Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-19-24 PB packet - cell tower 111 Wiedmaier Court-updatedPLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board Members FROM: Christine Balestra, Senior Planner DATE: November 13, 2024 RE: Site Plan 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 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. Supplemental 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 November 4, 2024 2. A copy of the deed restrictions and plans associated with 2007 Wiedmaier Court Subdivision 3. Written public comments received after the 10/29/24 PB meeting, in time for the mail out for the 11/19/2024 meeting Not included in the attachments are: 1. Additional Verizon materials associated with alternative site analysis requested by the Planning Board at the 10/29/24 PB meeting. Based on a phone conversation between Verizon and Planning staff on Friday, November 8, the applicants are still in the process of preparing the requested documents. Town staff will forward those documents to the Planning Board as soon as they are received (expected by Thursday, November 14). They will also be uploaded to the town website at the same time for the public to view. 2. Proposed draft resolutions associated with the project, which are currently being reviewed by the Attorney for the Town. These will be forwarded along with the additional Verizon materials and uploaded to the town website as well. 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 consultants hired by the town could revise their report. The Board met again on October 29, 2024, after receiving revised application materials and a revised consultant report. After more than four hours of discussion, including an open and closed public hearing, the board issued a negative determination of environmental significance for the project but postponed consideration of site plan and special permit. At the meeting on October 29, 2024, the Planning Board directed staff to work with the town’s consultants to identify alternative sites within the Verizon coverage area that would potentially be less intrusive than the proposed site. The attached letter provided by the town’s consultants (dated November 4, 2024), answers the directive by the board. Planning staff provided this information to Verizon, who are expected to provide additional information by Thursday, November 14 (see highlighted note above). The purpose of the November 19, 2024, Planning Board meeting is for the Planning Board to consider Site Plan approval per Town Code §270-188, and to make Special Permit findings per Town Code §270-200. The Planning Board will also need to make findings on the criteria listed in Town Code §270-219.R (Special Permit criteria specific to personal wireless service facilities). The Special Permit criteria from both sections of Town Code have been enumerated in the draft resolution(s) for the project – the language is listed under the resolved clause numbers “1” and “2” (bottom of page one to middle of page four on the attached draft resolutions). As noted in the highlighted section of the memo, these draft resolutions will be forwarded to the board as soon as the Attorney for the Town has reviewed them. 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 William P. Johnson RF Engineering Consultant PO Box 20263 Rochester, NY 14602 November 4, 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, On October 29, 2024, the planning board asked for our collaboration to develop some ideas regarding alternatives for Applicant’s proposed “Sunny View” site. In addition, discussions with the town’s attorneys today has clarified my more restrictive interpretation of the Town Code §270-219 R (1) (c) [2] regarding identification of a “significant gap” and preferred frequency bands. Their explanations have reconciled the meaning of the Town Code and my interpretation with the engineering issues associated with reliable wireless communications. This report will address (1) the finding of a “significant gap” in the target improvement area and (2) scenarios for alternate approaches to remedy the “significant gap” for your consideration. SIGNIFICANT GAP Our revised preliminary report hesitated to acknowledge a “significant gap” as we interpreted Town Code §279-219 R (1) (c) in a manner that was, on review by town counsel, narrower than intended. Applicant’s propagation plots for low-band (700/850 MHz) showed usable signal strength in some of the target improvement area. We therefore concluded that, if there is a gap, it may not be a “significant gap.” By contrast the dropped call data shows more than 11% dropped calls which exceeds the 1% national goal. While there are likely several factors that are causing such a high dropped call rate, one of the causes is due to lack of mid-band RF coverage in the target improvement area. Calls in progress using mid-band spectrum will Town of Ithaca Planning Board, November 4, 2024 Page 2 of 4 drop when a mobile user enter the area where there is no mid-band RF coverage. As a result, part of the 11% dropped call rate is due to an RF coverage gap in mid-band. Mid-band spectrum accounts for about 90% of Applicant’s licensed spectrum and is necessary to avoid dropped calls as mobile users enter the coverage gap area. Given the high dropped call rate it is arguably reasonable to then conclude that there is a “significant gap” in mid-band RF coverage. That gap is confirmed by the propagation plots in application materials Exhibit H. By way of explanation, our over-interpretation that was corrected by town counsel derived from the statement that “[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.” Town Code §279-219 R (1) (c) [2] [a]. Therefore, based on town counsel’s explanation of the meaning of the section quoted above in light of an excessive dropped call rate, as is the case here, results from some form of a coverage gap. Whether the gap is the result of weak low-band signals in building or vehicles as noted in our last report, or whether it is the result of mid-band calls-in-progress dropping as a mobile user enters the target improvement area, the results point to a “significant gap” regardless of reference to a preferred frequency band. The remedy for the “significant gap” requires a new base station or other hybrid solution in the vicinity of the target improvement area that can provide sufficient low-band and mid-band RF signal strength to initiate, maintain and hand-off voice telephone traffic. Sufficient signal strength and capacity will also facilitate availability of data services since both the transmission and reception use the same LTE technology to allow two-way exchange of information. POTENTIAL “SUNNY VIEW” SITE ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS As evidenced by the high-level view of Applicant’s wireless network, huge geographic areas can be serviced by many relatively small-diameter “cells” that allow sufficient signal levels and user capacity for safe and reliable voice communications. Where there are large numbers of wireless users, cells must be small to allow enough user capacity for reliable service. This is called “network densification.” Network densification adds additional user capacity and targeted signal strength improvement in areas such as business centers and sport complexes where wireless subscribers congregate. Network densification often takes the form of splitting an existing cell into several smaller cells with commensurately smaller support structures or co-location on, for example, existing buildings or utility poles. In addition to network densification for capacity there are times when zoning considerations and aesthetic concerns could benefit from a similar approach. Town of Ithaca Planning Board, November 4, 2024 Page 3 of 4 In the present case, the alternate sites considered by Applicant are in close proximity to each other. Town Code §279-219 R (1) (c) [5] and following address the aesthetic impacts, property values, community character, and mitigation of those affects through siting, location and design. These items were discussed in the revised preliminary report last month. During the October 29th meeting, the planning board concluded that the close proximity of alternate sites did not offer much advantage to mitigate aesthetic concerns expressed during hearings. While Applicant did not offer any additional possible approaches identified by their site acquisition personnel, we offer some scenarios for the benefit of the planning board’s consideration that have been found to work in other situations where (1) land control can be obtained and (2) technical performance was adequate when zoning a proposed macro site did not fit comfortably into the community. We offer these scenarios for possible consideration and comparison to the proposed site to assess whether the proposed site meets the minimum intrusion into the community test. First, there are parcels closer to Route 79 in the search area identified by Applicant on the south side that have hills on which a structure might be located that has a view through the Route 79 valley and has potential for RF propagation from a similarly sized tower. We acknowledge that those parcels may not improve some of the issues of concern since there are homes in the area, but the locations may offer a shorter tower structure. With the advice of town planners, it is possible that one or more of those parcels might provide some improvement to the proposed “Sunny View” location – at least for minimum intrusion comparison purposes. This approach will need RF analysis by Applicant to determine the minimum height to achieve acceptable RF coverage, assuming land control is possible. Second, the land features to the north of Route 79 provides a backdrop of foliage in the vicinity of the search area that, arguably, could provide a backdrop for a stealth tree structure. Normally a structure that is dramatically taller than the existing tree canopy is not a good candidate for a stealth tree, but in this case there are similarities to a stealth tree that was deployed on the east side of Lake George where a ridge provided a foliage back drop when viewed from the lake. From the middle of the lake, it was nearly impossible to pick out the structure that was taller than surrounding trees from the backdrop canopy. The observer’s viewpoint will affect the perception of the stealth structure, but we offer this suggestion in case there are locations where the balance of other concerns may overcome the concerns for the proposed site. Third, we note that it is generally desirable to provide area coverage from a single site for impact on the broader community (i.e. one tower to mitigate rather than multiple although somewhat shorter towers, each with its own set of concerns) and cost of deployment. In the present case, the target improvement area is mainly located along Route 79 and the areas slightly to the south. Two properly positioned shorter base stations long or near Route 79 would likely have the ability to illuminate the Route 9 valley and provide some RF Town of Ithaca Planning Board, November 4, 2024 Page 4 of 4 coverage to the south despite the lack of need for enhanced capacity