finally, I illustrate one example of Verizon's failure to meet its burden of proof in establishing that its application meets the criteria for site plan approval and issuance of a special use permit under Section 270-219 of the Town Code -- I demonstrate that Verizon's alternative site analysis is based upon a flawed, gerrymandered search area and a wholly unexplained 1,000' AMSL maximum elevation restriction, and Verizon has rejected the four alternative sites located therein without providing any detailed RF analysis for any of those sites. In particular, my clients have asked me to reply to the Response to Planning Board Comment 2 set forth in the letter from Jared C. Lusk, Esq., of the law firm Nixon Peabody, dated October 22, 2024, to the Planning Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals on behalf of his client Verizon. At the Planning Board's October 1, 2024 meeting on this application, the Planning Board issued two comments to Verizon, and requested that Verizon provide the Board with responses to those comments. Planning Board Comment 2 s tated: Please analyze whether reliable service to the Sunny View coverage area can be accomplished through two (2) shorter, less visible towers rather than the single 134' tower as proposed or other technology. In his October 22, 2024 letter, Mr. Lusk responds to Planning Board Comment 2 by referring to Exhibit GG, a supplemental report from Verizon's RF design engineer, which Mr. Lusk contends shows that neither two shorter cell towers nor the use of small cells are feasible to provide reliable coverage to the Sunny View coverage area. That response, whatever its merits, doesn't fully answer the question posed by the Planning Board. The Planning Board actually asks a broader question -- whether any "other technology" or two shorter cell towers can provide reliable service to the Sunny View coverage area rather than the proposed 134 -foot tall cell tower (plus the four-foot high lightning rod). "Other technology" does exist, including the use of small cell wireless communications facilities. Indeed, in his Preliminary Report, dated September 20, 2024, William P. Johnson, the Town's independent RF Engineering Consultant, addressed the variety "of other approaches to deliver wireless communications that could avoid tall towers in a given area." See Johnson Preliminary Report at Appendix G. Among these "other" technologies, Mr. Johnson discusses Distributed Antenna Systems ("DAS"), micro cells, and 3 satellite-based systems. The use of these "other" technologies, especially small cell wireless facilities attached to existing utility poles in the public right of way or on existing buildings, are growing wildly. Elon Musk's satellite-based Starlink communications network is expanding explosively and is revolutionizing wireless communications in rural and remote regions. Tall, ugly, visually intrusive industrial cell towers are fast becoming albatrosses as rapidly developing less intrusive and effective technologies are being deployed. Verizon's RF designer fails to address the usability of such technologies, perhaps in conjunction with one or more shorter cell towers, to "solve" Verizon's purported "coverage gap." Turning to Verizon's Exhibit GG, the Supplemental Report, dated October 21, 2024, submitted by Wasif Sharif, Verizon's RF Design Engineer, the report utterly fails to live up to Mr. Lusk's billing. Mr. Sharif's analysis is entirely general and conclusory. He provides no specific analysis of any alternative technological means to provide similar RF coverage to the area purportedly to be served by Verizon's proposed 134-foot tall monopole cell tower at the Sunny View site. Notably, Mr. Sharif fails to model any scenarios using "two (2) shorter, less visible towers rather than the single 134' tower as proposed...," despite the Planning Board's request for such an analysis. Instead, Mr. Sharif summarily dismisses the Planning Board's perfectly reasonable request, stating: "When compared with a small cell site alternative (or a cluster of smaller cell sites) in a rural area like this which is subject to significant terrain, large geographic coverage area, and laced with foliage challenges the small cell coverage capability is unsuitable. Small cells or smaller macro tower sites would be blocked (shadowed) by terrain and foliage rendering them ineffective." That's a couple of conclusory statements. Mr. Sharif provides no detailed engineering or topographic analysis at all. Mr. Sharif performs no modeling of any possible small cell antenna deployments or of any other existing technologies. Verizon simply fails to answer the Board's question. Moreover, the RF engineer's thesis is actually implausible. I respectfully refer the Planning Board Members to Google Maps and ask that you take a look at the Sunny View site. Oddly, Verizon's selected site, the Sunny View site, sits at an elevation of only 824.4 feet AMSL (above mean sea level). Though Verizon touts the need for the tallest possible tower to close its purported network coverage gap (seeking the widest line of sight covereage), perhaps the chief problem is that Verizon has selected a site that is 400 feet lower in elevation than nearby sites north of Slaterville Road (Route 79) on the Eastern Heights or off of Snyder Hill Road. These sites, just a couple of thousand feet away from the Sunny View site, would offer Verizon tremendously enhanced line-of-sight coverage and would avoid the problematic, topographically challenged steep cliffs and gorges from the Ithaca Reservoir northwest to the Second Dam and towards Wells Falls. It's hard to believe that a cell tower at the Sunny View site will provide adequate coverage deep down by the creek bed in the twisty gorge leading to the reservoir. For some reason, as I discuss below, Verizon's RF engineer has artificially constrained the maximum AMSL elevation for the tower at 1,000'. There appears to be no Town Code requirement for 4 such an elevation limitation, and the Verizon RF engineer provides no explanation whatsoever -- which is highly suspicious. Moreover, looking at the satellite image of the area on Google Maps, one sees a vast higher elevation area north of Slaterville Road (Route 79) up to Snyder Hill Road which is mostly undeveloped forest or rural land. There is no developed residential neighborhood on those vast parcels. Further, the Finger Lakes Stone Quarry, an industrial mining site, at an elevation of 1,200 feet, is present. What a perfect site for a cell tower! -- an existing industrial quarry at an elevation four hundred feet higher than the Sunny View site. Given the rural nature of the area -- and the paucity of residential properties in the area (other than the development immediately adjacent to the Sunny View site) -- the need for a macro cell tower at the Sunny View site seems dubious. The likely major need for better cell coverage in this area is for drivers on the two main roads -- Route 79 and Snyder Hill Road. The forests and fields in the area don't have much need for expanded cell phone coverage. This strikes me as the perfect situation for using a series of small cell wireless antennas attached to existing utility poles alongside the two main roads. That "solution" would provide fine cell coverage for drivers on these roads and to the few residences that exist close to those roads. Of course, Mr. Sharif never models such a solution. Mr. Sharif's summary conclusions, with no actual modeling of any other possible technologically feasible but less intrusive "solutions" to Verizon's putative coverage gap, are grossly inadequate to meet Verizon's burden of proof on this Application. Respe ctfully, this Planning Board should have its independent RF expert, Mr. Johnson, opine on this point. Verizon Misstates the Legal Framework Underlying the Planning Board's Consideration of the Application A General Warning to the Planning Board In the second part of Mr. Lusk's response to Planning Board Comment 2, he provides a highly misleading analysis of the applicable law which he contends governs the Planning Board's review of Verizon's permit application. Before I address Mr. Lusk's analysis, I respectfully offer the Planning Board the following comments. I represent clients across the country who are trying to protect their families, businesses, and communities from the uncontrolled and unsafe deployment of wireless communications facilities within their municipalities. The wireless industry is insatiable in its quest to blanket the entire nation in an endless, willy -nilly sprawl of cell towers and small cell facilities, and is deaf to the concerns of the residents who live and work near the industry's desired wireless communications facility sites . According to statistics published by the Wireless Infrastructure Association on April 16, 2024, at the end of 2023, 153,400 purpose-built macro cell towers were in operation in the United States. There were 244,800 macrocell sites, and 202,100 outdoor small cells in 5 operation, with 775,800 indoor small cell nodes in use. Verizon, as the largest wireless carrier, is one of the worst offenders I come across when it comes to the irresponsible siting of cell towers. Verizon simply doesn’t care what disruption its facilities cause to your community – the degradation of views, the destruction of property values, the desecration of neighborhood character, and the public safety dangers its towers pose to nearby persons and property from icefall, falling debris, fire, and tower collapse. You have been appointed to the Planning Board to safeguard the lives and properties of your fellow residents and to protect the future of your Town from development that is inconsistent with the Town’s Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code. Your responsibilities under Section 270 of the Town Code to oversee development in the Town and to ensure that the Comprehensive Town Plan and Zoning Code are followed with respect to development projects are very broad and important. Residents of the Town are fortunate that the Town Board had the wisdom and foresight to enact a comprehensive wireless telecommunications code within the Town Code that encourages -- yet responsibly regulates -- the placement, design, and construction of wireless communications facilities within the Town of Ithaca, fully consistent with the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the "TCA") and State and federal law. See Section 270-219. Personal wireless service facilities. As Members of the Planning Board, you have the critical duty and responsibility to ensure that Verizon has met its burden of proof in meeting the criteria set forth in Section 270- 219 of the Town Code. You sit as a regulatory board when reviewing a site plan and when considering an application for a special permit. You act as the trier of facts and make factual and legal determinations based on the evidence and legal arguments presented to you by the applicant, by the Town's independent consultant, and by residents and other members of the public, and their attorneys and/or witnesses. Your job is extremely important, and will greatly impact the lives of your fellow residents and the future development of your town. The applicant’s proposed 134-foot tall uncamouflaged, industrial cell tower will be a blight upon the surrounding long-established residential neighborhood. The soaring cell tower will be a glaring visual intrusion, destroying the rural residential viewshed of the immediate neighbors, and decimating their property values. The industrial cell tower will be an eyesore to travelers on adjacent Slaterville Road (Route 79). The cell tower will generate no revenues for the Town. To suggest, as Verizon does, that the tower presents just a “minimal intrusion” to the community, is a lie. You have to live here af ter Verizon moves on to desecrate the next residential neighborhood. I also warn you that Verizon may well try to intimidate this Board by threatening to bring an action against the Town of Ithaca in federal court for violation of the TCA should this Board deny Verizon's application for site plan approval and the special us e permit for its proposed cell tower at 111 Wiedmaier Court. Verizon makes this threat -- and, indeed, acts upon it -- frequently. Many municipalities and their municipal attorneys buckle under these malicious coercive efforts because they fail to understand the very broad powers that federal law provides local governments to control the siting and operation of wireless communications facilities within their boundaries. Moreover, they don't realize that a wireless carrier can never sue for and recover from a municipality monetary damages or attorneys' fees if the municipality refuses 6 to allow the carrier to build and operate a requested wireless communications facility, even if a court eventually decides the municipality actually has violated the TCA. As to the latter point, the United States Supreme Court has expressly held, in City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams, 544 U.S. 113 (2005), that neither monetary damages nor attorneys' fees are available to a prevailing plaintiff in an action brought under the TCA. So even if Verizon does sue the Town in federal court for denying final site plan approval and a special use permit -- and the Town somehow loses that lawsuit -- the Town can never be liable for monetary damages or Verizon's attorneys' fees. The worst that could happen is that the Town would be required to grant final site plan approval and to issue the special use permit for the