that would be provided by two sites. Fourth, there has been much information about the pros and cons of small-cell deployment. The limitation of equipment facilities, susceptibility to damage to utility pole wiring from wind gusts and falling trees, and the coverage limitations from a low-mounted set of antennas might balance the aesthetic concerns of residents while providing some reasonable service along Route 79, nearby roadways, and residences in the vicinity. We recognize that none of these options are likely preferred by Applicant, and that they have not proposed any of these options. We offer these scenarios to allow the planning board and staff to consider which, if any, might be viable and then allow Applicant to address their viability to the board. The result will provide the board an opportunity to assess the minimal intrusion on the community and decide whether the proposed site or another approach is preferable. We will be glad to assist as the board deems appropriate. Very truly yours, William P. Johnson RF Engineering Consultant to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board MEMORANDUM To:Town of Ithaca Planning Board From:The Town of Ithaca Conservation Board -Environmental Review Committee Date:11/9/2024 RE:Telecommunications Tower on Verizon's "Sunny View"site We draw your attention to the "aerial map with proposed overlay"("Sheet Number ESC-1")on page 16 (of 25)of the supplemental application materials for a new telecommunication tower located at 111 Wiedmaier Court.The map also shows up as page 64 of 177 in the document titled "PB packet-Wiedmaier cell tower-10-29-24."It represents a "tree line,"and "forested land" used repeatedly in other planning maps in the application:the "overall site plan"labeled "Sheet C1-A,"the "road plan and profile"labeled "Sheet C-1B,"the "existing conditions plan"labeled "Sheet ESC-2,"and the "proposed site plan and enlarged site plan"labeled "Sheet ESC-4." Describing the wavy white line as an "EXISTING TREE LINE,"and the area outside it as "EXISTING FORESTED LAND (TYP),"does not accurately represent the site. The forest was cleared and has not been restored as woods.A pervasive “range land”and invasive shrubs extend considerably beyond the purported "tree line,"and are not part of the natural topographic and vegetative profile of a forested area.A Conservation Board visit to the site found no "forest"in the area that was supposed to be restored as woods in the Planning Board's Resolution No.2008 -013,which called for "planting approximately 250 trees."At the far outside edge of the compacted bulldozed area labeled "forest"in Verizon's plans, approximately 2 dozen landscaping trees appear to have survived an inadequate "restoration." More photos from the Conservation Board's October 8th visit to the site can be found at: https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipMcPty327JAiHCtth6J7EFQiZVuvXSxhvjsHT7mLeYonIo TuGNQgYWjWGmyzOs8cg?key=S1h0NkRseDU2dThjV185NEppWmhUamlRLVl6c2Z3 The revised site detail plans continue to fail to address how this project will: Minimize visual intrusion on the character of the area. Identify the existence of invasive plants and take steps to reduce their presence.There should be an invasive species removal and management plan. Select native plant species to restore a woodland that indeed should occupy the area Verizon incorrectly identifies as "forested land." Take steps to preserve wildlife habitats and biological corridors. We continue to recommend not approving a special permit or site plan for this 134 foot Telecommunications Tower project.We will reconsider if the applicant shares with us how they will address the concerns we have raised. Respectfully submitted, Lori Brewer Lindsay Dombroskie James Hamilton Eva Hoffmann Michael Roberts Frank Cantone Ingrid Zabel 1 Chris Balestra From:Chris Balestra <CBalestra@townithacany.gov> Sent:Wednesday, November 13, 2024 10:24 AM To:Chris Balestra Subject:FW: Contact from website From: Town of Ithaca Contact Form <noreply@townithacany.gov> Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2024 3:04 PM To: Town Of Ithaca Planning <planning@townithacany.gov> Subject: Contact from website **WARNING** This email comes from an outside source. Please verify the from address, any URL links, and/or attachments. Any questions please contact the IT department Daniel Seib Left a comment for your department. If you reply to this message it will be sent to: danielcseib@gmail.com Message follows: Hello, I want to thank the Planning Board again for their efforts last night with the SEQR and the Site Plan hearings. It was a marathon session, and still not done. I obviously don't agree with the SEQR vote passing, but I am encouraged with your deliberation so far with the Site Plan. Will the hearing on November 19th be open to the public? I hope so, even if the public comment portion of the meeting is closed. Public attendance at these meeting on this issue has dramatically increased from the first to the second meeting...which should be an indication of its importance. I am urging you to vote to reject their site plan for the Wiedmaier Court location based on the lack of actual need for this coverage (I live there and my service is fine), as well as the damage that this will cause to the residential character of this neighborhood (it is a neighborhood, we have a vibrant community here), reduction to property values, and damage to the viewshed of people entering Ithaca from the NY-79 corridor. I was encouraged by the board asking Verizon to propose alternative locations. I think they should look for sites which are more remote. The fact that so many people showed up to protest this tower being built here should guide your vote on the location of this tower. I don't oppose building a cell tower somewhere, just not where there's a bunch of people already living. When you have a planning board meeting with no one protesting, then you know you've found the right place. I hope Verizon takes that into consideration, instead of choosing a lot 200 feet away from this one and then trying to tell us all that there's simply no other spot and you have to allow them to do it. Thank you for all the time and attention you are giving to this issue. It sounds like some members of the board also have cell towers near their homes. I am sorry that happened to them, but you have a chance to keep it from happening to other families in the Ithaca community. One board member mentioned a cell tower that was put in the 'right' place; one that was almost hidden from view. That's what I am hoping 2 for with this cell tower, if it has to go in. The Wiedmaier Court location is not the right place, though...it would be an eyesore, and the wrong message to send for Ithaca. Thank you, Daniel Seib 1 Chris Balestra From:Town Of Ithaca Planning <planning@townithacany.gov> Sent:Wednesday, November 13, 2024 10:08 AM To:Chris Balestra; CJ Randall Subject:FW: Large Tower Does Not Meet Codes' Requirement In #6 From: Nathan Walz <walzstreet@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2024 10:02 AM To: Town Of Ithaca Planning <planning@townithacany.gov> Subject: Large Tower Does Not Meet Codes' Requirement In **WARNING** This email comes from an outside source. Please verify the from address, any URL links, and/or attachments. Any questions please contact the IT department To the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Members: I oppose the large tower which does not meet our codes' requirement for Verizon to find the "least intrusive means" to fill their small gap in service. They can go further from homes, and/or just use a single small tower to cover the service gap. The NH Commission has been clear that towers should be 1640 feet from homes. Please protect the health of our community members. Respectfully, Nathan Walz 9 Evergreen Lane (Town of Ithaca Resident) Ithaca, New York 14850 -- journeytooptimalhealth.com 1 Chris Balestra From:Chris Balestra <CBalestra@townithacany.gov> Sent:Wednesday, November 13, 2024 10:20 AM To:Chris Balestra Subject:FW: Large Tower Does Not Meet Codes' Requirement Importance:High From: Lindsay Lustick Garner <linzallo@hotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2024 5:10 AM To: Town Of Ithaca Planning <planning@townithacany.gov> Subject: Large Tower Does Not Meet Codes' Requirement Importance: High **WARNING** This email comes from an outside source. Please verify the from address, any URL links, and/or attachments. Any questions please contact the IT department To the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Members: I opposed large tower which does not meet our codes' requirement for Verizon to find the "least intrusive means" to fill their small gap in service. They can go further from homes, and/or just use a single small tower to cover the service gap. The NH Commission has been clear that towers should be 1640 feet from homes. Please protect the health of our community members. Respectfully, Lindsay Lustick Garner 9 Evergreen Lane (Town of Ithaca Resident) Ithaca, New York 14850 1 Chris Balestra From:Town Of Ithaca Planning <planning@townithacany.gov> Sent:Tuesday, November 12, 2024 8:46 AM To:Chris Balestra; CJ Randall Subject:FW: Contact from website Abby Homer Administrative Assistant Planning Department 607-273-1747 From: Town of Ithaca Contact Form <noreply@townithacany.gov> Sent: Monday, November 11, 2024 10:36 PM To: Town Of Ithaca Planning <planning@townithacany.gov> Subject: Contact from website **WARNING** This email comes from an outside source. Please verify the from address, any URL links, and/or attachments. Any questions please contact the IT department Daniel Seib Left a comment for your department. If you reply to this message it will be sent to: danielcseib@gmail.com Message follows: Hello, I am writing to you in regards to the Verizon Wireless “Sunny View Site” Personal Wireless Service Facility (Telecommunications Tower), at 111 Wiedmaier Court. I am writing to object to it. My property is within 500 ft of it, and I don't want to see that outside my window every day. I am worried that it will lower my property's value, and I don't see a need for it....I have Verizon myself and my signal here is fine! Verizon's proposed large tower does not meet our local codes' requirement for Verizon to find the least intrusive means to fill their small gap in service. They can go further from homes, and/or just use a single small tower to cover this service gap (which as I said before, does not appear to affect my area). I am concerned that Verizon just wants a larger pole to make more money to rent out space to other companies. I have been told that the NH Commission states that towers should be 1640 feet from homes. My home is closer than this. I do not want this tower near my home, and everyone around me doesn't either. We all 2 can't make it to the public meeting, but I will be there to represent myself, my family, and my neighbors. Please ask Verizon to find an alternate location away from peoples' homes. Thank you, Daniel Seib 1581 Slaterville Road 1 Chris Balestra From:Marie/Andrew Molnar <marieandrew93@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, November 5, 2024 11:39 AM To:Town Of Ithaca Planning; CJ Randall; Chris Balestra Cc:Abby Homer Subject:BEFORE looking at other cell tower sites... **WARNING** This email comes from an outside source. Please verify the from address, any URL links, and/or attachments. Any questions please contact the IT department Planning Board members, Thank you for listening to your fellow citizens at the last meeting and agreeing to look at alternate sites for Verizon's proposed cell tower. BEFORE you start to look at new sites, we want to make sure that a 138' tower is the "least intrusive means" to remedy the small gap shown on the drive tests (attached). Because if a 138' monopole is NOT needed to remedy the gap, then that will likely open up new, less intrusive site possibilities. Our concern is that Verizon is using this small gap as the justification to build a much taller/larger pole than necessary, not only for other things (like fixed wireless broadband), but also, as stated, to collect rents from other carriers (i.e. make more money). If, as the consultant suggested, you look at the dropped connections and access failures map in Exhibit Z (which is the only ACTUAL data we have to determine the gap - significant or otherwise), it runs 2.5 miles along Coddington and roughly the same distance on 79. This distance across is roughly a mile. So the whole "gap" area is roughly 2.5 square miles. A small cell antenna using Verizon low-bands (or even multi-band with the mid-band) can easily cover this gap, and these frequencies easily pass through trees and buildings (as the RF consultant affirmed in Tuesday's meeting). This is precisely what small antennas are great for - fixing a small gap, particularly in this topography. We highly recommend asking the independent consultant IF a small antenna might be the least intrusive means to remedy this gap. If so, you will have many more site options. Also, while you can't use this as a reason to deny having a tower, we ask you to keep in mind that the New Hampshire Commission of experts that studied cell radiation--after combing through the thousands of studies showing harm to human health--recommended that towers should be at least 500 meters (1640 feet) from a residence. As RF Consultant William Johnson attested, this tower can be a large distance from any gap area - a couple of miles - and still provide the necessary service. (If that means they need to go to another area and thus another municipality for approval, so be it.) Finally, Verizon has said that they are a public utility, insinuating that this gives them some kind of automatic right of way. This is misleading - Verizon, the company, is NOT a public utility. Under NY case law, cell towers are deemed to be "public utilities" for the limited purpose of relaxing the legal 2 standard to obtain a zoning "use" variance, NOT an "area" variance. 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, this only applies to requests for use variances under zoning law. So while Verizon might use this as a way of muscling their way in, it does not give them leverage in your decision. They are a private company motivated primarily by profit, not the public good. So, though we don't likely need this large tower to fill a small gap in coverage, Verizon wants to do so as it is in their best financial interest. We urge you to utilize the consultant to clearly ascertain the least intrusive means to fill the existing gap, honoring what is in the best interest of Ithaca's citizens. Thank you for your thoughtful dedication to our beloved Town. Kind regards, Marie and Andrew Molnar 1 Chris Balestra From:Town Of Ithaca Planning <planning@townithacany.gov> Sent:Wednesday, November 13, 2024 8:52 AM To:Chris Balestra; CJ Randall Subject:FW: Oppose Verizon’s Tower From: Ravindra Walsh <raviwalsh@icloud.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2024 8:06 AM To: Town Of Ithaca Planning <planning@townithacany.gov> Subject: Oppose Verizon’s Tower **WARNING** This email comes from an outside source. Please verify the from address, any URL links, and/or attachments. Any questions please contact the IT department Thank you for considering the real impact of the proposed cell tower for Ithaca. The research is clear that we don’t NEED this tower anywhere in Ithaca! BEFORE you start to look at new sites, we want to make sure that a 138' tower is the "least intrusive means" to remedy the small gap shown on the drive tests. Because if a 138' monopole is NOT needed to remedy the gap, then that will likely open up new, less intrusive site possibilities. Our concern is that Verizon is using this small gap as the justification to build a much taller/larger pole than necessary, not only for other things (like fixed wireless broadband), but also, as stated, to collect rents from other carriers (i.e. make more money). If, as the consultant suggested, you look at the dropped connections and access failures map in Exhibit Z (which is the only ACTUAL data we have to determine the gap - significant or otherwise), it runs 2.5 miles along Coddington and roughly the same distance on 79. This distance across is roughly a mile. So the whole "gap" area is roughly 2.5 square miles. A small cell antenna using Verizon low-bands (or even multi-band with the mid-band) can easily cover this gap, and these frequencies easily pass through trees and buildings (as the RF consultant affirmed in Tuesday's meeting). This is precisely what small antennas are great for - fixing a small gap, particularly in this topography. We highly recommend asking the independent consultant IF a small antenna might be the least intrusive means to remedy this gap. If so, you will have many more site options. Also, while you can't use this as a reason to deny having a tower, we ask you to keep in mind that the New Hampshire Commission of experts that studied cell radiation--after combing through the thousands of studies showing harm to human health--recommended that towers should be at least 500 meters (1640 feet) from a residence. As RF Consultant William Johnson attested, this tower can be a large distance from any gap area - a couple of miles - and still provide the necessary service. (If that means they need to go to another area and thus another municipality for approval, so be it.) Finally, Verizon has said that they are a public utility, insinuating that this gives them some kind of automatic right of way. This is misleading - Verizon, the company, is NOT a public utility. Under NY 2 case law, cell towers are deemed to be "public utilities" for the limited purpose of relaxing the legal standard to obtain a zoning "use" variance, NOT an "area" variance. 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, this only applies to requests for use variances under zoning law. So while Verizon might use this as a way of muscling their way in, it does not give them leverage in your decision. They are a private company motivated primarily by profit, not the public good. So, though we don't likely need this large tower to fill a small gap in coverage, Verizon wants to do so as it is in their best financial interest. We urge you to utilize the consultant to clearly ascertain the least intrusive means to fill the existing gap, honoring what is in the best interest of Ithaca's citizens. Thank you for your thoughtful dedication to our beloved town. Kind regards, Ravi Walsh. 607-220-6088 www.heartpathme.com Draft approval resolution 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, November 19, 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; 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, on October 29, 2024, 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, reviewed application materials dated November 13, 2023, 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; additional application materials dated October 28, 2024, including Exhibits HH and II; consultant report prepared by William P. Johnson and Steven Ciccarelli, dated September 20, 2024, and revised October 21, 2024; and other plans and materials; 4. The Planning Board, at their meeting on November 19, 2024, reviewed and accepted additional application materials, including a letter from William P. Johnson (RF Engineering Consultant to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board), dated November 4, 2024, and a letter with Exhibits JJ, KK, and LL from the applicant, dated November 14, 2024; and 5. 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 grants Special Permit for the project, finding 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: Page 2 of 7 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, previously disturbed, flat portion of the property; B. The proposed structure design and site layout are compatible with the surrounding area. • The site layout will not change. Access to the cell tower will utilize an existing gravel drive. The tower will be constructed on an existing cleared site. The closest residence is 578 feet from the proposed tower. Parts of the facility will be screened from most vantage points by existing and additional new vegetation; 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 needed 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 project will comply with all provisions of Chapter 270, Zoning, with the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan, and, to the extent considered by the Planning Board, all provisions of the Town Code. 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, slightly widened to accommodate the project, will provide appropriate access for emergency vehicles. The project includes a small parking area and turnaround area for such vehicles. 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 a very large no disturbance area of trees and vegetation surrounding the project site that will remain in natural growth in perpetuity as required by an existing deed restriction mandated by the Planning Board for a previous unrelated matter. The project includes additional landscaping around the base of the tower to screen equipment from adjacent residences. 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. Page 3 of 7 2. That the Planning Board further finds that the requirements of §270-219.R(1) have been met, specifically: (a) The proposed personal wireless service facility complies with all relevant federal statutory and regulatory requirements, including all applicable Federal Communication Commission, Federal Aviation Commission, National Environmental Policy Act, and National Historic Preservation Act requirements. • Placeholder for discussion at the 11/19 PB meeting. 