project. Any fears or implied threats that a wireless carrier will bankrupt the Town through litigation if the Town denies a permit for a wireless communications facility are completely baseless. Verizon's "Public Necessity" Legal Argument is Misplaced and Confusing Verizon's lawyer, Mr. Lusk, in his October 22, 2024 Letter, argues: "Even if a 'two (2) tower solution' were viable, however, applicable law prevents the Town from requiring Verizon multiple facilities, when a single 134' wireless telecommunications facility will pr ovide reliable coverage to the area." Mr. Lusk, invoking New York's "public utility" test, is attempting to mislead you about the law and your duties thereunder. While it is true that under New York case law (not the federal TCA), cell towers are deemed to be "public utilities," that is for the limited purpose of relaxing the legal standard to obtain a zoning "use" variance (not an "area" variance) from a zoning board. The New York case law cited by Mr. Lusk has nothing to do with a local Planning Board's determination as to whether a wireless communications facility applicant has met its burden of proof in meeting the criteria for approval for a special use permi t called for under a municipality's zoning code provisions for wireless communications facilities. Nor does that New York "public utility" state case law have anything to do with whether a local Planning Board's denial of an application for site plan approval and a special use permit for a cell tower constitutes a violation of the federal TCA. That determination is governed by the TCA itself and by federal case law interpreting the relevant provisions of the TCA. Mr. Lusk's goal appears to be to confuse you by inserting a legal test that simply doesn't apply to your consideration of the application before you. Let's unpack the "public utility" test for cell towers under New York case law accurately. Most significantly, the “public utility” legal standard does not apply to the Planning Board’s consideration of the applicant's request for site plan approval and a special use permit. Rather, the test applies only to requests for use variances under the zoning law. The Planning Board, of course, has no power or authority to consider requests for zoning variances. That power is reserved for the Town's Zoning Board of Appeals to which Verizon has already applied for an "area variance" for this proposed tower since the proposed 138-foot tall tower greatly exceeds the height limit for structures at the site under the zoning code. The "public utility" legal standard was established by the New York Court of Appeals in Consolidated Edison Co. v. Hoffman, 43 N.Y.2d 598 (1978), and was extended to the siting of 7 cell towers by the Court of Appeals in Cellular Tel. Co. v. Rosenberg, 82 N.Y2d, 364, 372 (1993). In Consolidated Edison, the Court created a “public utility” exception to the traditional “unnecessary hardship” standard that zoning boards utilize in determining whether an applicant qualifies for a “use variance.” The traditional “unnecessary hardship” test sets forth the following factors that a zoning board must consider before finding unnecessary hardship warranting the granting of a use variance: (1) the land in question cannot yield a reasonable return if used only for a purpose allowed in that zone; (2) the plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances and not to the general conditions in the neighborhood which may reflect the unreasonableness of the zoning ordinance itself; and (3) the use to be authorized by the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality.” Rosenberg, 82 N.Y.2d at 372, quoting In Matter of Otto v. Steinhilber, 282 N.Y. 71, 76 (N.Y. 1939). The Rosenberg Court described the Consolidated Edison “public utility” exception test as follows: "Instead [of meeting the traditional unnecessary hardship test], the utility must show that modification is a public necessity in that it is required to render safe and adequate service, and that there are compelling reasons, economic or otherwise, which make it more feasible to modify the plant than to use alternative sources of power such as may be provided by other facilities" (Matter of Consolidated Edison,43 N.Y.2d 598, 611, supra). The Court stated further that "where the intrusion or burden on the community is minimal, the showing required by the utility should be correspondingly reduced" (id., at 611). Matter of Consolidated Edison (supra), applies to all public utilities. It also applies to entirely new sitings of facilities, as well as the modification of existing facilities. The Rosenberg Court applied the test to the siting of cell towers. Rosenberg, 82 N.Y.2d at 372. The Rosenberg tri-partite test for considering use variance applications for cell towers under New York state law consists of the following: 1) have the applicants demonstrated the existence of a significant coverage gap? 2) will the proposed facility resolve the significant coverage gap? and 3) most importantly, will the proposed facility present a minimal intrusion upon the community? See Cellco P’ship v. Town of Clifton Park, 365 F.Supp.3d 248, 257 (N.D.N.Y. 2019); Omnipoint Communications, Inc. v. Town of LaGrange, 658 F.Supp.2d 539, 556 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). The state court cases Mr. Lusk then uses to illustrate his point only prove mine -- i.e., the "public utility" test applies only when the local zoning board considers an application for a use variance. In Nextel Partners, Inc. v. Town of Ft. Ann , 1 A.D.3d 89, 766 N.Y.S.2d 712 (3d Dep't. 2003), the appellate court simply affirmed the trial court's ruling annulling a Town Board's decision to deny Nextel's application for a zoning use variance to build a 110-foot tall cell tower as arbitrary and capricious under the Rosenberg test. In Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals for the Town of Guilderland, 173 Misc.2d 874, 662 N.Y.S.2d 717 (Sup. Ct. Albany 1997), the trial court ruled that the Town of Guilderland's decision to deny a zoning use variance to allow Sprint to construct a 100-foot tall cell tower in a residential neighborhood where such structures are banned was arbitrary and capricious under the Rosenberg public utility test. Indeed, the court made a point to emphasize that Rosenberg "established the current requirements for the approval of use variances with respect to telecommunications towers." 8 In the instant matter, the issue of a zoning use variance is completely outside the scope of the Planning Board's statutory duties. Moreover, even with respect to the Town's Zoning Board of Appeals, Verizon's application does not seek a zoning use variance. That's because the Town Code actually allows as a permitted use wireless communications facilities in all zoning districts in Town, provided that the Planning Board, upon consideration of all the evidence -- pro and con -- determines that the applicant successfully meets the criteria set forth in Section 270-219 of the Town Code for site plan approval and issuance of a special use permit for the proposed cell tower. Respectfully, you Members of the Planning Board need to stay focused on your responsibilities. Do not be misled by Mr. Lusk into a diversionary legal analysis that is not in your bailiwick. You do not need to worry about the "public necessity" test. Nor should you be distracted by Mr. Lusk's false suggestion that you are mandating that the applicant build two cell towers of lesser height rather than the single 134-foot tall cell tower (plus the 4-foot tall lightning rod) which Mr. Lusk claims is beyond the scope of your authority. Your "mandate" is only to vote "yea" or "nay" on the Verizon's application for site plan approval and a special use permit, with or without conditions. You can't require the applicant do anything, but you do have the power to approve or disapprove of its application. Please don't fall into Mr. Lusk's trap. You should be aware that the Town of Ithaca Town Code provisions regarding wireless telecommunications facilities were carefully drafted to comply with the federal TCA and with the controlling federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals decisions interpreting the TCA. As such, Section 270-219 of the Town Code closely follows the guidance and legal tests of the Second Circuit. The TCA limits to some degree state and local regulation 'of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities.' Omnipoint Commc'ns, Inc. v. City of White Plains, 430 F.3d 529, 531 (2d Cir. 2005) (quoting 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)). Such regulation '(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.' 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(i). "The Second Circuit has clearly stated that this subclause 'precludes denying an application for a facility that is the least intrusive means for closing a significant gap in a remote user's ability to reach a cell site that provides access to land lines.'' Verizon Wireless of E. LP v. Town of Wappinger, 2022 WL 282552 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 31, 2022), at *12 (quoting Sprint Spectrum L.P. v. Willoth, 176 F.3d 630, 643 (2d Cir. 1999)). "If an applicant's proposal is not the least intrusive means of closing a significant gap in coverage, a local government may reject [the] application ... without thereby prohibiting personal wireless services." T-Mobile Ne. LLC. v. Town of Ramapo, 701 F.Supp.2d 446, 456-57 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (internal quotations omitted); ExteNet Sys., Inc. v. Village of Plandome, 2021 WL 4449453 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2021), at *20 ("[T]o be sure, [a] local government may reject an application for construction of a wireless service facility ... without thereby prohibiting personal wireless services if the service gap can be closed by less intrusive means." (Internal quotations omitted"). Section 270-219 of the Town Code expressly requires the Planning Board to consider the evidentiary record while following these controlling federal legal standards. Section 270- 9 219(G)(2)(r) provides for the applicant to conduct an alternative site analysis; Section 270- 219(G)(2)(s) requires the applicant to conduct a significant gap analysis; and Section 270 - 219(G)(2)(t) provides for the applicant to demonstrate that its proposed wireless facility is the least intrusive means of addressing the significant gap in coverage. To meet its evidentiary burden of proof with respect to each of these subsections, the applicant cannot simply make conclusory statements. The subsections each require the applicant to provide evidentiary substantiation. While I was only very recently retained by my clients, I have reviewed Verizon's submissions, and they fall woefully short of meeting Verizon's burden of proof. Due to time and other constraints, I will focus on Verizon's alternative site analysis -- required under Section 270-219(G)(2)(r) -- and point out a number of glaring deficiencies in its submission. In my considerable experience representing clients in these matters, I find that all tower developers tend to play the same phony game with respect to alternative site selection, but Verizon tends to be the worst player. The game goes as follows: the tower developer's RF engineer defines an extremely narrow search radius -- often 1/2 mile or less -- arguing that topographical peculiarities and foliage considerations require that the cell tower be sited with in the resulting small search zone. The reality is that the RF engineer typically locates the best site for the carrier's RF needs using a computer software package, and the RF engineer has no personal familiarity with the site; the search zone is gerrymandered to fall within the RF engineer's narrow "best choice" area, and then the area is provided to a third party site acquisition team whose mandate is to find a property owner who is willing to lease a portion of his property very cheaply to the carrier and who doesn't give a damn about his neighbors. If the site acquisition specialist is successful, then that "winning" site instantly becomes the only technologically feasible site for the tower, and the other few alternative sites within the small search zone are quickly discarded on pretextual grounds. While I say this slightly "tongue-in- cheek," the sad truth is that this is really how the telecoms act. Verizon's own alternate site analysis in the instant application proves my point. In its application at Exhibit I, Verizon provides a "Sunny View Site" Site Selection Analysis, dated September 19, 2023. The Site Selection Analysis was prepared by Brett Morgan of Airosmith Development, a consultant to Verizon Wireless. The critical "search ring" was determined by Tim Zarneke, a Verizon Wireless RF engineer, who describes its creation in his "Engineering Necessity Case - 'Sunny View,'" submitted as an exhibit to Verizon's Application. According to Mr. Zarneke, on page 14 of his report, "[a] Search Area is the geographical area within which a new site is targeted to solve a coverage or capacity deficiency. Three of the factors taken into consideration when defining a search area are topography, user density, and the existing network." Mr. Zarneke imposes a very odd elevation constraint into his search area algorithm. He states on the bottom of page 15: "The site needs to be located within the search area but also at a ground elevation below the ridge of 1,150' or below [sic] to keep the site contained. The proposed site is located at 824' AMSL which meets this requirement and is strategically located within the ring to allow for Line of Sight (LOS) to the coverage objective area." At the top of page 15, Mr. Zarneke states: "The below image is absent any coverage to help the viewer with area orientation as well as visualizing the need for the below 1,000' AMSL (maximum ground elevation requirement)." 10 Mr. Zarneke provides no explanation for the purported need to keep the proposed cell tower site at an AMSL below 1,000' or below the ridge of 1,150'. The Town Code does not appear to contain any restrictions on locating otherwise conforming cell towers or wireless communications facilities at AMSLs of 1,000' or greater. The 1,000' AMSL maximum ground elevation requirement has enormous ramifications -- it grossly limits the possible search radius to the absurdly narrow radius defined by Mr. Zarneke. As I stated above, vast areas of land on the Eastern Heights and along Snyder Hill Road are 400 feet higher in elevation than Verizon's proposed Sunny View site. Yet Mr. Zarneke excludes them entirely from his search radius because of his completely unexplained 1,000' AMSL maximum elevation constraint "to keep the site contained" (whatever that means). The Planning Board needs to question Verizon extensively about this apparently artificial constraint which I strongly suspect is intended to gerrymander the boundaries of the search area in order to support the Sunny View site. In my experience, if the Planning Board charges Mr. Johnson, its own independent consultant, to come up with an appropriate search radius for a possible cell tower site, he will determine one that is far more expansive than Mr. Zarneke's and one which opens up scores of potentially feasible alternative sites. I respectfully urge the Planning Board to do so or to simply to reject Mr. Zarneke's artificially narrow and seemingly unjustified search area. Unsurprisingly, given the gerrymandered tiny search area concocted by Mr. Zarneke, Verizon's site acquisition consultant found no existing towers or tall structures within the search area, nor any municipally-owned properties in the search area. Mr. Morgan, the site acquisition consultant, purportedly conducted a "comprehensive investigation of the Sunny View Search Area" and found five private properties to analyze as potential sites for the proposed tower. Interestingly, when Mr. Morgan reached out to the five property owners, each was initially interested in leasing his property to Verizon for use as the cell tower site. (Often, some landowners are not interested in tying up a portion of their land for 30 years or more -- and/or restricting the development potential of their property -- for the small revenue stream offered by a cell tower developer). But despite all the landowners' interest, after Mr. Morgan forwarded the site information for each of the parcels to Verizon's RF engineer, Verizon's RF engineer determined that none of the locations except for the Sunny View site would be adequate, as those locations "would have not adequately covered the intended coverage area in the same capacity as the selected location." That incomprehensible "word salad" is the entirety of the explanation Mr. Morgan provides for the rejection of the four alternative sites. Verizon provides no RF analyses for each rejected site demonstrating the veracity of the explanation. Simply put, the explanation is completely inadequate to meet Verizon's burden of proof under the Town Code. The foregoing represents just a taste of the litany of well-founded reasons why the Planning Board should deny Verizon application for site plan approval and for a special use permit. Please give me a call to discuss any questions you may have. Best regards, Robert J. Berg /s/ Robert J. Berg EXHIBIT HH Network Engineering Group 225 Jordan Road Troy, New York 12180 N e t w o r k E n g i n e e r i n g - U P N Y 1 2 7 5 J o h n S t r e e t , S u i t e 1 0 0 W est H e n r iet t a , N e w Y o r k 145 8 6 October 28, 2022 Hon. Members of the Planning Board Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY, 14850 RE: With respect to Town Code and the stated limitations on analysis there is arguably no finding of “significant gaps” based only on the RF propagation plots for existing low-band RF coverage. Honorable Members of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board: Verizon RF engineering team reviewed Mr. Bill Johnson’s letter dated 10/21/2024, and would like to provide further explanation on comment made by Mr. Johnson “with respect to Town Code and the stated limitations on analysis there is arguably no finding of “significant gaps” based only on the RF propagation plots for existing low-band RF coverage”. Exhibit H slide 17 displays existing low band coverage of Verizon Wireless, note that the coverage shown on slide 17 is outdoor coverage and for an RF signal to reach out to an in- building (or in-vehicle) user, it must penetrate through different structures (or vehicle) which introduces additional 10-20dB losses. As stated on Slide 17, the large orange coverage areas near the proposed site are subject to variable coverage conditions including fading and seasonality gaps, which means if outdoor coverage is orange (refer Exhibit H, Slide 12), indoor coverage (RSRP) will be 10 to 20dB below -105dBm, which is a significant coverage gap. Below is zoomed image from Slide 17 that displays a number of dwellings (located in targeted service improvement area) are in orange coverage areas and are suspected to have either no or unusable indoor coverage. In view of the aforementioned details, Verizon Wireless’ RF team re-emphasizes that the “Sunny View” project area has significant coverage gaps in adequate LTE service in both high and low frequency bands and the Sunny View site with proposed ACL will resolve these substantial and significant gaps in coverage. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, Wasif Sharif Wasif Sharif Radio Frequency (RF) Design Engineer EXHIBIT II Verizon Wireless Communications Facility Engineering Necessity Case –“Sunny View” Prepared by: Wasif Sharif, RF Engineer, Verizon Wireless Project: The project is the installation and operation of a new tower co-located wireless telecommunications site in the Town of Ithaca (the “Project Facility”). Town Boundary Town/City Border Existing ITHACA HD Site Search Area Project Location Route 79 Existing DANBY Site Existing BROOKTONDALE Site Oct 24th, 2024 Alternative Sites 2 The following slides display the individual footprint of Sunny View site from proposed and other alternative site locations and it can be seen that alternative locations fail to provide the adequate coverage that is needed to resolve the significant coverage gap in targeted service improvement area. Candidate Name Lat (decimal NAD83) Long (Decimal Nad83) GE (ft) ACL (raw land, WT, collo) A Six Mile Creek Vineyard 42.415761 -76.453288 847 Raw Land B Gary Foote #1 42.417643 -76.448339 1035 Raw Land C Gary Foote #2 42.415457 -76.447856 957 Raw Land D Gary Foote #3 42.416553 -76.446923 1026 Raw Land E Suzanne Roberts 42.412417 -76.450629 823 Raw Land Sunny View Low band footprint –Suzanne Roberts 3 4 Sunny View Low band footprint –Six Mile Creek Vineyard 5 Sunny View Low band footprint –Gary Foote #1 6 Sunny View Low band footprint –Gary Foote #2 7 Sunny View Low band footprint –Gary Foote #3 MEMORANDUM To:Town of Ithaca Planning Board From:The Town of Ithaca Conservation Board -Environmental Review Committee Date:10/29/2024 RE:Telecommunication Tower In reviewing the supplemental application for a new 134’Verizon Wireless telecommunication tower located at 111 Wiedmaier Court the Conservation Board Environmental Review Committee revisited the Town of Ithaca Conservation Zones codes in Article V.There the Town of Ithaca acknowledged: Among the natural values and ecological importance of these areas are their diversity as a plant and wildlife habitat,their existence as biological corridors,their importance for natural drainage features,their scenic views and rural character,and their importance as an educational and recreational resource… It is a further purpose of this Conservation Zone to preserve the natural resources and scenic beauty of the areas to promote tourism as an important economic benefit to the Town of Ithaca. A 134 foot Telecommunications Tower (more than 3x the height limitation in the Conservation Zones code)will undermine the purpose of establishing Conservation Zones code. Given our Conservation Zones codes we expected the applicant to provide a vegetation and landscaping plan that offered more insight into how they will support the purpose of the Town of Ithaca Conservation Zones.For example,how will this project: ●minimize visual intrusion on the character of the area? ●identify the existence of invasive plants and take steps to reduce their presence?Is there an invasive species removal and management plan?Will construction vehicles be cleaned?(Seeds or other plant parts stuck in soil in tire treads and other vehicle parts will easily spread invasive plants to other areas.) ●preserve the natural topographic and vegetative profile?What native plant species will be selected?Or how? ●take steps to preserve wildlife habitats and biological corridors? ●use of reduced or spectrum-altered lighting at night to reduce sky glow and protect insects? Requirement and restriction allow us to uphold the purpose of the Town of Ithaca Conservation Zones.At this time,we recommend not approving a special permit or site plan for this 134 foot Telecommunications Tower project.We will reconsider if the applicant satisfactorily addresses the concerns we have raised. Respectfully submitted, Lori Brewer Lindsay Dombroskie Eva Hoffmann Michael Roberts Frank Cantone From:ChrisBalestra<CBalestratownithacany.gov>Sent:Tuesday,October29,20243:04PMTo:GuyKrogh;brock@clarityconnect.com;BillArms;CaitlinCameron;CindyKaufman;FredWilcox(fredwilcoxiii@gmail.com);GaryStewart;KeldaMcGurk;LizBageant;SaraReynoldsCc:ChrisBalestra;CiRandall;AbbyHomer;DanaMagnuson;DavidOshea;lustinMcNealSubject:Publiccomments-celltower-111WiedmaierCourtAttachments:FactSheet_PropertyValuesReductionvO.41.1.pdf;Realtorsattesttopropertyvaluesdropping.pdf;PropertyDevaluationDuetoCellPhoneTowers.pdf;Oct292024MEMORANDUMTower.pdfHiPlanningBoardmembers,Attachedandbelowarecommentswereceivedrelatedtotheproposedcelltowerthatisontheagendafortonight.ThefirstthreeattachmentsgoalongwiththeemailfromAndrewMolnarimmediatelybelow.ThelastattachmentisaletterfromtheTown’sConservationBoard.Finally,therearethreeemailsattheendofAndrew’semailthatarefromotherresidents.Webundletheemailsandcommentstogetherforyoutoavoidoverwhelmingyouwithendlessemailsonatopic.Ifwereceiveanyothercommentsbetween3pmand6:30pm,wewillprintthemoutandplacethematyourseatsintheTownBoardroom.Speakingofwhich,youwillhaveaprintoutofthemostrecentletterprovidedbytheVZWapplicant,whoovernightedtabsHHandIItothetown(thiswastheemailyoureceivedearliertoday—theprintoutcontainsthesameinformation).FYI,allemailsandcorrespondencehasbeenuploadedtotheTownwebsiteforpublicviewandinformation.ChrisChristineBalestra,SeniorPlannerTownofIthacaPlanningDepartment215NorthTiogaStreetIthaca,NY14850(607)273-1721,ext.121cbalestratownithacanygFrom:Marie/AndrewMolnar<marieandrew93gmail.com>Sent:Monday,October28,20243:58PMTo:TownOfIthacaPlanning<planning@townithacanygg>Cc:ChrisBalestra<CBalestra@townithacanygg>;ClRandall<çjrandall@townithacanygg>Subject:VerizonfailstoupholdourcarefullycraftedTowncodes**WARNING**Thisemailcomesfromanoutsidesource.Pleaseverifythefromaddress,anyURLlinks,andlorattachments.AnyquestionspleasecontacttheITdepartmentPlanningBoardmembers,WearewritingonbehalfoflocalIthacanstoaskthatyoudenyVerizon’sapplicationforanewcelltower.Verizon,likemanyothertelecomcompanies,seemstobelievetheyhaveanentitledrighttodoastheypleaseinIthaca,asnotedinJaredLusks’memostating“VerizonisentitledtoreceivethenecessaryzoningapprovalsfromtheTown.”ThisiswhollyincorrectandmanipulativelanguageintendedtointimidatetheBoard.Ourlocalmunicipalityretainsthelegalrighttodenyanytoweronanynumberofbases.Specifically,intheintroductionoftheEngineeringNecessityCase,theywrote: kethatwhileVenzonWàiessprovidesSu#K1ev1eWdanaetoestabshtheexstericeofacoverageandcapacdyneedanthiscese.theFCChascon!vmedthatfederallawdoesnotrequeamovrtoestiblishtheedsteceofaCga/capacitygaptoestabkshtheneedforasfleThereas.søetalwaysbywfanantcanestabhshsitenSeeAcJeratingWa’elessBroerThandDeploymentbyRsmwwigRerraeistofrirastruch,ekwestmentFCC1813385FR51867at137(CIcber152018?