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, with supplemental submission November 4, 2024. (b) The applicable standards in Chapter 270 (Zoning), Article XXIV (Special Permits and Special Approvals), § 270-200 (Considerations for approval) are met. • See #1 above; and (c) All of the following additional standards are met: [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. • Application materials Exhibit C provide information supporting this finding. [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. • The following information shows a compelling need to address significant gaps in the applicant’s personal wireless services through the proposed facilities and not through any other solution, and it shows the facility presents a minimal intrusion on the community: • These statements in the consultant report prepared by William P. Johnson and Steven M. Ciccarelli, dated September 20, 2024, revised October 21, 2024, with supplemental submission November 4, 2024, support this finding: 1. From Summary of Findings #2, September 20, 2024, report: “Based on the RF coverage threshold levels and the need to off-load traffic from certain neighbor sites, Applicant has demonstrated need* for RF coverage and additional traffic capacity from a base station facility in the general area of the proposed project site. [*footnote at bottom of page states “There are several ways by which a wireless telecommunications service provider can establish site need for a “covered service.” A “covered Page 4 of 7 service” is “a telecommunications service or a personal wireless service.” See “Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment,” FCC 18 -133, 85 FR 51867, at ¶ 37 and footnote 85 (October 15, 2018) (the FCC regulatory test for establishing an effective prohibition is whether “a state or local legal requirement materially inhibits a provider’s ability to engage in any of a variety of activities related to its provision of a covered service,” and this test is met “not only when filling a coverage gap but also when densifying a wireless network, introducing new services or otherwise improving service capabilities”)] 2. From Summary of Findings #12, September 20, 2024, report: “The proposed RF coverage shows that several coverage gap areas will remain in the area. Those gaps that remain after a proposed site is active imply the possibility that Applicant may decide to address those areas as part of their overall wireless network. At this time, it is recommended that the siting authority request information from Applicant to more fully understand the potential need to serve remaining gap areas and how approval of the currently-proposed site will influence the placement and height of future sites.” 3. From September 20, 2024, report, page 10 of 38: “In support of the application, Applicant has provided a series of RF propagation plots that show existing RF coverage and demonstrate how the proposed site fills the coverage need relative to the provision of wireless service to their subscribers. Exhibit H, pages 17 and 21 respectively, show the existing RF coverage in the vicinity of the proposed site for the 700/850 MHz low-bands and the 1900/2100/3900 MHz mid-band frequencies. The low-band plots indicate sufficient coverage at or above the -105 dBm level with multiple coverage gaps to the west and northwest provided there is sufficient user capacity available. The mid-band plots clearly show significant coverage gaps in the immediate vicinity of and surrounding the proposed site. The proposed site will minimize RF coverage gaps in the vicinity of the proposed site at mid-band and, by improving the signal level, allow mobile subscribers to access services in that band in addition to providing significantly improved low-band coverage.” 4. From September 20, 2024, report, page 11 of 38: “The drive test data includes maps that show received signal strength in dBm for each frequency band across various locations. The results indicate that there are large areas with poor or inadequate signal coverage in the 850 MHz band and very little coverage in the 1900 MHz and 2100 MHz bands, which constitute the majority of Applicant’s bandwidth. Between July 16 and July 31, 2024, the dropped call rate in the vicinity of the proposed site was recorded at 11.84%, significantly higher than what Applicant states is their “national standard of less than 1%.” The high rate of dropped calls and access failures further supports the need for the proposed facility. 5. From September 20, 2024, report, page 12 of 38: “Each operating band provides limited user capacity. In this case, distance, intervening terrain and other obstacles prevent strong mid-band RF signals from these neighboring sites from reaching the proposed coverage area. The lack of strong midband RF coverage leaves only the low-band services and associated limited capacity available to many service subscribers in the local area of the proposed site. This is evidenced by observing the FDV plots. Brooktondale Gamma and Ithaca HD Alpha sectors are well past maximum capacity in the low-band. While not all the traffic considered is from the area of the proposed site, a new site as proposed will draw off some traffic and provide local subscribers with their own server while relieving some excess traffic from each saturated low-band sector. In addition to relieving traffic congestion at low-band, the proposed site will introduce stronger mid-band service as evidenced by the propagation plots showing existing and proposed coverage shown on pages 17 and 18 in Exhibit H.” “The presence of significant RF coverage gaps predicted by the RF propagation plots for existing coverage and, when applicable, the actual and predicted trends toward maximum capacity of neighbor sites that provide service to the target area, tend to demonstrate need. Analysis of whether these gaps can be addressed by the proposed site or a less intrusive alternate site when balanced between the technical performance and aesthetic advantages serves to justify the proposed site.” 6. From September 20, 2024, report, page 13 of 38: “While considering the local impact, consider that any nearby alternate site location would probably require at least the same antenna height if the proposed site is nearly central to the existing gap area. Generally, base stations at the center of a coverage gap area result in the shortest antenna height requirement. When a base station must cover a gap from a non- central location, the height must usually increase to overcome terrain shadowing to provide comparable levels of RF coverage and maintain adequate connectivity to the adjacent neighbor cells.” 7. From September 20, 2024, report, page 15 of 38: “Noticeable coverage gaps open to the northwest and southwest of the proposed site and signal strength degrades to the southeast, adversely affecting service to the targeted improvement areas designated by Applicant. These areas include the intersection of Pine Tree Road and Slaterville Road, the area on Slaterville Road in the vicinity of Bethel Grove, and vicinity of the intersection of Coddington Road and East King Road.” Page 5 of 7 8. From October 21, 2024, report, page 1 of 5: “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.” 9. From October 21, 2024, report, page 3 of 5: “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.” 10. From October 21, 2024, report, page 3 of 5: “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. Applicants’ Exhibit Z page 9 states that the Dropped Call Rate (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.” • Application materials Exhibits Z, AA, and BB contain drive test results and dropped call records. Applicant’s October 28, 2024, submission notes that, as stated at the October 1, 2024, Planning Board meeting, the dropped call data provided as Exhibit Z is for voice calls only. Wasif Sharif, Verizon RF Engineer who prepared these exhibits, reiterated on the record at the October 29, 2024, Planning Board meeting that the 11.84% dropped call rate experienced for the proposed service area, noted on page 9 of Exhibit Z, was for voice calls. • Application materials Exhibits H and HH provide propagation plots and analysis showing coverage gaps in significant portions of the area to be served by the proposed facility. There are coverage gaps along portions of heavily traveled NYS Route 79/Slaterville Road, and in a number of locations where there are residences. • Application materials Exhibits GG and II, and applicant’s supplemental submission dated November 14, 2024 (including Exhibits JJ and KK), show that the significant gap cannot be addressed through other solutions such as alternate locations, shorter towers, or one or more small cells. These materials also show that the facility presents a minimal intrusion on the community. Some of the alternate locations that are large enough to host the facility would require a higher tower, and many of these alternate locations would be closer to the nearest residence and require removal of more trees than the proposed Wiedmaier Court location and facility. The analysis in Part 3 of the Full Environmental Assessment Form section 9 (Impact on Aesthetic Resources), and the application materials on which the analysis is based, show that the project will be visible only from adjacent residences and by those travelling along NYS Route 79E/Slaterville Road or Burns Road. One would need to deliberately look for the tower in order to see it while traveling in a vehicle on those roads. Additionally, per the consultant report written by William P. Johnson and Steven M. Ciccarelli, dated September 20, 2024 (page 13 of 38),“any nearby alternate site location would Page 6 of 7 probably require at least the same antenna height if the proposed site is nearly central to the existing gap area.” [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. • See #1 E above. [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. • Although the project will be visible from immediately-adjacent properties on Wiedmaier Court, Burns Road, and NYS Route 79E/Slaterville Road, it will not inflict a significant adverse aesthetic impact on said properties. The closest affected property is 578-feet from the proposed tower. Parts of the facility will be screened from nearby properties and vantage points by existing and proposed new vegetation. The project includes planting trees and bushes around the leased area to soften views and mitigate aesthetic impacts on immediately-adjacent residences. In most cases, one will need to deliberately look for the tower in order to see it while commuting in a vehicle. This is further explained in the 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, with supplemental submission November 4, 2024. [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). • This finding is based on 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. • This finding is based on the information and analysis in the Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 3 Attachment, and per Special Permit findings in resolved clause #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. • Although immediately-adjacent properties on Wiedmaier Court, Burns Road, and NYS Route 79E/Slaterville Road will be impacted by the project, the applicant has mitigated potential adverse impacts to the greatest extent reasonably feasible. The closest affected property is 578-feet from the proposed tower. Parts of the facility will be screened from nearby properties and vantage points by existing and proposed new vegetation. The facility is located on property that does not require clearing of trees or other vegetation and is not on a significant steep slope that requires significant grading. The facility is also situated as far from existing residences as is feasible on the property and at the shortest possible