(cocifsimiigthatthetestOsestat*shaqanelfectlhepsohbticwih’S*ether3staleorlocallegalreqiEernenlmaterlaãtsaprovlc$er’sabilitytoengamanyofavw*tyoIactMtesrelatedtoItsprovisionofacoweredSeA*e,and(hiStestismetnotoniwha,fangacowe’ageg,butalsow*dis4*vjaWW&eSSnetwork,introthscãignewO.sofheinpoviigservecaabàtes)(enhasisac*dWhattheyarequotinghereisfromthe2018FCCorder,whichisNOTthelawintheSecondCircuit.ThefederalcourtsontheSecondCircuitstillmustfollowthesignificantgapincoverageandleastintrusivetechnologicallyfeasible“solution”test.WeaskthePlanningBoardtodenythisapplicationbecause:1)Verizonhasfailedtoprovidealltheevidenceofagapinphonelvoicecoverage2)Verizonhasfailedtocomplywithourcodesandprovidedetailedinformationaboutalternativelocations3)Thetowerwilladverselyaffecttheaestheticsofthisbeautifullocation4)Thetowerwillreducepropertyvaluesofthehomesinthearea5)Thetowerwillharmwildlifeinthearea1.FAILURETOPROVIDETHEREQUIREDPROOFOFAGAPFORPHONECALLSManycitizensandsomeBoardmembers,includingLizBageantandSaraReynolds,askedVerizontoprovidejjjpendentdroppedcallanddrive-bytesting.Thisisbecausetelecomcompaniesareknowntoprovideinaccurateinformationwhentryingtoprovesuchagap,andthustheycannotberelieduponasthesoleproviderofevidence.Verizonhasfailedtodoso.AstothedataVerizonDIDprovide,theTown’sindependentREConsultantstated“wecannotvouchforthetestmethodsemployedortheaccuracyofthedataApplicanthasprovided.”Verizoncontinuestoput“capacityandcoverage”togetherintheiranalyses,whichisnotwhatisneededtomeetcode.The“data”(notin-kindcalltesting)thatVerizonprovidedonlyshows“droppedconnections”and“accessfailures”whichisNOTthesameasdroppedcalls,andisnotthedataourcoderequires,TheREconsultantconcludes,“withrespecttoTownCodeandthestatedlimitationsonanalysisthereisargykjynofindingof“significantgaps”basedonlyontheRFpipgationplotsforexistinglow-bandRFcoverag±”OurTownCodeisclear:“EvidencethatagapexistsshallinclUdein-kindcalltestingforeachfrequencyatwhichtheapplicantprovidespersonalwirelessservices.”Andin-kindcalltestingisdefined:“IN-KINDCALLTESTINGTestingdesignedtomeasurethegapinpersonalwirelessservicecoverageassertedbyanapplicant.In-kindcalltestingforaclaimedgapinpersonalwirelessservicesinbuildingsmeanscalltestingperformedinbuildingstoestablishtheexistenceorabsenceofsuchagap,unlesstheapplicantprovidesanaffidavitswornunderpenaltiesofperjurydemonstratinggoodfaithbutunsuccessfulattemptstosecureaccesstobuildingstoconductsuchtesting.In-kindcalltestingforaclaimedgapinpersonalwirelessservicesinvehiclesorintheopenairmeanscalltestingperformedinvehiclesorintheopentoestablishtheexistenceorabsenceofsuchagap.”Weaskedforthat,andVerizonhastwicefailedtoprovidethisdatauponwhichtheBoardcouldmakeaninformeddecision.2.NONCOMPLIANCEWITHTHETOWNCODES:NOTSUBMITTINGDETAILSOFALTERNATESITESAtthelastmeeting,thePlanningBoardexplicitlytoldVerizontocomplywiththetowncodesandsubmitmoredetailedanalysisofalternatesitesand/orarrangements,suchasoneortwosmallertowers.Perourcodesrewhatapplicationsforthesefacilitiesmustinclude:Ifsiteplanapprovalandspecialpermitarerequired,andifco-locationontoanexistingstructureisnotproposedandisnotfeasible,analternativesiteanalysisofallpotentiallylessintrusivealternativesitesnotinvolvingco-locationwhichtheapplicanthasconsidered.Thisalternativesiteanalysisshalldocumenteachsite’srespectivelocation,elevation,andsuitabilitytoremedyasignificantgapinthecoverageoftheapplicant’spersonalwirelessservices(theabilityofwirelesstelephonestomakeandreceivevoicecallstoandfromlandlinesthatareconnectedtothenationaltelephonenetwork).Forsuitablealternativesitesthat anapplicantclaimsareunavailable,theapplicantshallsubmitevidenceofgood-faitheffortstosecureuseofeachsuchsitefromitsowner.§270-219G(2)(r)InregardstotheminimalanalysisVerizonhadconductedonfourothersites,theREConsultantWilliamJohnsonstates:Notechnicalevidencewasinitiallyprovidedby[Verizon]forthoseconclusions[thatfourothersiteswouldnotsuffice]intherecord...Duringtheplanningboard’smeetingonOctober2,2024,Applicant’sRFengineerpresentedpropagationplotstotheplanningboardthatshowedthealternativesitesdidnotprovidethesameservicelevelsforlow-bandRFcoveragealongRoute79.Werecommendthatthoseplotsbeincludedintherecordtodocumentthereasonsforrejectingthealternativesites.Werecommendfurtheranaly.thatincludesmid-bandservicesRFcoverageandcapaLtyissuesregardingny.jjectedsitesthatappeartohaveanaestheticadvantagethatmay_provideservicetothetarg.improvementarea.Werecommenduseofmid-bandRFpropagationplotsandneighborsite“Brookdale”gammasectorLTEcapacitydataofferedinExhibitH,and/orthedrivetestanddroppedconnectiondatainExhibitZtoevaluateminimumheigij.tjustificationtoaddressthataspectofminimalintrusiononthecommunity_Insteadofcomplyingwithourcodes,Verizonhaspaidalawfirm,NixonPeabody,tosubmitabriefexplainingwhytheydon’tneedto.AsexpertcelltowerattorneyRobertBergatteststoinaformallettertotheBoard,thisNixonletterisfilledwithmisleadinginformation.Thebottomline:Verizonisrequiredbyfederallawandourcodestofindtheleastintrusivemeanstofilltheservicegap,whichincludesprovidingextensiveanalysesofalternativesites.3.ADVERSEAESTHETICIMPACTAsyouheardfrommanylocalcitizens,thisproposedplacementofVerizon’s135footwirelesstelecommunicationstowerwillcausethefacilitytostandoutlikeasorethumb,dominatetheskyline,andrisewellaboveallexistingstructures,treesandvegetation,justadjacenttoabeautifulnaturalreservoirandwe[I-Iovedpark.Thiswillinflictsubstantialadverseaestheticimpactsuponthenearbyhomesandbeautifullocale.Federalcourtshaveconsistentlyheldthatadverseaestheticimpactsareavalidbasisfordenyingwirelessfacilitiesapplications.Moreover,becauseoffederallaw,this138foottowerisislikelytobeincreasedtoaheightof158feet,1causingevenmoreadverseaestheticimpacts.And,rememberthatwhileVerizoniscurrentlytheonlycarrierplanningtousethetower,theproposedfacilitywillbeconstructedtopppjjptofourtotaltelecommunicationscarriers!Canyouimaginewhatthatwilllooklikethere?4.ADVERSEIMPACTONPROPERTYVALUESThiswirelesstelecommunicationstowerwouldinflictasevereadverseimpactontheactualvalueofnearbyresidentialproperties,especiallybecauseitwouldbehighlyvisible,particularlyfrommultiplehomesandpropertiesaswellasfromeveryonetravelingonRoute79.WhileVerizonhassubmittedevidencefromthreehandpickedrealestateappraiserssayingthatpropertyvalueswouldnotchange,evidencefromnumeroussourcesattestsotherwise.Infact,theimpactissowell-known,thattheU.S.DepartmentofHousingandUrbanDevelopmentrequiresitscertifiedappraiserstotakethepresenceofnearbycelltowersintoconsiderationwhendeterminingthevalueofasinglefamilyresidentialproperty!Countlessrealestateappraisers2andbrokershaverenderedprofessionalopinionsonwhatcommonsensedictates:Whenwirelessfacilitiesareinstalledunnecessarilyorwithinviewofaresidence,thehomessuffermateriallossesinvalueupto2O%.Intheworstcases,facilitiesbuiltnearexistinghomeshavecausedthehomestoberenderedwhollyunsaleable.4PerhapsthisiswhyInasurveyconductedbytheNationalInstituteforScience,LawandPublicPolicy,79%ofrespondentssaidundernocircumstanceswouldtheyeverpurchaseorrentapropertywithinafewblocksofacelltowerorantennas.Moreevidencecanbefoundintheattacheddocumentshere.We’veattachedadocumentthathasanumberoflettersfromrealtorsfromOaklandMl,atownshipthatdeniedacelltowerinMayofthisyear.5.ADVERSEIMPACTONWILDLIFEIthasbeenwelldocumentedthatcelltowerradiationhasadverseimpactsontrees,othervegetation,andotherwildlife.Forexample,alandmarkthree-part2021researchreviewoneffectstowildlife(ReviewsonEnvironmentalHealthbyU.SexpertsincludingformerU.S.FishandWildlifeseniorbiologistAlbertManville)statesthatcurrentscienceshouldtriggerurgentregulatoryaction,citingmorethan1,200scientificreferenceswhichfoundadversebiologicaleffectstowildlifefromevenverylowintensitiesofnonionizingradiationwithfindingsofimpactstoorientationandmigration,reproduction,mating,nest,denbuildingandsurvivorship.ThepartmentofInteriorwrotealetterin2014detailingseveralpublishedstudiesshowingimpactsofwirelessradiofrequencyradiation(RFR)tobirds,statedthat,“Thereisagrowinglevelofanecdotalevidencelinkingeffectsofnon-thermal,non-ionizingelectromagneticradiationfromcommunicationtowersonnestingandroostingwildbirds andotherwildlifethird-partypeer-reviewedstudiesneedtobeconductedintheU.S.tobeginexaminingtheeffectsfromradiationonmigratorybirdsandothertrustspecies.”Formuchmoreinformation,seeandWearedisappointedthatitseemslikethesehundredsofstudieshavenotbeenconsideredinthetownenvironmentalassessment.Ithacahasalwaysbeenastrongvoiceandadvocateforalllivingbeings,especiallyourwildlife.WeaskthattheBoardcorrectsthisoversightanddeniesthisapplicationfortheharmitwillinflictuponournaturalenvironment.Forallthereasonsstatedabove,werespectfullyimploretheBoardtodenyVerizon’sapplication.Thankyouforyourcarefulconsideration,MarieandAndrewMolnar1Ifsuchtowerwerebuilt,Verizoncouldunilaterallychoosetoincreasetheheightofthetowertoasmuchas158feet,andtheTownwouldbelegallyprohibitedfromstoppingthemfromdoingso,duetotheconstraintsoftheMiddle-ClassTaxReliefandJobCreationActof2012,whichprovidesthatnotwithstandingsection§704oftheTelecommunicationsActof1996oranyotherprovisionoflaw,aStateorlocalgovernmentmaynotdeny,andshallapprove,anyeligiblerequestforamodificationofanexistingwirelessfacilityorbasestationthatdoesnotsubstantiallychangethephysicaldimensionsofsuchfacilityorbasestation.See47U.S.C.§1455(a).UndertheFCC’sreadingandinterpretationof§6409(a)oftheAct,localgovernmentsareprohibitedfromdenyingmodificationstowirelessfacilitiesunlessthemodificationswill“substantiallychange”thephysicaldimensionsofthefacility,pole,ortower.TheFCCdefines“substantialchange”toincludeanymodificationthatwouldincreasetheheightofthefacilitybymorethanten(10%)percentoftheheightofthetower,plustheheightofanadditionalantenna,plusadistanceoften(10)feettoseparateanewantennafromthepre-existingtopantenna,uptoamaximumheightincreaseoftwenty(20)feet.2Seee.g.aFebruary22,2012articlediscussingaNJappraiser’sanalysiswhereinheconcludedthattheinstallationofaWirelessFacilityincloseproximitytoahomehadreducedthevalueofthehomebymorethan10%,gotohttp://bridgewater.patch.com/articles/appraiser-t-mobile-ceIl-tower-will-affect-property-valuesSee,e.g.,areportpublishedin“TheEmpiricalEconomicsLetters,”18(8):August2019ISSN16818997byJosephHaleandJasonBeckconcludedthattheproximityofcelltowersdoeshaveanegativeeffectonthesalepricesofnearbyhomes.Seealso,“WirelessTowersandHomeValues:AnAlternativeValuationApproachUsingaSpatialEconometricAnalysis,”byErmannoAffuso,J.ReidCumingsandHuubinLe,publishedinFebruaryof2017.Thisstudyusedahedonicspatialautoregressivemodeltoassesstheimpactofwirelesscommunicationtowersonthevalueofresidentialproperties.Thisreportalsoconcludedthattheproximityofacelltowerhasanegativeimpactonthesaleprocessofnearbyhomes.Inaseriesofthreeprofessionalstudiesconductedbetween1984and2004,onesetofexpertsdeterminedthattheinstallationofaWirelessFacilityincloseproximitytoaresidentialhomereducedthevalueofthehomebyanywherefrom1%to20%.Thesestudieswereasfollows:•TheBondandHue-ProximateImpactStudy-TheBondandHuestudyconductedin2004involvedtheanalysisof9,514residentialhomesalesin10suburbs.ThestudyreflectedthatcloseproximitytoaWirelessFacilityreducedpriceby15%onaverage.•TheBondandWang-TransactionBasedMarketStudy•TheBondandWangstudyinvolvedtheanalysisof4,283residentialhomesalesin4suburbsbetween1984and2002.ThestudyreflectedthatcloseproximitytoaWirelessFacilityreducedthepricebetween20.7%and2l%.•TheBondandBeamish-OpinionSurveyStudy•TheBondandBeamishstudyinvolvedsurveyingwhetherpeoplewholivedwithin100’ofaWirelessFacilitywouldhavetoreducethesalespriceoftheirhome.38%saidtheywouldreducethepricebymorethan20%,38%saidtheywouldreducethepricebyonly1%-9%,and24%saidtheywouldreducetheirsalepriceby10%-I9%.4UnderFHAregulations,noFHA(federallyguaranteed)loancanbeapprovedforthepurchaseofanyhomewhichissituatedwithinthefallzoneofaWirelessFacility.SeeHUDFHAHOCReferenceGuideChapter1-hazardsandnuisances.Asaresult,therearecasesacrossthecountrywithinwhich:(a)ahomeownerpurchasedahome,(b)aWirelessFacilitywasthereafterbuiltincloseproximitytoit,and(c)asaresultofsame,thehomeownerscouldnotselltheirhome,becauseanybuyerwhosoughttobuyitcouldnotobtainanFHAguaranteedloan.See,e.g.,October2,2012Article“..CellTowerisRealEstateRoadblock”atp://www.wfaa.com/news/consumer/Ellis-County.ple--Cell-tower-makingjjflpossible-to-sell-home--172366931html.From:Jaazaniah<jrzorn001gmail.com>Sent:Tuesday,October29,20249:46AMTo:TownOfIthacaPlanning<planning@townithacany.gov>Subject: **WARNING**Thisemailcomesfromanoutsidesource.Pleaseverifythefromaddress,anyURLlinks,and/orattachments.AnyquestionspleasecontacttheITdepartmentPLEASEACKNOWLEDGERECEIPTOFTHISEMAILDearTownofIthacaPlanningBoard,Iamnotabletoattendthemeetingtonight,butIfeltitimportanttomakemyvoiceheardthroughthisshortemail.Iamsaddened,butnotunexpectedlyso,byVerizon’seffortstogetaroundthe5GzoningregulationsrecentlyimplementedbytheTownofIthacafortheirproposedtower.Isay“notunexpectedly”becauseIamsureweallsawthiscoming.First,theyfoughtagainstcommonsenseregulations.Whenthatfailed,theybegantheusualtacticofchippingawayatlocalordinancesbyaskingforvariances/exceptions.Onceeventhesmallestholeisopenedtheirarmyoflawyerswillpushtowidenituntiltheregulationswillbeeffectivelygutted.Thisisstandardoperatingprocedureforlargecompaniesfightingagainstlocalcommunities.Theycanplaythelonggameinthebeliefthattheiroppositionwillgrowwearyofthenever-endingeffortstoweardowncommunityresistance.IamalsosaddenedthatIhadtochipinmoneytohelppayforalawyertowritealetterforthelocalcommunitydemonstratingalltheproblemswiththeVerizonproposal.Shouldlocalpeoplereallyhavetodothat?ItwouldbeniceiftheTowncouldhireindependentconsultantstoevaluatethesesortsofsituations.Asthelawyerhasshown,thereisnogapincoveragethatrequiresthistowerandtheyhavenotputforwardanyalternativesites,asrequiredbyourcode.Moreover,therewillbedetrimentalimpactstothehumanandnaturalenvironment,andsincethetowerwillhaveanegativeimpactonpropertyvalues,thiswillhavetheeffectofdrivingdowntaxrevenues.DoestheTownwantthatlossofincome?Asaconcernedcitizen,Iamaskingyoutofirmlyrejecthisinitialefforttoerodeourlocalsafeguards.Sincerely,JeffJeffZorn202PineTreeRd.Ithaca,NY14850C:607-339-7328From:LB<LisaBertuzziprotonmaiI.com>Sent:Monday,October28,202410:21PMTo:TownOfIthacaPlanning<planning@townithacanygg>Subject:IUrgeYoutoVoteAgainsttheProposedVerizonTower**WARNING**Thisemailcomesfromanoutsidesource.Pleaseverifythefromaddress,anyURLlinks,andlorattachments.AnyquestionspleasecontacttheITdepartmentDearIthacaTownBoardMembers,IaskwithgreaturgencythatyouvotetodenytheproposedVerizontower.Verizonhasnotprovenagapincoverage.Theyonlycareaboutmoney.Ifpassedothertelecomcompanieswillhavetheabilitytoinstallneedlesstowersandantennas,multiplyingredundancy,andlitteringourbeautifullandscape.Theyarebigtechandtheydonothaveourbestinterestinmind.Wecannotletthemdothis.Iurgeyoutovoteagainstthetower.Best,LisaBertuzziRNandChildCareSpecialistSentwithProtonMailsecureemail. **WARNING**Thisemailcomesfromanoutsidesource.Pleaseverifythefromaddress,anyURLlinks,andlorattachments.AnyquestionspleasecontacttheITdepartmentDearSeniorPlannerBalestra,HerearesomecommentsontheproposedVerizoncellphoneTower.PleasesharethemwiththePlanningBoard.Verizon’slatestproposalforthecellphonetoweraimsto“minimizetheoverallvisibilityofthetowercompoundtothemaximumextentpracticablegiventherestrictionssurroundingtheproperty.”ThePlanningBoardshouldvehemently,objecttotheuseofvinylprivacyslatsinterwovenintothefencearoundthecompound.ThisisaConservationZone.Verizonneedstoplantmoretreestohidethecompound--NOTusepetroleum-basedproducts.Thefourtreesand5shrubsproposedintheplanareinadequatetoscreenacompoundwhosefencewillstillbeuglywithprivacyslats.Overthepast27years,withtheNYSEGforester’spermission,Ihaveplantedtreesjusttothewestofthehigh-tensionlinesalongBurnsRoad.ThisexperienceleadsmetoaskthePlanningBoardtodemandmoredetailsregardingVerizon’splantingmethods.Oursoilsdonotdrainwell.Thediagramoftypicalplantingholesfortreesandshrubsonpage14oftheproposalisfinefornormalsoils,butVerizonwillbeplantingintowhatamountstosubsoilasthetopsoilwasscrapedoffbyWiedmaier’scontractor.Ensuringdrainagefromanyplantingholewillbenecessarytopreventtreesfromdrowninginwetseasons.Amendingthesoilwillbenecessarytoensurethattreescanfindthenecessarynutrientstogrow.Page21oftheproposalmentionsnotonlyprovidingadequatedrainagebutalsosoiltestingtodeterminewhatplantsneed.(Aminordetailshowsthatmulchlayeredunderthenewtreestouchesthetreetrunk.Mulchshouldalwaysbekeptawayfromtouchingthetrunktopreventplantdiseases.)Page14showsthetrunksofthe6—8-foottreeswillbeprotectedbytreewraporburlap.Thisisverycriticalforpreventingdeerfromrubbingofftreebark.TheproposalneedstodetailhowVerizonwillcontinuetoprotecttrunksafterthetreewrapshredsoff.Theproposalshowsnodeerprotectionfortheshrubs.Thisisamistakeevenfor“deer-resistant”shrubs.Thisarea’sdeerwillseverelydamageanynewplantingifitisnotfencedforseveralyearsuntilitislargeenoughtosustaindeerbrowsing.Someyears,deerherehaveeveneatenwhitespruce.Verizoncansucceedinminimizingthevisibilityofthetowercompoundnotonlybyplantingmoretreesnearthecompound,butalsobyplantingtreesandshrubsontheupperslopeoftheproperty,onallsidesofthestonegate.Treesplantedherearemorelikelytosurvive(thereisstilltopsoilhere).Thisareaisalso10to15feethigherthanthetowercompoundsotreeheightwillblockthecompoundsoonerandlookmorenaturalthantreesplantedaroundthecompound.Theargumentthatthisisano-developmentzoneholdsnowaterasthisareawassupposedtobereforestedbythePlanningBoard’sowndirective.Verizonshouldnotethatplantingmanyyoungertreesmaybeeconomicallybetterbut,moreimportantly,betterforthetreeswhichsufferlesstransplantshockwhenyoungerandcanoutgrowtransplantedoldertreesinafewyears.Sincerely,DianeFlorini1603SlatervilleRoad PropertyValuesReduction•MontgomeryCountyGovernmentStatesCellTowersNearHomesDecreasePropertyValuesInafilinginalawsuitagainsttheFederalCommunicationsCommission,theCountysaidthroughitsexpertsthat“...theplacementofsmallcells—dependingontheirsizeandvisibility—mayaffectneighboringpropertyvalues....evenassmallreductioninvalueofhomesinaneighborhoodmayhaveamulti-milliondollareffect.”Experttestimonystatesthat“studieshaveconcludedthatavisibleantennaupto1,000feetawayresultsinpropertyvaluereductionof1.82%foraresidentialhomeor$3,342inthemarketstudied.”•94%ofPeopleSaidaNearbyCellTower...WouldNegativelyImpactInterestInAPropertyOrThePrice“AsurveyconductedinJune2014bytheNationalInstituteforScience,LawandPublicPolicy(NISLAPP)inWashington,D.C....showshomebuyersandrentersarelessinterestedinpropertieslocatednearcelltowersandantennas,aswellasinpropertieswhereacelltowerorgroupofantennasareplacedontopoforattachedtoabuilding.And79%saidundernocircumstanceswouldtheyeverpurchaseorrentapropertywithinafewblocksofacelltowerorantennas.Andalmost90%ofrespondentssaidtheywereconcernedabouttheincreasingnumberofcelltowersandantennasintheirresidentialneighborhood,generally.”23•ReductioninTaxAssessmentbyMontgomeryCo.AppealsBoardforProbableCellTowerThePropertyTaxAssessmentAppealBoardforMontgomeryCountyloweredaRockvillehome’sassessment:“Comparableswarrantareductioninvalue.Probabilityofneighboringcelltoweralsoaffectsvaluenegatively.April2011,reversingdeterminationbytheDepartmentofAssessmentsandTaxation.4•WirelessTowersinVisualRange“valuesdeclining...upto9.78%forhomeswithintowervisibilityrangecomparedtohomesoutsidetowervisibilityrange”•20-25%DevaluationFoundinPeer-ReviewedStudyforHomesNearCellTowers“TheImpactofCellPhoneTowersonHousePricesinResidentialNeighborhoods6bySandyBond,PhD,andKo-KangWang.Apeer-reviewedstudyfoundHomesnearcellphonetowersweredevalued20%to25%.•5GRequiresCuttingDownTreesinYards—ReducesValueBySeveralThousandDollars5Grequiresdirect“lineofsight”fromthecellantennainfrontofthehouse,orfromseveralhousesaway,toeachhouse.SomanythousandsoftreesinMontgomeryCountywouldneedmajorbranchesremovedorcuttingdown.•TwoReasonsBuyersMayRefusetoBuyNear“Small”Antennas—HealthRiskandAestheticsThiswilltranslateintolowerhomevalues.Thissitelistsarticles,videosandstudiesshowingdecliningpropertyvaluesaroundcelltowerinstallations8 PropertyValuesReductionReferences1“CommentsofSmartCommunitiesSitingCoalition”(ofwhichMontgomeryCountyisone)beforetheFCC.March8,2017.“StreamliningDeploymentofSmallCellInfrastructurebyImprovingWirelessFacilities/WTDocketNo.16-421)”SeeExhibit3.https://montgomerycountymd.gov/cable/resources/files/towers/documents/mobilitie%2ocomments%20-%20Smart%20communities%20siting%2ocoalition%20(2017).pdf2https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20140703005726/en/Survey-National-lnstitute-Science-Law-Public-Policy#.VNRBPp3F-Sohttps://electromagnetichealth.org/electromagnetic-health-blog/survey-property-desirability/https://www.scribd.com/documerit/64222439/Probability-of-neighboring-cell-tower-also-affects-value-negatively(Parents’CoalitionofMontgomeryCounty,Maryland)Seephotocopybelow.WirelessTowersandHomeValues:AnAlternativeValuationApproachUsingaSpatialEconometricAnalysis(JournalofRealEstateFinance&Economics,May1,2018)6https://www.emfanalysis.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/lmpact-of-Cell-Towers-on-House-Prices.pdf‘https://www.greenblue.com/na/how-trees-increase-propertv-values/V8https://www.emfanalysis.com/property-values-declining-cell-towers/Johnson,Jeromy/EMFSolutions,“ProtectYourFamilyfromEMFPollution:PropertyValuesDecliningNearCellTowers.”(EMFSolutions)2011-2019.https://www.emfanalysis.com/propertv-values-declining-cell-towers/ScientistsforWiredTechnology,“CellTowerInstallationPlansLowerPropertyValues”(ScientistsforWiredTechnology)2017-2019.https://scientists4wiredtech.com/what-are-4g-5g/cell-tower-installation-plans-lower-propertv-values/PhotocopyofreductionintaxassessmentforahouseinRockvillebytheAppealsBoardforMontgomeryCounty:SlATEOFARYLANDPOERTT,iZeL%.:!I4-fl171#Y12?.114r•:aØr::enI...e1se‘or.-TI1$IlOrbV•ft.a.r,rrc MEMORANDUMTo:TownofIthacaPlanningBoardFrom:TheTownofIthacaConservationBoard-EnvironmentalReviewCommitteeDate:10/29/2024RE:TelecommunicationTowerInreviewingthesupplementalapplicationforanew134’VerizonWirelesstelecommunicationtowerlocatedat111WiedmaierCourttheConservationBoardEnvironmentalReviewCommitteerevisitedtheTownofIthacaConservationZonescodesinArticleV.TheretheTownofIthacaacknowledged:Amongthenaturalvaluesandecologicalimportanceoftheseareasaretheirdiversityasaplantandwildlifehabitat,theirexistenceasbiologicalcorridors,theirimportancefornaturaldrainagefeatures,theirscenicviewsandruralcharacter,andtheirimportanceasaneducationalandrecreationalresource...ItisafurtherpurposeofthisConseivationZonetopreservethenaturalresourcesandscenicbeautyoftheareastopromotetourismasanimportanteconomicbenefittotheTownofIthaca.A134footTelecommunicationsTower(morethan3xtheheightlimitationintheConservationZonescode)willunderminethepurposeofestablishingConservationZonescode.GivenourConservationZonescodesweexpectedtheapplicanttoprovideavegetationandlandscapingplanthatofferedmoreinsightintohowtheywillsupportthepurposeoftheTownofIthacaConservationZones.Forexample,howwillthisproject:•minimizevisualintrusiononthecharacterofthearea?•identifytheexistenceofinvasiveplantsandtakestepstoreducetheirpresence?Isthereaninvasivespeciesremovalandmanagementplan?Willconstructionvehiclesbecleaned?(Seedsorotherplantpartsstuckinsoilintiretreadsandothervehiclepartswilleasilyspreadinvasiveplantstootherareas.)•preservethenaturaltopographicandvegetativeprofile?Whatnativeplantspecieswillbeselected?Orhow?•takestepstopreservewildlifehabitatsandbiologicalcorridors?•useofreducedorspectrum-alteredlightingatnighttoreduceskyglowandprotectinsects?RequirementandrestrictionallowustoupholdthepurposeoftheTownofIthacaConservationZones.Atthistime,werecommendnotapprovingaspecialpermitorsiteplanforthis134footTelecommunicationsTowerproject.Wewillreconsideriftheapplicantsatisfactorilyaddressestheconcernswehaveraised.Respecifullysubmitted,LoriBrewerLindsayDombroskieEvaHoffmannMichaelRobertsFrankCantone PropertyDevaluationDuetoCellPhoneTowersTowerSizeandDegreeofDevaluationManyofthetowersdiscussedinthereferencesbelowarerelativelysmall,andtherefore,theeffectsdescribedinmanyofthesmallcelltowerreferencesbelowaremuchlessthantheeffectsfromhighertowers.Specifically,realestatedevaluationmentionedbelowissometimeslessthan5%,evenaslowas1-2%.ButCampanelliLawfirm,whichspecializesinaddressingcellphonetowers,hasstated(bytelephonecommunicationwiththeauthor)thatpropertyvaluesfromlargertowersdecreases5%-30%.ReductionofDevelopment,notjustSalesandSalesPricesItisimportanttonotethatrealestatedevelopment,includingnewsinglehomeconstructionaswellaslargerareadevelopment,isoftendependentonverysmallfinancialmargins.Even1-2%differenceinmargincanmakethedifferencebetweenadecisiontobuild,andadecisiontoholdoff.Soeven1-2%decreasedpropertyvaluesfromcelltowerscandramaticallyaffectrealestatedevelopmentconstructiondecisions.Iflargetowers’devaluationstartsat5%,celltowershaveverystrongpotentialtobasicallyfreezefurtherrealestatedevelopment,areaandregion-wide—notjustreducedsalesprices.TheLong-Term‘TowerPrison’Italsomustbekeptinmindthatwhereassmallcelltransmitterscanbemovedandremoved,ahugetowerisnotpossibletomove,andde-installationisextremelyunlikely.Whichmeansthatthepotentialrealestatepropertydevaluationisfrozennotjusttemporarily,notjustshortterm,ormid-term,butquitelong-term—possiblyforoveracentury.Asortof‘towerprison’fornearbyrealestatesales—anddevelopment.UniversalityofDevaluationThevarietyofgeographicalareas,andthevarietyofsociologicalanddemographicvariablesrepresentedinthereferencesbelowalsomakeitclearthatpropertydevaluationfromcellphonetowersisvirtuallyuniversallyfound,wheneveritisproperlystudied.Therefore,itisareasonableandsafeassumptionthatpropertyvaluesarelikelytooccurinmostareaswherecelltowersareinstalled,anditisnotnecessaryto‘prove’thatanyparticularorspecificareanearaproposedtowerortowerwouldbeanexception.Thegeneralphenomenonofpropertydevaluationfromcelltowersissufficientlyevidencedtothedegreeofuniversalityneededtoindicatethatpropertyvaluewillprobablydecrease.BurdenofProofInotherwords,basedonthereferencesbelow,theburdenofproofrestsonatelecomcompanytoshowwhypropertydevaluationwouldnotoccur,ratherthanaburdenoffurther proofbeingonamunicipalityoradvocatestoshowhowandwhypropertydevaluationwouldoccur.AreminderthatthefinalchecklistpointoftheFCCforEnvironmentalAssessmentisIftheproposedfacilitiesmayhaveasignificantimpactonthehumanenvironment.https://www.fcc.gov/wireless/support/antenna-structure-registration-asr-resources/filingenvironmental-assessmentREFERENCESforPROPERTYDEVALUATIONfromCELLTOWERS1.TheUSDepartmentofHousingandUrbanDevelopment(HUD)considerscelltowersas“HazardsandNuisances.”“WithregardtonewFHAoriginations,theguideprovidesthat“theappraisermustindicatewhetherthedwellingorrelatedpropertyimprovementsarelocatedwithintheeasementservingahigh-voltagetransmissionline,radio/TVtransmissiontower,cellphonetower,microwaverelaydishortower,orsatellitedish,”whichisradio,TVcable,etc.“Ifthedwellingorrelatedpropertyimprovementislocatedwithinsuchaneasement,theDEUnderwritermustobtainaletterfromtheowneroroperatorofthetowerindicatingthatthedwellinganditsrelatedpropertyimprovementsarenotlocatedwithinthetower’sengineeredfalldistanceinordertowaivethisrequirement.”‘Ifthedwellingandrelatedpropertyimprovementsarelocatedoutsidetheeasement,thepropertyisconsideredeligibleandnofurtheractionisnecessary.Theappraiser,however,isinstructedtonoteandcommentontheeffectofmarketabilityresultingfromtheproximitytosuchsitehazardsandnuisances.”a.HUDrequiresitscertifiedappraiserstotakethepresenceofnearbycelltowersintoconsiderationwhendeterminingthevalueofasinglefamilyresidentialproperty.b.HUDguidelinescategorizecelltowerswith“hazardsandnuisances.”HUDprohibitsFHAunderwritingofmortgagesforhomesthatarewithintheengineeredfallzoneofacelltower.c.”Theappraisermustindicatewhetherthedwellingorrelatedpropertyimprovementsislocatedwithintheeasementservingahigh-voltagetransmissionline,radio/TVtransmissiontower,cellphonetower,microwaverelaydishortower,orsatellitedish(radio,TVcable,etc).”https://archives.hud.gov/offices/hsg/sfh/ref/sfhl-18f.cfm2.HUDBranchChiefTestimonyUSHouseofRepresentatives WrittenTestimonyofBobbiBorlandActingBranchChief,HUDSantaAnaHomeownershipCenterHearingbeforetheSubcommitteeonInsurance,HousingandCommunityOpportunityU.S.HouseofRepresentativesCommitteeonFinancialServiceson“TheImpactofOverheadHighVoltageTransmissionTowersandLinesonEligibilityforFederalHousingAdministration(FHA)InsuredMortgagePrograms”Saturday,April14,2012WithregardtothenewFHAoriginations,theguideprovidesthat:“Theappraisermustindicatewhetherthedwellingorrelatedpropertyimprovementsarelocatedwithintheeasementservingahigh-voltagetransmissionline,radio/TVtransmissiontower,cellphonetower,microwaverelaydishortower,orsatellitedish(radio,TVcable,etc).”https://financialservices.house.gov/uploadedfiles/hhrg-112-baO4-wstate-bborland-20120414.pdf3.TheNationalAssociationofREALTORS®andotherrealestateorganizationsareurgingtheFCCtoheedcautionandensurethatitsproposaltoexpandhigh-speed5Gnetworksnationwidedoesn’tviolatepropertyowners’rights:https://magazine.realtor/daily-news/2019/06/24/nar-fcc-s-5g-plan-could-hurt-propertyowners4.