height to achieve the coverage needs of the applicant. Camouflaging the proposed tower as a “stealth” tree would increase potential adverse impacts rather than mitigate them. This is further explained in the 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, with supplemental submission November 4, 2024. Page 7 of 7 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. Before issuance of a building permit, receipt of any necessary variances from the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals, b. Before issuance of a building permit, submission of revised plans that show a permanent physical barrier around the “no disturbance” zone, [Suggested by PB at 10/15/24 meeting] c. Before issuance of a building permit, submission of revised landscaping plans that show additional plantings of native trees located closer on the site to the closest-affected residences [Suggested by PB at 10/29/24 meeting – this condition may require language regarding deed restriction modifications so the applicant can plant inside the no -disturbance zone- to be determined] d. Any proposed fence slatting or boards (and other buffering materials) installed in fencing shall be made of wood or other natural materials, and shall be regularly maintained with natural coloration and surfaces that are congruent with surrounding flora, [Suggested by PB at 10/15/24 meeting], 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. Draft denial resolution 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, November 19, 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; 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, on October 29, 2024, 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, reviewed materials dated November 13, 2023, 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; additional application materials dated October 28, 2024, including Exhibits HH and II; consultant report prepared by William P. Johnson and Steven Ciccarelli, dated September 20, 2024, and revised October 21, 2024; and other plans and materials; 4. The Planning Board, at their meeting on November 19, 2024, reviewed and accepted as adequate additional application materials, including a letter from William P. Johnson (RF Engineering Consultant to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board), dated November 4, 2024, and a letter with Exhibits JJ, KK, and LL from the applicant, dated November 14, 2024; and 5. 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 some of the Special Permit standards of Article XXIV Section 270-200, Subsections A – H, of the Town of Ithaca Code below, have not been met, specifically that: Page 2 of 5 A. The project [will][will not be] suitable for the property on which it is proposed, considering the property’s size, location, and physical site characteristics. • _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ B. The proposed structure design and site layout [are][are not] compatible with the surrounding area. • _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ C. Operations in connection with the proposed use [will][will not] create more noise, fumes, vibration, illumination, or other potential nuisances than the operation of any permitted use in the particular zone. • _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ 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 needed 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 [does][does not] comply with all the provisions of the Town Code and with the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan. • _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ F. The site layout, with proposed vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian access, traffic circulation, and parking and loading facilities, [is][is not] sufficient for the proposed use and are not safely designed for emergency vehicles. • ____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ G. The project [does][does not] include sufficient landscaping and/or other forms of buffering to protect surrounding land uses. Existing vegetation is preserved to the extent possible. • ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 some of the requirements of §270-219.R(1) below have not been met, specifically: (a) The proposed personal wireless service facility complies with all relevant federal statutory and regulatory requirements, including all applicable Federal Communication Commission, Federal Aviation Commission, National Environmental Policy Act, and National Historic Preservation Act requirements. Placeholder for discussion at 11/19 PB mtg. 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, with supplemental submission November 4, 2024. Page 3 of 5 (b) The applicable standards in Chapter 270 (Zoning), Article XXIV (Special Permits and Special Approvals), § 270-200 (Considerations for approval) are not met. See #1 above; and (c) Some of the following additional standards are not met: [1] Public utility status. Services provided by the proposed PWSF are considered public utility services, and the provider of such services is considered a public utility, in the State of New York. Application materials Exhibit C provide information supporting this finding. [2] Need. The applicant [has][has not] 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 [does][does not] present 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. __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ [3] Compliance with Chapter 270 (Zoning) and other Town Code requirements. Does not comply 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. See #1 E above. [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 PWSF [will][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. _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ Page 4 of 5 _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ [6] Impacts upon real estate values. The proposed PWSF [will][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). __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ [7] Impact upon the character of the surrounding community. The proposed PWSF [will][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. _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ [8] Mitigation. The applicant [has][has not] mitigated the potential adverse impacts of the proposed PWSFs to the greatest extent reasonably feasible through siting, location, and design.__ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 3. [Add if the applicant has asserted that a denial would constitute an effective prohibition, and the denial is based on 2(b) or (c) above] That the Planning Board further finds that §270- 219.R(2) below has not been met, as follows: [If the applicant asserts that a denial would constitute an effective prohibition, and the denial is based on a failure to comply with any of the standards in Subsection R(1)(b) or (c) above, then pursuant to federal law, the Planning Board must consider whether the proposed facilities are the least intrusive means of addressing a significant gap 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). A significant gap is not 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.] (a) The Planning Board shall consider, among other things, a) whether the proposed site is the least intrusive location at which a personal wireless service facility that remedies an identified significant gap may be located, and the applicant has reasonably established a lack of potential alternative less intrusive sites and lack of sites available for co-location, b) whether the specific location on the proposed portion of the selected site is the least intrusive portion of the site for the proposed installation, c) whether the height proposed for the personal wireless service facility is the minimum height necessary to remedy an established significant gap in service, d) whether a preexisting structure can be used to camouflage the personal wireless service facility, e) whether the installation mitigates adverse impacts to the greatest extent reasonably feasible, through the employ of stealth design, screening, use of color, and noise mitigation measures, and f) whether there is a feasible alternative to remedy the gap through Page 5 of 5 alternative, less intrusive substitute facilities, such as the installation of more than one shorter facility instead of a single facility. (b) If the Planning Board finds that the proposed facilities are the least intrusive means of addressing a significant gap in the applicant's personal wireless services, then pursuant to federal law, the Planning Board must grant site plan and special permit approvals. __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ 4. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby denies 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, for the reasons stated in the findings enumerated in Resolved clauses 1, 2 and 3 above. NIXON Nixon Peabody LLP Jared C. Lusk �- 1300 Clinton Square Partner PEABODYRochester, NY 14604-1792 Attorneys at Law nixonpeabody.com @NixonPeabodyLLP November 18, 2024 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS AND ELECTRONIC MAIL Planning Board & Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Ithaca 215 N Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Attention: Christine Balestra, Senior Planner (cbalestragtown.ithaca.n�us) T / 585.263.1140 F / 866.402.1491 jlusk@nixonpeabody.com RE: Bell Atlantic Mobile Systems, LLC d/b/a Verizon Wireless' application (the "Application") to the Town of Ithaca (the "Town") for a special use permit and site plan approval from the Planning Board and an area variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals to construct and operate a 134' wireless telecommunications facility (with 4' lightning rod) on property located at 111 Wiedmaier Court (Tax Parcel No. 56.4-1.22) in the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York (Verizon Wireless' "Sunny View" site) Dear Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals and Planning Board: By application dated May 29, 2024 and supplemental applications dated August 7, October 22, October 28 and November 14, 2024, Bell Atlantic Mobile Systems, LLC d/b/a Verizon Wireless ("Verizon Wireless") submitted the above -referenced Application to the Town of Ithaca in connection with the above -referenced project (the "Project"). On November 15, 2024, Town Planner Balestra and Town Attorney Brock requested additional information regarding Verizon's compliance with applicable federal requirements as outlined in § 270-219(G)(2)(h) of the Town Code. In response, enclosed are the following that collectively demonstrate that the Project complies with applicable FCC, FAA, NEPA and NHPA requirements: Exhibit MM1: FAA Analysis (commonly known as the Towair Report). Note that it indicates that notice to the FAA is not required. Exhibit NN: Correspondence from GSS Inc. regarding the status of the NEPA process. ' Lettered to follow Exhibits A-LL previously submitted. 