“CellTowerAntennasProblematicforBuyers”REALTOR®Magazine:“Increasingnumbersofpeopledon’twanttolivenearcelltowers.Insomeareaswithnewtowers,propertyvalueshavedecreasedbyupto20%.”https://magazine.realtor/daily-news/2014/07/25/cell-towers-antennas-problematic-for-buyers5.Acoalitionofrealestategroups,includingNationalAssociationofRealtors,theNationalMultifamilyHousingCouncil,theNationalApartmentAssociation,andtheInstituteofRealEstateManagement,amongothers,submittedalettertotheFCCexpressingconcernoveritsproposedruleregardingover-the-airreceptiondevices.Thecoalitionsaystherulecouldmakeiteasierforantennasandotherdevicestobeplacedonpropertieswithouttheowners’consent.Thecoalitionflaggedthesepotentialissues:a.Therulecouldallowresidentialorcommercialtenantstoinstalla5Gsmallcellorotherwirelessinfrastructureonabalconyorwithinaleasedspacetoboostindividualcoverageandalsotransmitasignaltoothercustomersofthetelecomprovider.b.Therulecouldallowatelecomcarrierwhoalreadyleasesrooftopspacefromapropertyowner(forantennasorotherequipment)tobeabletoattacha5Gsmallcellorotherwireless infrastructureonthatexistingequipmentwithouthavingtochangetheiragreementwiththepropertyowner.c.”Therealestateassociationsbelievestronglythemarketplaceisworking,andsoweurgetheCommissiontoavoidmeasuresthatcouldprovecounterproductive,andtherebyharminvestment,constraincompetition,andlimitconsumeraccesstobroadbandservice.Wearealsoconcernedthatinopportuneregulationcouldraisethecostofdevelopingmultifamilyhousingandcommercialrealestate.”https://magazine.realtor/daily-news/2019/06/24/nar-fcc-s-5g-plan-could-hurt-propertv-owners6.94%ofPeopleSaidaNearbyCellTower...WouldNegativelyImpactInterestInAPropertyOrThePrice”AsurveyconductedinJune2014bytheNationalInstituteforScience,LawandPublicPolicy(NISLAPP)inWashington,D.C....showshomebuyersandrentersarelessinterestedinpropertieslocatednearcelltowersandantennas,aswellasinpropertieswhereacelltowerorgroupofantennasareplacedontopoforattachedtoabuilding.And79%saidundernocircumstanceswouldtheyeverpurchaseorrentapropertywithinafewblocksofacelltowerorantennas.Andalmost90%ofrespondentssaidtheywereconcernedabouttheincreasingnumberofcelltowersandantennasintheirresidentialneighborhood,generally.”http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20140703005726/en/Survey-National-lnstitute-Science-Law-Public-Policyhttps://electromagnetichealth.org/electromagnetic-health-blog/survey-propertydesirability!7.ReductioninTaxAssessmentbyMontgomeryCounty,MD.AppealsBoardforProbableCellTowerThePropertyTaxAssessmentAppealBoardforMontgomeryCounty,MDloweredaRockvillehome’sassessment:“Comparableswarrantareductioninvalue.Probabilityofneighboringcelltoweralsoaffectsvaluenegatively.April2011,reversingdeterminationbytheDepartmentofAssessmentsandTaxation.https:/’www.scribd.comIdocument/64222439j’Probability-of-neighboring-cell-tower-alsoaffects-valuenegatively 8.WirelessTowersinVisualRange“valuesdeclining...upto9.78%forhomeswithintowervisibilityrangecomparedtohomesoutsidetowervisibilityrange”WirelessTowersandHomeValues:AnAlternativeValuationApproachUsingaSpatialEconometricAnalysis(JournalofRealEstateFinance&Economics,May1,2018):https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313840814_Wireless_Towers_andHome_Values_An_Alternative_Valuation_Approach_Using_a_Spatial_Econometric_Analysis9.20-25%DevaluationFoundinPeer-ReviewedStudyforHomesNearCellTowersTheAppraisalInstitute,thelargestglobalprofessionalmembershiporganizationforappraiserswith91chaptersthroughouttheworld,spotlightedtheissueofcelltowersandthefairmarketvalueofahomeandeducateditsmembersthatacelltowershould,infact,causeadecreaseinhomevalue.DefinitiveworkonthissubjectwasdonebyDr.SandyBond,whoconcludedthat“mediaattentiontothepotentialhealthhazardsof[cellularphonetowersandantennas]hasspreadconcernsamongthepublic,resultinginincreasedresistance”tositesnearthosetowers.ThreestudiesonpropertydevaluationduetocelltowersbyDr.SandyBond:10.“UsingGIStoMeasuretoMeasurethelmpactofDistancetoCellPhoneTowersonHousePricesinFlorida”bySandyBond,AppraisalJournal,Fall2007:http://www.prres.net/papers/BondSquiresUsingGIStoMeasure.pdf11.“TheImpactofCellPhoneTowersonHousePricesinResidentialNeighborhoods”bySandyBond,PhD,andKo-KangWang.Apeer-reviewedstudyfoundhomesnearcellphonetowersweredevalued20%to25%:https://www.emfanalysis.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Impact-of-Cell-Towers-on-House-Prices.pdf12.“CellularPhoneTowers:PerceivedImpactonResidentsandPropertyValues”UniversityofAuckland,paperpresentedattheNinthPacific-RimRealEstateSocietyConference,Brisbane,Australia,January19-22,2003http://www.prres.net/Papers/BondTheImpactOfCellularPhoneBaseStationTowersOnPropertyValues.pdf13.Future5GMMWavesMayRequireCuttingDownTreesinYards—ReducesValueBySeveralThousandDollars https://www.greenblue.com/na/how-trees-increase-property-values/IfthistowerevertransmittedMMwavesinthefuture,thattransmissionwould,undercurrent5GMMwavecapability,requiredirect“lineofsight”fromthetransmittertoeachhouse.Sohundredsorthousandsoftreeswouldneedmajorbranchesremovedorcuttingdown.14.NASAscientistsellshomeof25yearsinPiedmont,CA(wealthysuburbofSanFrancisco)becausecitycouncilapprovesaDAScelltowernearhishome:http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/11/15/east-bay-homeowners-challenge-proposed-cellphone-towers/15.“Morethan50%ofpeoplewouldnotbuyahouseneara5Gtower”https://www.standard.net.au/story/7066248/one-in-four-believe-5g-poses-health-risk/16.WLWTMajorMetroTVNewsVideo,#13onthispage:https://www.emfanalysis.com/property-values-declining-cell-towers/checkallthese:https://scientists4wiredtech.com/2019/01/proposed-4g-and-5g-wtfs-lower-property-values!andthese:https://scientists4wiredtech.com/what-are-4g-5g/ceIl-tower-installation-planslower-property-values!17.MontgomeryCounty,MDGovernmentStatesCellTowersNearHomesDecreasePropertyValuesInafilinginalawsuitagainsttheFederalCommunicationsCommission,MontgomeryCounty,Marylandsaidthroughitsexpertsthat“...theplacementofsmallcells—dependingontheirsizeandvisibility—mayaffectneighboringpropertyvalues....evenassmallreductioninvalueofhomesinaneighborhoodmayhaveamulti-milliondollareffect.”Experttestimonystatesthat“studieshaveconcludedthatavisibleantennaupto1,000feetawayresultsinpropertyvaluereductionof1.82%foraresidentialhomeor$3,342inthemarketstudied.”“CommentsofSmartCommunitiesSitingCoalition”(ofwhichMontgomeryCountyisone)beforetheFCC.March8,2017.“StreamliningDeploymentofSmallCellInfrastructurebyImprovingWirelessFadllities/WTDocketNo.16-421)”SeeExhibit3.https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/cable/Resources/Files/Towers/documents/Mobilitie%20Comments%20-%2OSMART%20C0MMUNITIES%2OSITING%2OCOALITION%20(2017).pdf 18.IndustryCanada(CanadiangovernmentdepartmentpromotingCanadianeconomy),“ReportOntheNationalAntennaTowerPolicyReview,SectionD—TheSixPolicyQuestions,Question6.Whatevidenceexiststhatpropertyvaluesareimpactedbytheplacementofantennatowers?”http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf08353.htmlwebsite19.NewZealandMinistryfortheEnvironment,“Appendix5:TheImpactofCellphoneTowersonPropertyValues”;seeattached.Source:NewZealandMinistryfortheEnvironmentwebsite,http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/rma/nes-telecommunications-section32-augo8/html/pagel2.html20.NewYorkTimes,September7,2000“TheFutureisHere,andIt’sUgly:aSpreadingofTechno-blightofWires,CablesandTowersSparksaRevolt”https://www.nvtimes.com/2000/09/07/technology/future-here-it-s-ugly-spreading-techno-blight-wires-cables-towers-sparks-revolthtml21.NYTimesRealEstatesectionarticleAug.29,2010“APushbackAgainstCellTowers,”onhowrealtorshaveahardtimesellinghomesnexttocelltowers:“Iftheyhavetheopportunitytobuyanotherhome,theydo.”Shesaidcellantennasandtowersnearhomesaffectedpropertyvalues,adding,“Youcanseeabuyer’sdismayoverthesightofacelltowernearahomejustbytheirexpression,eveniftheydon’tsayanything.”http://www.nvtimes.com/2010/08/29/realestate/291izo.html22.NvTimesAug.29,2010(sameday)ondecreasingpropertyvaluesfromcelltowers:http://www.nvtimes.com/2010/08/29/realestate/29Lizo.htmI?r=2&ref=realestate26.“CellTowersAreSproutinginUnlikelyPlaces,”TheNewYorkTimes,January9,2000(fearsthatpropertyvaluescoulddropbetween5and40percentbecauseofneighboringcelltowers)23.NYTimesAug.30,2016:PaloAlto,CA5Gtowers,includingpropertydevaluation:https://www.nvtimes.com/2016/08/30/us/spotty-cell-reception-in-the-heart-of-silicon-valley.html24.NationalAssociationofRealtorsonPropertyDevaluationDuetoCellPhoneTowers: http://www.realtor.org/field-guides/field-guide-to-celI-phone-towers25.NobPressarticlenotingsuccessfullitigationagainstcellphonetowerinstallationsrelatedtodecliningpropertyvalues:http://www.nolo.com/Iegal-encyclopedia/emf-radiofreguency-exposure-from-cell-32210-2.html26.PressarticlesfromaroundthecountryrelatedtodecliningpropertyvaluesaroUndcelltowers:https://sites.google.com/site/nocelltowerinourneighborhood/home/decreased-real-estatevalue27.Glendale,CA:DuringtheJanuary7,2009GlendaleCityCouncilpublichearingaboutaproposedT-mobilecelltowerinaresidentialneighborhood,localrealestateprofessionalAddoraBealldescribedhowaSpanishhomeintheVerdugoWoodlands,listedfor1milliondollars,sold$25,000lessbecauseofapowerpoleacrossthestreet.“Perceptioniseverything,”saidMs.Beallstated.“Itthepublicperceivesittobeaproblem,thenitisaproblem.Itreallydoesaffectpropertyvalues.”SeeGlendaleCityCouncilmeeting,January7,2009,videoofAddoraBeallcomments@2:35:24:http://glendale.granjcus.com/MediaPlayer.php?viewid=12&clipid=122728.WindsorHills/ViewPark,CA:residentswhowerefightingoffaT-Mobileantennaintheirneighborhoodreceivedlettersfromrealestatecompanies,homeownerassociationsandresidentorganizationsintheircommunityconfirmingthatrealestatevalueswoulddecreasewithacellphoneantennaintheirneighborhood.Toseecopiesoftheirletterstocityofficials,lookatthe.ReportfromLosAngelesCountyRegionalPlanningCommissionregardingCUPCaseNo.200700020-(2),fromL.A.CountyBoardofSupervisorsSeptember16,2009,Meetingdocuments,LosAngelesCountywebsite:http://file.lacounty.gov/bos/supdocs/48444.pdfa.Seepage295,August31,2008LetterfromDonnaBohanna,President/RealtorofSolsticeInternationalRealtyandresidentofBaldwinHillstoLosAngelesBoardofSupervisorsexplainingnegativeeffectofcelltoweronpropertyvaluesofsurroundingproperties.“Asarealtor,Imustdisclosetopotentialbuyerswherethereareanycelltowersnearby.Ihavefoundinmyownexperiencethatthereisaveryrealstigmaandcellularfacilitiesnearhomesareperceivedasundesirable.” b.Seepage296,March26,2008LetterfromrealestateprofessionalBeverlyClark,“Thosewhowouldotherwisepurchaseahome,nowconsidereddesirable,canbedeterredbyafacilityliketheoneproposedandthissignificantlyreducessalespricesanddoessoimmediately...lbelieveafacilitysuchastheoneproposedwilldiminishthebuyerpool,significantlyreducehomessalesprices,alterthecharacterofthesurroundingareaandimpairtheuseoftheresidentialpropertiesfortheirprimaryuses.”c.SeePage298,TheAppraiserSquadCommentAddendum,aboutthereducedvalueofahomeofresidentdirectlybehindtheproposedinstallationafterthecityhadapprovedtheCUPforawirelessfacilitythere:“Thepropertyownerhaslistedtheproperty...andhashadapotentialbuyerbackoutofthedealoncethisparticularinformationofthesatellitecommunicationcenterwasannounced....therehasbeenacanceledpotentialsalethereforeitisrelevantanddeterminedthatthisnewplanningdecisioncanhavesomenegativeeffectonthesubjectproperty.”d.SeePage301,PowerPowerpresentationbyresidentsaboutrealestatevalues:“TheCaliforniaAssociationofRealtorsmaintainsthat‘sellersandlicenseesmustdisclosematerialfactsthataffectthevalueordesirabilityoftheproperty,’including‘knownconditionsoutsideofandsurrounding’it.Thisincludes‘nuisances’andzoningchangesthatallowforcommercialuses.”e.SeePages302-305fromtheBaldwinHillsEstatesHomeownersAssociation,theUnitedHomeownersAssociation,andtheWindsorHillsBlockClub,opposingtheproposedcelltowerandaddressingtheeffectsonhomesthere:“Manyresidentsarepreparedtosellinanalreadydepressedmarketor,inthecaseofonenewresidentwithlittletonoequity,simplywalkawayiftheseantennasareinstalled.f.SeePages362-363,September17,2008,LetterfromresidentSallyHampton,oftheWindsorHillsHomeowner’sAssoc.,ItemK,addressingeffectsoftheproposedfacilityonrealestatevalues.29.SantaCruz,CA:Apreschoolclosedupbecauseofacelltowerinstalledonitsgrounds;“SantaCruzPreschoolClosesCitingCellTowerRadiation,”SantaCruzSentinel,May17,2006;Source,EMFacts:http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/?p=466.30.Merrick,NY:NextGwirelessfacilitiesinstallationresultedindeclininghomerealestatevalues.SeeBestBuyersBrokersRealtywebsiteadfromthisarea,“ResidentsofMerrick,SeafordandWantaughComplainOverPerceivedDecliningPropertyValues:http://www.bestbuyerbroker.com/blog/?p=86. 