4870-6419-1226.1 Town of Ithaca November 18, 2024 Page 2 • Verizon's FCC licenses for Tompkins County were previously provided as Exhibit J to the Application. Note that a couple of the FCC licenses have expired since our initial submission, so we have enclosed copies of the updated licenses; • Proof of compliance with the federal emissions requirements (originally submitted as Exhibit P to the Application). We believe the information referenced herein and enclosed demonstrates that the Project complies with all applicable federal regulations. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. n truly Lusk JCL/mkv Enclosures cc: Brett Morgan, Airosmith Developmen Jeff Twitty, Esq., Nixon Peabody LLP 4570-6419-1226A EXHIBIT MM * ANALYSIS REPORT ******************* * Federal Airways & Airspace * Summary Report: New Construction * Antenna Tower BITE ID: 2126343 TRANSACTION ID: 26012295 LOCATION : Ithaca College, NY RURAL TOWER ID: 10612 LATITUDE: 421 24' 45.237" LONGITUDE: 761 27' 1.569" SITE ELEVATION AMSL . . . . . . 825 ft. STRUCTURE HEIGHT. . . . . . . . 134 ft. OVERALL HEIGHT AMSL . . . . . . 959 ft. NOTICE CRITERIA FAR 77.9(a): NNR (DNE 200 ft. AGL) FAR 77.9(b): NNR (DNE Notice Slope) FAR 77.9(c): NNR (Not a Traverse Way) FAR 77.9: NNR FAR 77.9 IFR Straight -In Notice Criteria FAR 77.9: NNR FAR 77.9 IFR Offset Notice Criteria FAR 77.9: NNR (DNE EMI Notice Screening Criteria) FAR 77.9(d): NNR (Off Airport Construction) NR = Notice Required NNR = Notice Not Required PNR = Possible Notice Required(depends upon actual IFR procedure) Review Air Navigation Facilities at bottom of this report. Notice to the £AA is not required The maximum height to avoid notice is 1025 ft. AMSL. OBSTRUCTION STANDARDS Civil airport imaginary surfaces FAR 77.17(a)(1): DNE 499 ft. AGL FAR 77.17(a)(2): DNE - Airport Surface FAR 77.19(a): DNE - Horizontal Surface FAR 77.19(b): DNE - Conical Surface FAR 77.19(c): DNE - Primary Surface FAR 77.19(d): DNE - Approach Surface FAR 77.19(e): DNE - Transitional Surface Department of Defense (DOD) airport imaginary surfaces FAR 77.21(a)(1): DNE - Inner Horizontal Surface FAR 77.21(a)(2): DNE - Conical Surface FAR 77.21(a)(3): DNE - Outer Horizontal Surface FAR 77.21(b)(1): DNE - Primary Surface FAR 77.21(b)(2): DNE - Clear Zone Surface FAR 77.21(b)(3): DNE - Approach Surface FAR 77.21(b)(4): DNE - Transitional Surface Heliport imaginary surfaces FAR 77.23(b): DNE - Approach Surface VFR TRAFFIC PATTERN AIRSPACE FOR: ITH : ITHACA TOMPKINS INTL Type: A RD: 26361.41 RE: 1099.2 FAR 77.17(a)(1): DNE 499 ft. AGL FAR 77.17(a)(2): DNE - Height not greater than 200 ft. AGL. VFR Horizontal Surface: DNE VFR Conical Surface: DNE VFR Primary Surface: DNE VFR Approach Surface: DNE VFR Transitional Surface: DNE VFR TRAFFIC PATTERN AIRSPACE FOR: NO3 : CORTLAND COUNTY/CHASE FLD Type: A RD: 89637.36 RE: 1198.3 FAR 77.17(a)(1): DNE 499 ft. AGL FAR 77.17(a)(2): DNE - Greater than 5.99 NM VFR Horizontal Surface: DNE VFR Conical Surface: DNE VFR Primary Surface: DNE VFR Approach Surface: DNE VFR Transitional Surface: DNE MINIMUM OBSTACLE CLEARANCE ALTITUDE (MOCA) FAR 77.17(a)(4) MOCA Altitude Enroute Criteria The Maximum Height Permitted is 17615 ft. AMSL TERPS DEPARTURE PROCEDURE (FAA Order 8260.3, Volume 4) FAR 77.17(a)(3) Departure Surface Criteria (40:1) DNE Departure Surface PRIVATE LANDING FACILITIES FAC TYPE NAME IDNT BEARING To RANGE DELTA ARP FAA IFR FACIL IN NM ELEVATION NK72 AIR HENION PVT FLD 239.05 4.25 -341 No Impact to VFr Transitional Surface. Below surface height of 325 ft above ARP. NK05 AIR TOM N' JERRY 220.05 4.53 -531 No Impact to VFr Transitional Surface. Below surface height of 353 ft above ARP. AIR NAVIGATION ELECTRONIC FACILITIES FAC TYPE ST FREQ VECTOR DIST DELTA ST LOCATION GRD APCH IDNT AT (ft) ELEVA ANGLE BEAR ITH LOCALIZER I 108.7 350.38 31960 -118 NY RWY 32 ITHACA -.21 325 TOM ALP NDB I 24 233.13 105863 -328 NY ALPINE -.18 CFB VOR/DME R 112.2 137.68 125943 -624 NY BINGHAMTON -.28 BGM LOCALIZER I 110.3 119.43 143567 -672 NY RWY 34 GREATER -.27 340 BI BGM RADAR I 119.24 145857 -770 NY BINGHAMTON -.3 REGION UEK LOCALIZER I 109.1 232.38 146229 +5 NY RWY 06 ELMIRA/ 0.00 62 COR BGM ATCT I A/G 120.64 147189 -719 NY BINGHAMTON -.28 REGION KBGM RADAR WXL Y 162.47 121.77 147954 -772 NY BINGHAMTON -.3 AAJ LOCALIZER I 110.3 120.56 149636 -616 NY RWY 16 GREATER -.24 158 BI ITH ATCT I A/G 358.82 150079 -174 NY ITHACA TOMPKINS -.07 R ELM RADAR I 2750. 234.9 151520 -670 NY ELMIRA-CORNING -.25 RE ELM ATCT I A/G 232.72 151655 -79 NY ELMIRA/CORNING -.03 RE ELM LOCALIZER I 109.1 232.24 155681 +28 NY RWY 24 ELMIRA/ .01 242 COR ZNY CO Y A/G 193.95 178403 -592 PA SAYRE -.19 PYA NDB I 26 297.52 183772 +102 NY PENN YAN .03 ULW VOR/DME R 109.6 233.08 194031 -673 NY ELMIRA -.2 GGT TACAN I 117.8 50.55 216837 -1081 NY GEORGETOWN -.29 SECTION 2110 FAA EXTENSION, SAFETY AND SECURITY ACT - RURAL AREA ANALYSIS Warning! The object is within a rural area and not on agricultural land(View agricultural land -use image). Verification is required to determine if the studied location is adjacent to agricultural land.Please use the Rural Tower Analysis (RTA) certification tool to confirm the object is compliant with the Section 2110 FAA EXTENSION, SAFETY AND SECURITY ACT, is eligible for an exemption, or if additional actions are required. Agriculture Area Map Legend Non-agricultural land at this location CFR Title 47, §1.30000-§1.30004 AM STUDY NOT REQUIRED: Structure is not near a FCC licensed AM station. Movement Method Proof as specified in §73.151(c) is not required. Please review 'AM Station Report' for details. Nearest AM Station: WNYY @ 3064 meters. Airspace@ State Data version 7/15/2024 AIRSPACE@ and TERPS@ are registered @ trademarks of Federal Airways & Airspace@ Copyright @ 1989 - 2024 09-11-2024 8:12:11 * OBSTRUCTION CRITERIA SITE ID: 2126343 TRANSACTION ID: 26012295 LATITUDE: 42' 24' 45.237" LONGITUDE: 76' 27' 1.569" SITE ELEVATION AMSL . . . . . . 825 ft. STRUCTURE HEIGHT. . . . . . . . 134 ft. OVERALL HEIGHT AMSL . . . . . . 959 ft. 77.17(a)(1) A height more than 499 ft. Above Ground Level (AGL). ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************* THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT IS: ....... 1324 ft. AMSL THE GROUND ELEVATION AT THE SITE IS: ... 825 ft. AMSL THE OVERALL CASE ELEVATION IS: ......... 959 ft. AMSL THE CASE IS BELOW THE ALLOWABLE BY: .... 365 ft. AMSL BEGIN AIRPORT ANALYSIS FOR ITH 77.17(a)(2) A height AGL or airport elevation, whichever is higher. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** BECAUSE: Proposed height does not exceed 200 feet AGL. THE REFERENCE AIRPORT IDENT IS: ........ ITH THE AIRPORT ELEVATION IS: .............. 1099.0 ft. AMSL THE DISTANCE FROM THE CASE TO ARP IS:..4.7416 NAUTICAL MILES THE BEARING AIRPORT TO CASE IS: ........ 175.611 DEGREES THE HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE IS: ........ 134 ft. THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT IS: ....... 1473 ft. AMSL 77.19(a) A height exceeding a horizontal surface 150 ft. above airport elevation within a radius of >> ITH <<. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED HORIZONTAL SURFACE AREA 77.19(b) A height exceeding a conical surface (a slope outward 4000 ft. from the horizontal surface at 20/1 ratio). ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED CONICAL SURFACE AREA ************************* * BEGIN RUNWAY ANALYSIS ************************* RUNWAY 14/32 EXISTING RUNWAY 14/32 77.19(c) A height exceeding runway primary surface. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY PRIMARY SURFACE 77.19(d) A height exceeding an approach surface of RUNWAY 14/32 THE ABEAM DISTANCE TO CENTERLINE FROM CASE IS ....... 19614.33 ft. THE RUNWAY THRESHOLD ELEVATION IS...................1099.2 ft. THE DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD + 200' TO THE CASE IS ... 17412.92 ft. THE CRITICAL WIDTH OF HALF THE APPROACH IS .......... 3111.938 ft. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** BEYOND DEFINED APPROACH & TRANSITIONAL AREAS. CASE NOT WITHIN APPROACH SURFACE AREA, OUT BY ....... 11502.392 ft. RUNWAY CENTERLINE OFFSET IS.........................19614.33 ft. DISTANCE FROM THE THRESHOLD TO OFFSET IS ............ 17412.92 ft. THE SLOPE OF RUNWAY 14 IS: 50 TO 1. The FAA has defined this runway as a non -utility runway. It has a precision approach. The obstacle surface extends 50,000 feet with a 50:1 Slope for the first 10,000 feet and a 40:1 Slope for 40,000 feet. The obstacle approach surface is centered symmetrically along the runway centerline extended. Please review the US Terminal Procedures volume associated with this airport. If a procedure for this airport and/or runway exist use TerpsO Professional software to determine the height limits (if any) the procedure will have on the proposed structure. Precision instrument procedures will have the greatest impact between the final approach fix (FAF) and the runway end. The FAF is located approximately 5 NM from the runway end. This type of approach usually has a non -precision and a circling approach also. A circling approach to the airport or runway can extend out up to 4.5 NM from every runway end. 77.19(e) A height exceeding a transitional surface runway. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY TRANSITIONAL SURFACE RUNWAY 15/33 EXISTING RUNWAY 15/33 77.19(c) A height exceeding runway primary surface. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY PRIMARY SURFACE 77.19(d) A height exceeding an approach surface of RUNWAY 15/33 THE ABEAM DISTANCE TO CENTERLINE FROM CASE IS ....... 20740.93 ft. THE RUNWAY THRESHOLD ELEVATION IS...................1100.1 ft. THE DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD + 200' TO THE CASE IS ... 18866.89 ft. THE CRITICAL WIDTH OF HALF THE APPROACH IS .......... 2011.689 ft. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** BEYOND DEFINED APPROACH & TRANSITIONAL AREAS. CASE NOT WITHIN APPROACH SURFACE AREA, OUT BY ....... 13729.241 ft. RUNWAY CENTERLINE OFFSET IS.........................20740.93 ft. DISTANCE FROM THE THRESHOLD TO OFFSET IS ............ 18866.89 ft. THE SLOPE OF RUNWAY 15 IS: 20 TO 1. The FAA has defined this runway as a utility runway. It has a visual approach. The obstacle surface extends 5000 feet (20:1 Slope) symmetrically centered along the runway centerline extended. This airport may have a circling approach. Please review the US Terminal Procedures volume associated with this airport. If a procedure for this airport and/or this runway exist, use TerpsO Professional software to determine the height limits (if any) the procedure will have on the proposed structure. A circling approach to the airport or any runway can extend out up to 4.5 NM from every runway end. 77.19(e) A height exceeding a transitional surface runway. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY TRANSITIONAL SURFACE ********************************************* BEGIN AIRPORT ANALYSIS FOR NO3 ********************************************* 77.17(a)(2) A height AGL or airport elevation, whichever is higher. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** BECAUSE: Proposed height does not exceed 200 feet AGL. THE REFERENCE AIRPORT IDENT IS: ........ NO3 THE AIRPORT ELEVATION IS: .............. 1197.3 ft. AMSL THE DISTANCE FROM THE CASE TO ARP IS:..15.0341 NAUTICAL MILES THE BEARING AIRPORT TO CASE IS: ........ 223.952 DEGREES THE HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE IS: ........ 