31.Burbank,CA:CityCouncilpublichearingonDecember8,2009:hillsideresidentandaCalifornialicensedrealestateprofessionalAlexSafarianinformedcityofficialsthatlocalrealestateprofessionalshespokewithagreeabouttheadverseeffectstheproposedcelltowerwouldhaveonpropertyvalues:“I’vedoneresearchonthesubjectaswellasspokentomanyrealestateprofessionalsinthearea,andtheyallagreethatthere’snodoubtthatcelltowersnegativelyaffectrealestatevalues.SteveHovakimian,aresidentnearBracepark,andaCaliforniarealestatebroker,andthepublisherofHomebyDesignmonthlyrealestatemagazine,statedthathehasseenpropertiesnearcelltowersloseupto10%oftheirvalueduetoproximityofthecelltower...Soeveniftheytrytodisguisethemastackyfakemetalpinetrees,asarealestateprofessionalyou’rerequiredbytheCaliforniaAssociationofRealtors:thatsellersandlicenseesmustdisclosematerialfactsthataffectthevalueordesirabilityofapropertyincludingconditionsthatareknownoutsideandsurroundingareas.”SeeCityofBurbankWebsite,Video,AlexSafariancomments@6:24:28:http://burbank.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?viewid=6&clipid=848)32.27Burbankrealestateprofessionals,inDecember2009,signedapetition/statementofferingtheirprofessionalopinionthattheproposedT-MobilecelltoweratBraceCanyonParkwouldnegativelyimpactthesurroundinghomes,stating:“Itisourprofessionalopinionthatcelltowersdecreasethevalueofhomesintheareatremendously.Peerreviewedresearchalsoconcursthatcellsitesdoindeedcauseadecreaseinhomevalue.WeencourageyoutorespectthewishesoftheresidentsanddenytheproposedT-Mobileleaseatthislocation.WealsorequestthatyoustrengthenyourzoningordinanceregardingwirelessfacilitiesliketheneighboringcityofGlendalehasdone,tocreatepreferredandnon-preferredzonesthatwillprotectthewelfareofourresidentsandtheirpropertiesaswellasBurbank’srealestatebusinessprofessionalsandtheCityofBurbank.Higherpropertyvaluesmeanmoretaxrevenueforthecity,whichhelpsimproveourcity.”(SubmittedtoCityCouncil,PlanningBoard,CityManager,CityClerkandothercityofficialsviae-mailonJune18,2010:http://sites.google.com/site/nocelltowerinourneighborhood/home/decreased-real-estatevalue/burbank-real-estate-professionals-statement)33.TheObserver(U.K.)“Phonemastsblighthousesales:HealthfearsarealarmingbuyersasmastsspreadacrossBritaintomeetrisingdemandformobiles,”SundayMay25,2003http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2003/may/25/houseprices.uknews34.ChicagoTribune,January18,2000“QuarreloverPhoneTowerNowCourt’sCall,”(fearofloweredpropertyvaluesduetocelltower) http://cingari.in/carbon-brush-hbsre/rogers-cell-towers.html35.Barrington[Illinois]Courier-Review,February15,1999“TowerOpponentsRingUpaVictory,”CubaTownshipassessorreducedthevalueoftwelvehomesfollowingtheconstructionofacelltowerinLakeCounty,IL.http://spot.colorado.edu/’maziara/appeal&attachments/Newton-43-LoweredPropertyValuation/36.$1.2millionawardedtoacouplebecausea100-foot-tallcelltowerwasdeterminedtohavelessenedthevalueoftheirpropertyandcausedthemmentalanguish:“GTEWirelessLosesLawsuitoverCell-PhoneTower,”HoustonChronicle,February23,1999,SectionA,page11.https://sites.google.com/site/nocelftowerinourneighborhood/home/decreased-real-estatevalue?tmpl=%2Fsystem%2Fapp%2Ftemplates%2Fprint%2F&showPrintDialog=137.AnneArundelBoardofEducationCellTowerPublicComment“Researchindicatesthatover90%ofhomebuyersandrentersarelessinterestedinpropertiesnearcelltowersandwouldpaylessforapropertyinclosevicinitytocellularantennas.”https://ehtrust.org/cell-phone-towers-lower-property-values-documentation-research/38.TheImpactofOverheadHighVoltageTransmissionTowers...onEligibilityForFederalHousingAdministration(FHA)InsuredMortgagePrograms,CommitteeonFinancialServicesU.S.HouseofRepresentatives(Idonotknowifcelltowersarehighvoltage).https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-112hhrg75087/html/CHRG-112hhrg75087.htm39.Mostpeopleareunawarethatonceatowerisbuilt,itcangoupto20feethigherwithnopublicprocess.Inotherwords,a100foottowercanbeincreasedto120feetafteritisconstructedandthecommunitywillhavenoinput.MiddleClassTaxReliefandJobCreationActof2012,Sec.6409(a)TheFCChasproposedandiscurrentlyconsideringrulestoclarifyandimplementtherequirementsofSection6409(a)oftheMiddleClassTaxReliefandJobCreationActof2012.Undersection6409(a),“aStateorlocalgovernmentmaynotdeny,andshallapprove,anyeligiblefacilitiesrequestforamodificationofanexistingwirelesstowerorbasestationthatdoesnotsubstantiallychangethephysicaldimensionsofsuchtowerorbasestation.”TheFCCconsiderseligiblefacilities’requeststoincluderequestsforcarrierco-locationsandfor replacingexistingantennasandgroundequipmentwithlargerantennas/equipmentormoreantennas/equipment.TheFCChasproposed,aspartoftheserules,applyingafour-prongedtest,whichcouldleadtocelltowersincreasinginheightby20-plusfeetbeyondtheirapprovedconstructionheights.Applyingthetestmayalsoleadincreasesinthesizesofcompounds,equipmentcabinetsandshelters,andhazardousmaterialsusedforback-uppowersupplies,beyondwhatwasoriginallyapproved.Underthistest,a“substantialincreaseinthesizeofthetower”occursif:1)[t]hemountingoftheproposedantennaonthetowerwouldincreasetheexistingheightofthetowerbymorethan10%,orbytheheightofoneadditionalantennaarraywithseparationfromthenearestexistingantennanottoexceedtwentyfeet,whicheverisgreater,exceptthatthemountingoftheproposedantennamayexceedthesizelimitssetforthinthisparagraphifnecessarytoavoidinterferencewithexistingantennas;or2)[tjhemountingoftheproposedantennawouldinvolvetheinstallationofmorethanthestandardnumberofnewequipmentcabinetsforthetechnologyinvolved,nottoexceedfour,ormorethanonenewequipmentshelter;or3)[t]hemountingoftheproposedantennawouldinvolveaddinganappurtenancetothebodyofthetowerthatwouldprotrudefromtheedgeofthetowermorethantwentyfeet,ormorethanthewidthofthetowerstructureattheleveloftheappurtenance,whicheverisgreater,exceptthatthemountingoftheproposedantennamayexceedthesizelimitssetforthinthisparagraphifnecessarytosheltertheantennafrominclementweatherortoconnecttheantennatothetowerviacable;or4)[t]hemountingoftheproposedantennawouldinvolveexcavationoutsidethecurrenttowersite,definedasthecurrentboundariesoftheleasedorownedpropertysurroundingthetowerandanyaccessorutilityeasementscurrentlyrelatedtothesite.https://www.congress.gov/112/plaws/publ96/PLAW-ll2publ9G.pdfhttps://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7521070994.pdf40.TheCaliforniaAssociationofRealtors’PropertySellersQuestionnairelists“celltowers”onthedisclosureformforsellersofrealestate.Thesellermustnote“neighborhoodnoise,nuisanceorotherproblemsfrom...”andincludescelltowersonthelonglistproblems.https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/Real-Estate-Seller-Propertv-Questionaire-reduced12-17-1.pdf41.“WirelessTowersandHomeValues:AnAlternativeValuationApproachUsingaSpatialEconometricAnalysis”(JournalofRealEstateFinance&Economics,May1,2018)Forpropertieslocatedwithin0.72kilometersoftheclosesttower,resultsrevealsignificantsocialwelfarecostswithvaluesdeclining2.46%onaverage,andupto9.78%forhomeswithintowervisibilityrangecomparedtohomesoutsidetowervisibilityrange;inaggregate,propertieswithinthe0.72-kilometerbandloseover$24milliondollars(“Impactof CommunicationTowersandEquipmentonNearbyPropertyValues”preparedbyBurgoyneAppraisalCompany,March7,2017)https://ehtrust.orgJwp-content/uploads/Cell-Towers-Home-Values.pdf42.”In32yearsofexperienceasaRealEstateAppraiserspecializingindetrimentalconditions,takings,adverseimpactsandright-of-way,Ihavefoundthataesthetics(orrathertheadverseimpactonaesthetics)ofexternalitiesroutinelyhasthelargestimpactonpropertyvalues.Asaresult,proximitytotowersofalltypes(cell,windturbine,andelectrictransmission)hasanimpactonpropertyvalues.Thesameistruewithallsortsofsurfaceinstallationssuchaspumpstationsandcommunicationequipmentboxes.ThiswouldapplytonewsmallcellandDASequipment,althoughagain,onewouldexpectthatthelessintrusivethefacility,thelesssignificanttheimpact.SmallcellandDASinstallationscanbeunsightly,bulky,inconsistent,andevennoisy.”“TheCostofConvenience:EstimatingtheImpactofCommunicationAntennasonResidentialPropertyValues”(LandEconomics,Feb.2016)https://gattonweb.uky.edu/Faculty/blomquist/LE%202016%2oLocke%2oBlomciuist%2otowers.pdf43.“TheLoDownonCellTowers,NeighborhoodValues,andtheSecretiveTelecoms”“Thebestestimateoftheimpactisthatapropertywithavisibleantennalocated1,000feetawaysellsfor1.82%($3,342)lessthanasimilarpropertylocated4,500feetaway.Theaggregateimpactis$10.0millionforpropertieslocatedwithin1,000feet”https://dissidentvoice.org/2015/12/the-lo-down-on-cell-towers-neighborhood-values-and-the-secretive-telecoms/44.“FakeMetalTrees”“Despitetheobviousadvantagesofcelltowersforcommunication,they’reacommonsourceoftensionforlocalcommunities.Here’swhy.”https://tedium.co/2015/08/04/cell-towers-nimby-trees/45.“ExamininginvisibleurbanpollutionanditseffectonrealestatevalueinNewYorkCity”“UnderstandingEMFvaluesofbusinessandresidentiallocationsisrelativelynewfortherealestateindustry.Cellphonetowersbringextrataxrevenueandbetterreceptiontoasection ofthecity,butmanyareskepticalbecauseofpotentialhealthrisksandtheimpactonpropertyvalues.Increasingnumbersofpeopledon’twanttolivenearcelltowers.Insomeareaswithnewtowers,propertyvalueshavedecreasedbyupto20%.”https://nyrej.com/examining-invisible-urban-pollution-and-its-effect-on-real-estate-value-innew-york-city-by-william-gati46.BestBestandKriegerLettertoMs.MarleneH.Dortch,SecretaryFCCSeptember19,2018“RE”SmartCommunitiesandSpecialDistrictsCoalition—ExParteSubmission:AcceleratingWirelessBroadbandDeploymentbyRemovingBarrierstoInfrastructureInvestment,WTDocketNo.17-79;AcceleratingWirelineBroadbandDeploymentbyRemovingBarrierstoInfrastructureInvestment,WCDocketNo.17-84”“Further,theassumptionthatthereislittletoconsiderinasmallcellapplicationisbeliedbythedefinitiontheCommissionadoptsfor“smallwirelessfacility”:whileitjustifiesitsrulesbasedontheassumptionthatmanysmallcellsarethesizeofapizzabox,apizzaboxisabout1/2cu.ft.insize,whiletheCommissionproposestoexpeditepermittingofequipmentcabinets28cu.ft.insize—astackof56pizzaboxes—onfrontlawnsthroughoutthecountry.ConsideringthattheSmartCommunities’priorfilingsshowthattheadditionoffacilitiesofthissizediminishpropertyvalues,itisstrangefortheCommissiontoassumethatapprovalcanbegrantedintheregulatoryblinkofaneye.”“AgoodexampleliesintheCommission’sdiscussionofundergrounding.62TheCommissionatonceappearstorecognizethatcommunitiesspendmillionsofdollarsonundergroundingprojects,andthatallowingpolestogoupinareaswherepoleshavebeentakedownhassignificantimpactsonaesthetics(nottomentionpropertyvalues).”https://www.montgomervcountymd.gov/cable/Resources/Files/Towers/cellTowerlnfo/Ex%2OParte-Smart%2oCommunities%2oand%2oSpecial%20Districst%2009-19-18-c2%20(1).pdfThefactthefollowingisfromIndiadoesnotmeanitisirrelevanttoJeffersonCounty,IA.Itindicatestheuniversality,andthereforedepthoftheprinciplethatcelltowersdecreasepropertyvalues.47.TheTimesofIndia:“Propertyhitwheresignalmastsrise”July2012“Propertydealersacrossthecitysaythatbuildingswhichhostmobilephonetowershave10-20%lessmarketvalue.“Forgetbuyingtheseproperties,peopledon’twanttotakethemonrenteven,particularlywhentheyhaveachoice.Ifapersonisgoingtoinvestcrores,whywouldhebuyaproperty withatower?”asksPal.Accordingto1KThakkar,aDefenceColony-basedpropertydealer,whilethecostofthebuildingwhichhasthetowerisrelativelyless,otherbuildingsinthevicinityalsogetaffected.“Noonewantstobuyahousewithin100metresofthebuildingwhichhasthetower.Theratesforsuchpropertiesdropby10-20%,andsometimesevenmore,”saidThakkar,co-ownerofA-OneAssociates.”48.PennsylvaniaAssociationofRealtors:“DoNeighborhoodCellTowersImpactPropertyValues?”https://www.parealtors.org/cell-towers-impact-property-values/49.TMobileHearing:Appraiser:“CellTowersWillAffectPropertyValues”https://patch.com/new-jersey/bridgewater/appraiser-t-mobile-cell-tower-will-affectproperty-values50.FloridaStateUniversityLawReview:“ThePowerLineDilemma:CompensationforDiminishedPropertyValueCausedbyFearofElectromagneticFields”https://ir.law.fsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1427&context=lr51.NewZealandMinistryoftheEnvironment:“TheImpactofCellPhoneTowersonPropertyValues”https://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/rma/nes-telecommunications-section32-augo8/html/pagel2.html#footnote-2452.Towers,TurbinesandTransmissionLines:ImpactsonPropertyValue(Book)Bond,Sims,Dent:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/978111853321553.HUDBranchChiefTestimonyUSHouseofRepresentativesWrittenTestimonyofBobbiBorlandActingBranchChief,HUDSantaAnaHomeownershipCenterHearingbeforetheSubcommitteeonInsurance,HousingandCommunityOpportunityU.S.HouseofRepresentativesCommitteeonFinancialServiceson“TheImpactofOverheadHighVoltageTransmissionTowersandLinesonEligibilityforFederalHousingAdministration(FHA)InsuredMortgagePrograms”Saturday,April14,2012WithregardtothenewFHAoriginations,theguideprovidesthat:“Theappraisermustindicatewhetherthedwellingorrelatedpropertyimprovementsarelocatedwithintheeasementservingahigh-voltagetransmissionline,radio/TVtransmissiontower,cellphonetower,microwaverelaydishortower,orsatellitedish(radio,TVcable,etc).” https://financialservices.house.gov/uploadedfiles/hhrg-112-baO4-wstate-bborland-20120414.pdf54.“CellTowersonSchoolsNearHomesLowerPropertyValues”PGCPSBoardofEducationHearingVideo#2:https://ehtrust.org/cell-phone-towers-lower-property-values-documentation-researchI55.WLWTTV“Homeownersspeakoutagainstplanstobuild2cellphonetowers”Video#3:research!56.TownshipTrusteeFightsCellTowerConstruction:Video#4:https:Hehtrust.org/cell-phone-towers-lower-property-values-documentation-research/ 1-15.KERKSIIREILviiIA\VAVliiin,i’SvrvIti!KeeRt!ttLt\8)14)5(liii\;lc;rIAcen;i÷‘Ilurnirigtian.MI480cc?RE:ProposedCellTowerl,ocatIonAdjacentTo:3/14/20243255StorieyCreekRoadOaklandTownship,Ml48363AscendiquestriariTowhomItmayconcern:Iamalicensedfull-timeRealEstateSalesperson,andamemberofboththeGreaterMetropolitanAssociationofRealtorsIGMAR)andtheNorthOaklandCountyBoardofRealtors(NOCROR)Withover30yearsofexperiencebothlistingandselhnghomesandproperties,primarilyinOaklandCounty,IhanextensiveknowledgeandfamiliaritywithOaklandTownship.ManyvisitstothecarwashhavebeenrequiredaltesreturninghornshowingprospectivebuyersthetruebeautyandnatureofOaklandTownship.andwhytheyshouldstronglyconsidermakingittheirnewborne,Thisexperiencestrikesat11wheartofwhy,Inmyprofessionalopinion,theinstallationoftheproposedcelltowerwilladverselyaffectboththevalueof3255StoneyfrenkRoad,andtheoperationsofAscendEquestrian.Prospectivebuyersalwayskeeptwomainthingsinmind,locationandaesthetics.Noonepreferstolivenearal9S1oot-tallcelltower,astheyareunsightlyandalwaysvisible,andwillchooseanotherlocationifpossible.ThisIseweciallytrueinOaklandTownshIp.whenoneofthemaindecisionstolivethereInthefIrsplaceIstoenjoythenaturalsetting.Additionally,themarketabilityofapropertyIsdiminishedastherearefewerbuyersinterested(evenatareducedprice),takinglongertosellandexposingthepropertyownertogreatermarketrisks.Thesefactorswilldecreasethepropertyvaluebyamlnfrnumof1520%Inaddition,theperceptionofwhatacelltowerbringstoanarea,evenifnotborneoutinfact,alsodirectlyaffectsvalue—prospectivebuyenwillavoidtheselocationsbasedonhowtheyfeel.Acelltower,andrelatedsupportequipmentandbuiltlirts,today—whatwillthefuturebringtothislocationasneedschange?PerceptionIsrealityinthemarketplace.TheoperatlonsofAscendE4ues’trianrelyInlargepartontheirsetting—clientscomeouttoenjoytlielvhorsesInthebeautyofthenaturalsurmunding.I-lowmanywilchoesi’tofindanotherlocationduetotl’ievisualimpactoftheproposedcelltowerisunknown,butnotinsignificant.JamesBerkshireHathawayHomeservlcesXe.Realty Qirsnfiira4lSSOSdWOodward-)151ICJLtIIBwmrngh4m.MJ48009(2486447000Ctkak.0tiiU)S4gnatt.tesofliebytcominltsnAtlrJNA[ratt.3/14/2024RE:CeLLToweraffecting3255StoneyCreekRoadEowhomiimayconcern;IamalocaLReatestateAgentwithover30yearsexperienceinmyprofession.IdealwithhighendHorsePropertiesandFarmsintheMetamota,MichiganandNorthOaklandCounty.MichiganInmyopinionfromextensiveexperienceIwouldtellyoutheCellTowerwouldnegativelyeffectthepriceofthepropertybetween15%-30%.Notonlythatbutcloseto90%ofmyclientswouldrefusetoconsiderlookingatorbuyingtheproperty.ThevisualobstructionmadebytheCelLTowerwouldtakeawaypeaceandtranquiLitythatmyclientsmovetothecountrytoachieve.MyclientsintheareaIservicehavegreatsuccessusingSateliteInternetandPhoneServiceIwouldseenoreasonthataCelLTower(eyesore)wouldbeneeded.SincerelyB.LeeEmbreyLicensedRealestatéAgentSignatureSothebysInternationalRealestate915OldWoodward.Birmingham,MI48009 BERKSHIREHATHAWAYKEEREALTYHOMESERVICESMarch14,2024CharlerTownshipofOakland4393CoffinsRdRochester.MIDearOaklandTownshiphoardoftrustees,ingbeenIn11wlocalrealestatebusinessfoi11wlast40yearsasaBrokerandrealtorIamconfidentinstalingthatC4i11IoweiIaciI,tseialteringnaturalviewssubalanlieltydecreaseptopertyvalues.Typically,properhaswillsell1020%lowerthanpropertiesfreeanddearfromthai(iqUspinenIinsihIInmyopinionandexperience,prospechvebuyersltanawayfrompurchasingahomel1wtislocatedneartransmissionequipment,ThesepropertiesalsotendtostayonthemarketlongerandtypicallysustainareductioninValue.Thepropertyat3255StorieyCreekRdhashadanequestrianfacilitytheresince1967.Theoutdoorarenawouldhavea19storycelltowerloomingoverthisbeautifulnaturallywoodedpropertyHorses,riders,spectators,andstudentsallhavehadthepleasureofenjoyingthebeeuhfulnaturalviewforover50years.ThislowercouldcausepotentiallossofincometotheownersofthefacfliLyshouldhorseownerschoosetomoveandrentpastureswithoutacelltowernearby.inmyprofessionalopiniontheplacementofacellularfacilityadjacentto3255StoneyCreekRd.willsubstantiallydecreasethevalueofthispropertyandshouldtheychoose10sellitwouldtakeadditionalmonthstocloseonasaleofIhalproperly,evenatareducedprice.Sinceraly.KatiyWdsonAssociiLBroker TopgentRealtyMarch15th2024ToWhomItMayConcern:MynameisCharlesTamou,Broker/CEOofTopAgentRealtyinTroy.Inmy15+yearsofexperienceI’venoticedthatcelltowerscanhaveahugeimpactonthevalueofhomes.Inmyprofessionalopinion,thepresenceofacelltowerintheareaofapropertycandeclineItsmarketvalueforafewreasons.Reasonssuchastheproximityofthetowerandtheaestheticsofthesurroundingareamaycausedeclineinvalue.Inregardstotheproximityofthetower,thecloserthetoweris,themoreitwiltdeclinethevalue.Aestheticallyspeaking,homeownerssimplydonotlikethelookoflargecelltowers.Asfarastheamountofdecline,thedeclinecanbearound15%-45%ofthevalue!CharlesTamouCEO/BrokerCEO@TopAgentMi.com ChristiBraxton402HeckoryLanetaper,Ml48446Frienarne:l.ettvrtoDisputeBuildingofCellTower031524CMB,docxMarch15,2024ToWhomItMayConcern,IamafriendofLawrenceFoltenyiwhoseproperties.Heandhissisterownthatarelocatedat3255and3265StoneyCreekRd.,Oakland,MI48163.ThefirstaddressIsofthehorsebarn,paddocks,andridingarenas.ThesecondaddressIsthehomethatmyfriendsgrewupin,anduseforretreats.AsaretiredAppraiserIdobelievethattheCelltowerinquestionwouldImpactthevalueofthesurroundinghomes.ThereIsaformulathatiscurrentlypopularamongappraiserstouseuptoI%MarketValueDecreaseforCelltowersandotherlargeutilitytypestructuresandwhilethatisaguideline,asanappraiseryouneedtobeobjectiveandlookateverysitustionWithoutdoingafullappraisal,andmarketanalysis,itwouldbehardtosaytheexactamountofd&reaseIcanstatethattheImpactonthevaluewouldstandIntheareaofyouwouldbetakingawaytheverydrawofaruralarea,thenaturalcountrysidewithbeautifulopenvistas,withsuchadominatestructureBeforeadecisionismadeIwouldaskyoutowalkthetranquilityofthebeautifulwoods,ponds,farmlandandallIt’sgorgeoussceneryIftheybuildthishuge19storycelltowerattheproposedlocation,whichisadjacenttotheirproperty,andseehowItwillnegativelyimpacttheviewsandnaturalbeautythatisoutthere.Therefore,weaskthatyoupleasedotherightthingandrejecttheproposaltobuildthis19storycelltowerwhichwoulddominate(heskylineandtakeawayfromthemajesticbeautythatthisareacurrentlyprovidesThankyouverymuchforyourumfrrstandingandconsiderationInthismatter.Sincerwly,,!fr/jA1vChnstiBraxton c5JANEiODtO(AREALESTATILIVETHEDREAMJaneKonoyaKWDOMAIN210SOk]WoodwardAve0200Birmingham,MI48009janek@kw.com(248)497-2706March15,2024CharterTownshipofOaklandBoardofTrusteesCharterTownshipofOaklandHaP4393CollinsRoad.RochesterMichigan48306DearMembersoftheCharterTownshipofOaklandBoardoftrustees.IwritetoyouasaconcernedrealtorwithsignificantexperienceinOaklandCounty.representingthevoicesofhomeownersandresidentswhoaredeeplytroubledbytheproposaltoconstructa19-storycellphonetoweronPropertytO:107400-009Thisdevelopment,ifapproved,wouldundoubtedlycastashadowofdetrimentoverthesurroundingproperties,particularlythosesituatedat3255StoneyCreekRd(PropertyID.10-7-400-012)and3265StoneyCreekRd(PropertyID:10-7-400-011).Drawinguponmyprofessionalexperhseandextensivetenureinboththefinanceandtealestateindustries,Icanconfidentlyassertthatallowingsuchatowertobeerectedwouldpre’cpdateatangibledeclineinpropertyvaluesfor1heneghboringresidences.Fewerhuyersarelikelytomakeottersonsurroundingproperties,thehomeswillsitonthemarketforlongerandthefinalsalespricewillhesignkhcantlylowerthansimilarpropertieswithoutadjacentcellulartransmissionequipment,Basedonmarketanalysisandpastcb4ervabons,Iestimatethaitheimplementationofatoweringstructureotthisnalurewouldresultinareductionofpropertyvaluesbyapproximately12-159.:Enthisarea,giventheruralfeelofthesurroundingpropertiesInconclusion.IimploretheOaklandTownshipBoardofTrusteestocarefullyconsidertheimplicationsofapprovingtheconsiructionofa19-storycellphonetoweronPropertyID:10-7-400-009.ThenegativeImpactonpropertyvaluesandcommunitycohesonfaroutweighanypotentialbenefitsthisprojectmayofferThankyouforyourattentiontothismatter.Istandreadytoprovideanyadditionalinformationorassistancethatmayberequiredtomakeaninformeddecision. Sincerely,Reiillo’KWDOMAINJaneKonnyaR.atEstateConsuant•14B-4772706ojon.k.kw.coniOMANta4a4wc;ItLiOMAN BERKSHIREHATHAWAYKUREALTYHOMESFPVt(ESBoardofTrusteesOaklandTownship,Michigan4393CollinsRoad.Rochester,Ml48306DearMembersoftheBoardofTnistees,IamwritingtoexpressmyconcernsregardingtheproposedconstructionofacelltowerfacilityinOaklandTownship.AsaseasonedrealtorwithaprimaryfocusinOaklandCountyandOaklandTownshipsince2015,Ihaveextensiveexperienceinassessingpropertyvaluesandmarketbendsinthearea.Basedonmyprofessionalopinionandfirsthandexperience,Ifirmlybelievethatthepresenceofacelltowerfacilityc;significantlyimpactthesaleabilityandvalueofnearbybarnes,Propertieslocatedincloseproximitytosuchfacilitiesoftenfacelongerlistingperiodsandmayultimatelysellataconsiderablediscount,rangingfrom15%to20%belowmarketvalue.OaklandTownshippridesitselfonitscommitmenttopreservingnatureandmaintainingitsabundanceatparks.!ntroducingatoweringslructuresuchasa195-toot-tall.20-storycelltowercontradictsthetownship’svaluesandcoulddetrimentallyaffectthedesirabilityofresidentialpropertiesinthevicinity.ThereluctanceofpotentialbuyerstoInvestInhomesnearcelltowerfacilitiesisunderstandable,givenconcernsaboiaestheticdepreciation,financialloss,andpotentialdisruptIonstothesurroundingenvironment.AsstewardsofOaklandTownship’swelfareandprosperity,IimploreyoutoreconsidertheproposedconstructionofthecelltowerfaciltvIurgetheBoardofTrusteestoprioritizethelong-terminterestsandweIl-h&nqofOaklandTownshipresidentsbyexploringalternativelocationsforthecelltowerfacilityorimplementingmeasurestomitigateItsimpactonpropertyvaluesandthecommunity1squalityofItte.Thankyouforconsideringmyperspectiveonthismatter.ItrustthatyouwillweighallfactorscarefullyandmakeadecisionthatalignswiththebestinterestsofOaklandTownshipanditsresidents,Sinccrel’NicoletteJenarasRealtorBerkshireHathaway,HomeServices8805.OldWoodwardAve.Birmingham,Ml48009 PRIMEAPPRAISALS3/14/2024Towhomitmayconcern,Basedonmy10+yearsofexperienceasaResidentialAppraiserandaLicensedRealtor,Ihavethundthatthemajorityofthetimethatacommercialbuildingbeingincloseproximitytoaresidentialpropertyhasanadverseeffectonmarketability.Theproposed19stoiy,I95-foot-uillcommunicationsfacilitybeinglocatednearresidentialproperties,inmyopinion,willaffectthevalueofthesehomesinanadversemanner.Inturn,thiswillleadtoalowernumberofbuyersinthefuture.Sincerely,Joeyl3arashCertifiedAppraiserLicensedReahor SILVER:STONE-REALtESTATE‘Helk.MynameisMaliAbro,aBrokeratSilverstoneRealEstate.IbringsevenyearsofdedicatedservicetoresidentialpropertiesinOaklandCounty.[orfourconsecutiveyears,Ihaveachievedthestatusofbeingamongthetop5%insalesofalllzcensedagentsinOaklandCounty,atestamenttomycommitmentandsuccessintherealestateindustry,Drawingfrommycxtensvcexperience,Ifrmlyassertthattheproposedinstallationofacelltowerorwirelessfacilitycanexertinotableimpartonthevalueandtmirketalthtyofneighboringresidences,potentiallyreducingthemby15to2O%ThisperspoctLw?isinformednotonlybymarkettrendsbutalsobypraciicalinsightsgainedfromassistingnumerousclientswho,duetoconcernsaboutradiationemissionsfromsuchinstallations,haveoptedtoforegopropertiestheyotlwrwiseadmired.(jtk.‘fL41524 [ll:RKslIIluIiATIAVAYIWiniSirvk!esKt’vR’ilty210Ws1Unlversêty,Si.iAIe4,RocIwtcr,M48306248.6S1.120015?OMDear1pmandKelley1frUgiIhankyouIirtheoppotluntlytotitunitanopinionletterregardingtheproposedi’lltowernyouriiliiuudandspecehcallyhowItwillaffectthevalueofyourhomeat1720LochirtvarBlvd.Oakland,Ml48363.IamalicensedLealI1ithrokerIntheStateofMichigan,andhavebeenlicensedasaSaleProfessionalforover10yearsLumyprofessionalopinion,theeisideaitiLdreala1t-m,uketkiO.iklandandMacombcountiesrespondsnegativ’Iytoutilitytowersofanysort-cell1oweraiidtransmissionlinesspeclhcaIlyWorkingwithlHIyer.this.now’,.iifrequentlyofteniitowersorlinesarcvisiblethebrayerwon’ta’v’iigoautotIirhouse.muchlessmakeanProfssionuiiy,Iwouldvalueahouselowerifacelltwcnorhighvultagr’tranismissionhri.werevl’,thk?orwithiri1’()feetofthehouse.vRihh’ornot,WIilktheiwmh’rclILJLIaRcmmanyfactors,Iamconi(orlahlr’withanuiiiherof7i0’-lowerasaiwni’ralruleversus11wsamehouseoutsidetIiitradiusofSOOIiiadditiontopairingcellandtransmissiontowersalsoaffecttimeonthemarket-again,inmyprofessionalopinionandexperiencethisproximitycanadd15to40daysonmarket,resuftinginadditionalcoststoyou. Belowpleasefindprofessionalcitationsregardingthisissueitisprevalentovertheentirecountry,andanongoingissue.Specifically,pleasenotethattheUSGovernmentthroughHUDexplicitlyrequiresthattheappraisalnotewhetherornotatoweriswithinthevicinity.TheJournalofRealEstateFinanceandEconomicsfoundthatforpropertieslocatedwithin0.72kilometers(2362feetloftheclosestcelltower,propertyvaluesdeclined2.46%onaverage,andupto9.78%forhomeswithintowervisibilityrangecomparedtohomesoutsidetowervisibilityrange.“Inaggregate,propertieswithinthe0.72-kilometerbandloseover$24milliondollars.TheUSDepartmentofHousingandUrbanDevelopment(HUD)longconsiderscelltowersas“HazardsandNuisances.”“WithregardtonewFHAoriginations,theguideprovidesthat“theappraisermustindicatewhetherthedwellingorrelatedpropertyimprovementsarelocatedwithintheeasementservingahighvoItagetransmissionline,radio/TVtransmissiontower,cellphonetower,microwaverelaydishortower,orsatellitedish,”whichisradio,TVcable,etc.“Ifthedwellingorrelatedpropertyimprovementislocatedwithinsuchaneasement,theDEUnderwritermustobtainaletterfromtheowneroroperalorofthetowerindicatingthatthedwellinganditsrelatedpropertyimprovementsareriotlocatedwithinthetower’sengineeredfalldistanceinordertowaivethisrequirement.”“Ifthedwellingandrelatedpropertyimprovementsarelocatedoutsidetheeasement,thepropertyisconsideredeligibleandnofurtheractionisnecessary.Theappraiser,however,isinstructedtonoteandcommentontheeffectofmarketabilityresultingfromtheproximitytosuchsitehazardsandnuisances.” TheCaliforniaAssociationofRealtors’PropertySellersQuestionnairespecifically“celltowers”listedonthersIsureformforsellersofreali.t,iftThesellermustnoteneighborhoodnOise,nuisanceorotherproblemsfrom,andincludescelltowersandhighvoltagetransmissionlinesonthelonglisiproblems.IfIcanbeoffurtherassisttne,pleaseftHithesitate1askJerainiKingHikhirfHathawayIlomeServices,KeeReiltyMlr:hkJuiBrokoiLicense#,50443138224f39BO104/