134 ft. 77.19(a) A height exceeding a horizontal surface 150 ft. above airport elevation within a radius of >> NO3 <<. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED HORIZONTAL SURFACE AREA 77.19(b) A height exceeding a conical surface (a slope outward 4000 ft. from the horizontal surface at 20/1 ratio). ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED CONICAL SURFACE AREA ************************* * BEGIN RUNWAY ANALYSIS ************************* RUNWAY 06/24 EXISTING RUNWAY 06/24 77.19(c) A height exceeding runway primary surface. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY PRIMARY SURFACE 77.19(d) A height exceeding an approach surface of RUNWAY 06/24 THE ABEAM DISTANCE TO CENTERLINE FROM CASE IS ....... 3479.601 ft. THE RUNWAY THRESHOLD ELEVATION IS...................1198.3 ft. THE DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD + 200' TO THE CASE IS ... 89360.34 ft. THE CRITICAL WIDTH OF HALF THE APPROACH IS .......... 13654.05 ft. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** CASE MEETS ANGULAR CRITERIA BUT IS LOCATED GREATER THAN 50,000 ft. FROM THE START OF ANY APPROACH TYPE, OUT BY 39360.34 ft. RUNWAY CENTERLINE OFFSET IS.........................3479.601 ft. DISTANCE FROM THE THRESHOLD TO OFFSET IS ............ 89360.34 ft. THE SLOPE OF RUNWAY 06 IS: 34 TO 1. The FAA has defined this runway as a non -utility runway. It has a non -precision approach. The obstacle surface extends 10,000 feet (34:1 Slope) symmetrically centered along the runway centerline extended. Please review the US Terminal Procedures volume associated with this airport. If a procedure for this airport and/or runway exist use Terps@ Professional software to determine the height limits (if any) the procedure will have on the proposed structure. Non -precision instrument procedures can extend 10 NM from the runway and a circling approach to the airport or runway can extend out up to 4.5 NM from every runway end. 77.19(e) A height exceeding a transitional surface runway. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY TRANSITIONAL SURFACE ********************************************* BEGIN AIRPORT ANALYSIS FOR 2N4 ********************************************* 77.17(a)(2) A height AGL or airport elevation, whichever is higher. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** BECAUSE: Proposed height does not exceed 200 feet AGL. THE REFERENCE AIRPORT IDENT IS: ........ 2N4 THE AIRPORT ELEVATION IS: .............. 1380.0 ft. AMSL THE DISTANCE FROM THE CASE TO ARP IS:..19.5038 NAUTICAL MILES THE BEARING AIRPORT TO CASE IS: ........ 175.361 DEGREES THE HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE IS: ........ 134 ft. 77.19(a) A height exceeding a horizontal surface 150 ft. above airport elevation within a radius of >> 2N4 <<. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED HORIZONTAL SURFACE AREA 77.19(b) A height exceeding a conical surface (a slope outward 4000 ft. from the horizontal surface at 20/1 ratio). ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED CONICAL SURFACE AREA ************************* * BEGIN RUNWAY ANALYSIS ************************* RUNWAY 11/29 EXISTING RUNWAY 11/29 77.19(c) A height exceeding runway primary surface. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY PRIMARY SURFACE 77.19(d) A height exceeding an approach surface of RUNWAY 11/29 THE ABEAM DISTANCE TO CENTERLINE FROM CASE IS ....... 115801.1 ft. THE RUNWAY THRESHOLD ELEVATION IS...................1377 ft. THE DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD + 200' TO THE CASE IS ... 23547.2 ft. THE CRITICAL WIDTH OF HALF THE APPROACH IS .......... 2479.72 ft. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** BEYOND DEFINED APPROACH & TRANSITIONAL AREAS. CASE NOT WITHIN APPROACH SURFACE AREA, OUT BY ....... 108321.38 ft. RUNWAY CENTERLINE OFFSET IS.........................115801.1 ft. DISTANCE FROM THE THRESHOLD TO OFFSET IS ............ 23547.2 ft. THE SLOPE OF RUNWAY 11 IS: 20 TO 1. The FAA has defined this runway as a utility runway. It has a visual approach. The obstacle surface extends 5000 feet (20:1 Slope) symmetrically centered along the runway centerline extended. This airport may have a circling approach. Please review the US Terminal Procedures volume associated with this airport. If a procedure for this airport and/or this runway exist, use TerpsO Professional software to determine the height limits (if any) the procedure will have on the proposed structure. A circling approach to the airport or any runway can extend out up to 4.5 NM from every runway end. 77.19(e) A height exceeding a transitional surface runway. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY TRANSITIONAL SURFACE BEGIN AIRPORT ANALYSIS FOR D82 77.17(a)(2) A height AGL or airport elevation, whichever is higher. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** BECAUSE: Proposed height does not exceed 200 feet AGL. THE REFERENCE AIRPORT IDENT IS: ........ D82 THE AIRPORT ELEVATION IS: .............. 1062.0 ft. AMSL THE DISTANCE FROM THE CASE TO ARP IS:..21.1302 NAUTICAL MILES THE BEARING AIRPORT TO CASE IS: ........ 133.54 DEGREES THE HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE IS: ........ 134 ft. 77.19(a) A height exceeding a horizontal surface 150 ft. above airport elevation within a radius of >> D82 « . ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED HORIZONTAL SURFACE AREA 77.19(b) A height exceeding a conical surface (a slope outward 4000 ft. from the horizontal surface at 20/1 ratio). ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED CONICAL SURFACE AREA * BEGIN RUNWAY ANALYSIS ************************* RUNWAY O1L/19R EXISTING RUNWAY O1L/19R 77.19(c) A height exceeding runway primary surface. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY PRIMARY SURFACE 77.19(d) A height exceeding an approach surface of RUNWAY O1L/19R THE ABEAM DISTANCE TO CENTERLINE FROM CASE IS ....... 94338.38 ft. THE RUNWAY THRESHOLD ELEVATION IS...................1088 ft. THE DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD + 200' TO THE CASE IS ... 86385.72 ft. THE CRITICAL WIDTH OF HALF THE APPROACH IS .......... 8763.572 ft. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** BEYOND DEFINED APPROACH & TRANSITIONAL AREAS. CASE MEETS ANGULAR CRITERIA BUT IS LOCATED GREATER THAN 50,000 ft. FROM THE START OF ANY APPROACH TYPE, OUT BY 36385.72 ft. RUNWAY CENTERLINE OFFSET IS.........................94338.38 ft. DISTANCE FROM THE THRESHOLD TO OFFSET IS ............ 86385.72 ft. THE SLOPE OF RUNWAY 01L IS: 20 TO 1. The FAA has defined this runway as a utility runway. It has a visual approach. The obstacle surface extends 5000 feet (20:1 Slope) symmetrically centered along the runway centerline extended. This airport may have a circling approach. Please review the US Terminal Procedures volume associated with this airport. If a procedure for this airport and/or this runway exist, use TerpsO Professional software to determine the height limits (if any) the procedure will have on the proposed structure. A circling approach to the airport or any runway can extend out up to 4.5 NM from every runway end. 77.19(e) A height exceeding a transitional surface runway. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY TRANSITIONAL SURFACE RUNWAY 01R/19L EXISTING RUNWAY O1R/19L 77.19(c) A height exceeding runway primary surface. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY PRIMARY SURFACE 77.19(d) A height exceeding an approach surface of RUNWAY O1R/19L THE ABEAM DISTANCE TO CENTERLINE FROM CASE IS ....... 93851.87 ft. THE RUNWAY THRESHOLD ELEVATION IS...................1095 ft. THE DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD + 200' TO THE CASE IS ... 86164.84 ft. THE CRITICAL WIDTH OF HALF THE APPROACH IS .......... 8741.485 ft. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** BEYOND DEFINED APPROACH & TRANSITIONAL AREAS. CASE MEETS ANGULAR CRITERIA BUT IS LOCATED GREATER THAN 50,000 ft. FROM THE START OF ANY APPROACH TYPE, OUT BY 36164.84 ft. RUNWAY CENTERLINE OFFSET IS.........................93851.87 ft. DISTANCE FROM THE THRESHOLD TO OFFSET IS ............ 86164.84 ft. THE SLOPE OF RUNWAY O1R IS: 20 TO 1. The FAA has defined this runway as a utility runway. It has a visual approach. The obstacle surface extends 5000 feet (20:1 Slope) symmetrically centered along the runway centerline extended. This airport may have a circling approach. Please review the US Terminal Procedures volume associated with this airport. If a procedure for this airport and/or this runway exist, use TerpsO Professional software to determine the height limits (if any) the procedure will have on the proposed structure. A circling approach to the airport or any runway can extend out up to 4.5 NM from every runway end. 77.19(e) A height exceeding a transitional surface runway. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY TRANSITIONAL SURFACE BEGIN AIRPORT ANALYSIS FOR BGM 77.17(a)(2) A height AGL or airport elevation, whichever is higher. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** BECAUSE: Proposed height does not exceed 200 feet AGL. THE REFERENCE AIRPORT IDENT IS: ........ BGM THE AIRPORT ELEVATION IS: .............. 1635.6 ft. AMSL THE DISTANCE FROM THE CASE TO ARP IS:..24.2730 NAUTICAL MILES THE BEARING AIRPORT TO CASE IS: ........ 300.466 DEGREES THE HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE IS: ........ 134 ft. 77.19(a) A height exceeding a horizontal surface 150 ft. above airport elevation within a radius of >> BGM <<. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED HORIZONTAL SURFACE AREA 77.19(b) A height exceeding a conical surface (a slope outward 4000 ft. from the horizontal surface at 20/1 ratio). ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED CONICAL SURFACE AREA ************************* * BEGIN RUNWAY ANALYSIS ************************* RUNWAY 10/28 EXISTING RUNWAY 10/28 77.19(c) A height exceeding runway primary surface. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY PRIMARY SURFACE 77.19(d) A height exceeding an approach surface of RUNWAY 10/28 THE ABEAM DISTANCE TO CENTERLINE FROM CASE IS ....... 83321.72 ft. THE RUNWAY THRESHOLD ELEVATION IS...................1591.1 ft. THE DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD + 200' TO THE CASE IS ... 120106.8 ft. THE CRITICAL WIDTH OF HALF THE APPROACH IS .......... 18266.02 ft. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** BEYOND DEFINED APPROACH & TRANSITIONAL AREAS. CASE MEETS ANGULAR CRITERIA BUT IS LOCATED GREATER THAN 50,000 ft. FROM THE START OF ANY APPROACH TYPE, OUT BY 70106.8 ft. RUNWAY CENTERLINE OFFSET IS.........................83321.72 ft. DISTANCE FROM THE THRESHOLD TO OFFSET IS ............ 120106.8 ft. THE SLOPE OF RUNWAY 10 IS: 34 TO 1. The FAA has defined this runway as a non -utility runway. It has a non -precision approach. The obstacle surface extends 10,000 feet (34:1 Slope) symmetrically centered along the runway centerline extended. Please review the US Terminal Procedures volume associated with this airport. If a procedure for this airport and/or runway exist use TerpsO Professional software to determine the height limits (if any) the procedure will have on the proposed structure. Non -precision instrument procedures can extend 10 NM from the runway and a circling approach to the airport or runway can extend out up to 4.5 NM from every runway end. 77.19(e) A height exceeding a transitional surface runway. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY TRANSITIONAL SURFACE RUNWAY 16/34 EXISTING RUNWAY 16/34 77.19(c) A height exceeding runway primary surface. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY PRIMARY SURFACE 77.19(d) A height exceeding an approach surface of RUNWAY 16/34 THE ABEAM DISTANCE TO CENTERLINE FROM CASE IS ....... 69374.81 ft. THE RUNWAY THRESHOLD ELEVATION IS...................1636 ft. THE DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD + 200' TO THE CASE IS ... 125413.4 ft. THE CRITICAL WIDTH OF HALF THE APPROACH IS .......... 19312.01 ft. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** BEYOND DEFINED APPROACH & TRANSITIONAL AREAS. CASE MEETS ANGULAR CRITERIA BUT IS LOCATED GREATER THAN 50,000 ft. FROM THE START OF ANY APPROACH TYPE, OUT BY 75413.4 ft. RUNWAY CENTERLINE OFFSET IS.........................69374.81 ft. DISTANCE FROM THE THRESHOLD TO OFFSET IS ............ 125413.4 ft. THE SLOPE OF RUNWAY 16 IS: 50 TO 1. The FAA has defined this runway as a non -utility runway. It has a precision approach. The obstacle surface extends 50,000 feet with a 50:1 Slope for the first 10,000 feet and a 40:1 Slope for 40,000 feet. The obstacle approach surface is centered symmetrically along the runway centerline extended. Please review the US Terminal Procedures volume associated with this airport. If a procedure for this airport and/or runway exist use TerpsO Professional software to determine the height limits (if any) the procedure will have on the proposed structure. Precision instrument procedures will have the greatest impact between the final approach fix (FAF) and the runway end. The FAF is located approximately 5 NM from the runway end. This type of approach usually has a non -precision and a circling approach also. A circling approach to the airport or runway can extend out up to 4.5 NM from every runway end. 77.19(e) A height exceeding a transitional surface runway. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY TRANSITIONAL SURFACE RUNWAY 10/28 PROPOSED RUNWAY 10/28 77.19(c) A height exceeding runway primary surface. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY PRIMARY SURFACE 77.19(d) A height exceeding an approach surface of RUNWAY 10/28 THE ABEAM DISTANCE TO CENTERLINE FROM CASE IS ....... 83328.66 ft. THE RUNWAY THRESHOLD ELEVATION IS...................1591.1 ft. THE DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD + 200' TO THE CASE IS ... 119549.6 ft. THE CRITICAL WIDTH OF HALF THE APPROACH IS .......... 18182.45 ft. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** BEYOND DEFINED APPROACH & TRANSITIONAL AREAS. CASE MEETS ANGULAR CRITERIA BUT IS LOCATED GREATER THAN 50,000 ft. FROM THE START OF ANY APPROACH TYPE, OUT BY 69549.6 ft. RUNWAY CENTERLINE OFFSET IS.........................83328.66 ft. DISTANCE FROM THE THRESHOLD TO OFFSET IS ............ 119549.6 ft. THE SLOPE OF RUNWAY 10 IS: 34 TO 1. The FAA has defined this runway as a non -utility runway. It has a non -precision approach. The obstacle surface extends 10,000 feet (34:1 Slope) symmetrically centered along the runway centerline extended. Please review the US Terminal Procedures volume associated with this airport. If a procedure for this airport and/or runway exist use Terps@ Professional software to determine the height limits (if any) the procedure will have on the proposed structure. Non -precision instrument procedures can extend 10 NM from the runway and a circling approach to the airport or runway can extend out up to 4.5 NM from every runway end. 77.19(e) A height exceeding a transitional surface runway. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY TRANSITIONAL SURFACE RUNWAY 16/34 PROPOSED RUNWAY 16/34 77.19(c) A height exceeding runway primary surface. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY PRIMARY SURFACE 77.19(d) A height exceeding an approach surface of RUNWAY 16/34 THE ABEAM DISTANCE TO CENTERLINE FROM CASE IS ....... 69413.26 ft. THE RUNWAY THRESHOLD ELEVATION IS...................1636 ft. THE DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD + 200' TO THE CASE IS ... 125489.4 ft. THE CRITICAL WIDTH OF HALF THE APPROACH IS .......... 19073.41 ft. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** BEYOND DEFINED APPROACH & TRANSITIONAL AREAS. CASE MEETS ANGULAR CRITERIA BUT IS LOCATED GREATER THAN 50,000 ft. FROM THE START OF ANY APPROACH TYPE, OUT BY 75489.4 ft. RUNWAY CENTERLINE OFFSET IS.........................69413.26 ft. DISTANCE FROM THE THRESHOLD TO OFFSET IS ............ 125489.4 ft. THE SLOPE OF RUNWAY 16 IS: 34 TO 1. The FAA has defined this runway as a non -utility runway. It has a non -precision approach. The obstacle surface extends 10,000 feet (34:1 Slope) symmetrically centered along the runway centerline extended. Please review the US Terminal Procedures volume associated with this airport. If a procedure for this airport and/or runway exist use Terps® Professional software to determine the height limits (if any) the procedure will have on the proposed structure. Non -precision instrument procedures can extend 10 NM from the runway and a circling approach to the airport or runway can extend out up to 4.5 NM from every runway end. 77.19(e) A height exceeding a transitional surface runway. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY TRANSITIONAL SURFACE ********************************************* BEGIN AIRPORT ANALYSIS FOR ELM 77.17(a)(2) A height AGL or airport elevation, whichever is higher. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** BECAUSE: Proposed height does not exceed 200 feet AGL. THE REFERENCE AIRPORT IDENT IS: ........ ELM THE AIRPORT ELEVATION IS: .............. 955.1 ft. AMSL THE DISTANCE FROM THE CASE TO ARP IS:..24.8114 NAUTICAL MILES THE BEARING AIRPORT TO CASE IS: ........ 52.224 DEGREES THE HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE IS: ........ 134 ft. 77.19(a) A height exceeding a horizontal surface 150 ft. above airport elevation within a radius of >> ELM <<. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED HORIZONTAL SURFACE AREA 77.19(b) A height exceeding a conical surface (a slope outward 4000 ft. from the horizontal surface at 20/1 ratio). ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED CONICAL SURFACE AREA ************************* * BEGIN RUNWAY ANALYSIS ************************* RUNWAY 05/23 EXISTING RUNWAY 05/23 77.19(c) A height exceeding runway primary surface. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY PRIMARY SURFACE 77.19(d) A height exceeding an approach surface of RUNWAY 05/23 THE ABEAM DISTANCE TO CENTERLINE FROM CASE IS ....... 4849.441 ft. THE RUNWAY THRESHOLD ELEVATION IS...................944.2 ft. THE DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD + 200' TO THE CASE IS ... 148077.9 ft. THE CRITICAL WIDTH OF HALF THE APPROACH IS .......... 14932.79 ft. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** CASE MEETS ANGULAR CRITERIA BUT IS LOCATED GREATER THAN 50,000 ft. FROM THE START OF ANY APPROACH TYPE, OUT BY 98077.9 ft. RUNWAY CENTERLINE OFFSET IS.........................4849.441 ft. DISTANCE FROM THE THRESHOLD TO OFFSET IS ............ 148077.9 ft. THE SLOPE OF RUNWAY 05 IS: 20 TO 1. The FAA has defined this runway as a utility runway. It has a visual approach. The obstacle surface extends 5000 feet (20:1 Slope) symmetrically centered along the runway centerline extended. This airport may have a circling approach. Please review the US Terminal Procedures volume associated with this airport. If a procedure for this airport and/or this runway exist, use TerpsO Professional software to determine the height limits (if any) the procedure will have on the proposed structure. A circling approach to the airport or any runway can extend out up to 4.5 NM from every runway end. 77.19(e) A height exceeding a transitional surface runway. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY TRANSITIONAL SURFACE RUNWAY 06/24 EXISTING RUNWAY 06/24 77.19(c) A height exceeding runway primary surface. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY PRIMARY SURFACE 77.19(d) A height exceeding an approach surface of RUNWAY 06/24 THE ABEAM DISTANCE TO CENTERLINE FROM CASE IS ....... 5072.341 ft. THE RUNWAY THRESHOLD ELEVATION IS...................954.3 ft. THE DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD + 200' TO THE CASE IS ... 146779.4 ft. THE CRITICAL WIDTH OF HALF THE APPROACH IS .......... 22516.92 ft. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** CASE MEETS ANGULAR CRITERIA BUT IS LOCATED GREATER THAN 50,000 ft. FROM THE START OF ANY APPROACH TYPE, OUT BY 96779.4 ft. RUNWAY CENTERLINE OFFSET IS.........................5072.341 ft. DISTANCE FROM THE THRESHOLD TO OFFSET IS ............ 146779.4 ft. THE SLOPE OF RUNWAY 06 IS: 50 TO 1. The FAA has defined this runway as a non -utility runway. It has a precision approach. The obstacle surface extends 50,000 feet with a 50:1 Slope for the first 10,000 feet and a 40:1 Slope for 40,000 feet. The obstacle approach surface is centered symmetrically along the runway centerline extended. Please review the US Terminal Procedures volume associated with this airport. If a procedure for this airport and/or runway exist use TerpsO Professional software to determine the height limits (if any) the procedure will have on the proposed structure. Precision instrument procedures will have the greatest impact between the final approach fix (FAF) and the runway end. The FAF is located approximately 5 NM from the runway end. This type of approach usually has a non -precision and a circling approach also. A circling approach to the airport or runway can extend out up to 4.5 NM from every runway end. 77.19(e) A height exceeding a transitional surface runway. ************ DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY TRANSITIONAL SURFACE RUNWAY 10/28 EXISTING RUNWAY 10/28 77.19(c) A height exceeding runway primary surface. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY PRIMARY SURFACE 77.19(d) A height exceeding an approach surface of RUNWAY 10/28 THE ABEAM DISTANCE TO CENTERLINE FROM CASE IS ....... 91590.84 ft. THE RUNWAY THRESHOLD ELEVATION IS...................944.5 ft. THE DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD + 200' TO THE CASE IS ... 118257.7 ft. THE CRITICAL WIDTH OF HALF THE APPROACH IS .......... 17988.66 ft. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** BEYOND DEFINED APPROACH & TRANSITIONAL AREAS. CASE MEETS ANGULAR CRITERIA BUT IS LOCATED GREATER THAN 50,000 ft. FROM THE START OF ANY APPROACH TYPE, OUT BY 68257.7 ft. RUNWAY CENTERLINE OFFSET IS.........................91590.84 ft. DISTANCE FROM THE THRESHOLD TO OFFSET IS ............ 118257.7 ft. THE SLOPE OF RUNWAY 10 IS: 34 TO 1. The FAA has defined this runway as anon -utility runway. It has a non -precision approach. The obstacle surface extends 10,000 feet (34:1 Slope) symmetrically centered along the runway centerline extended. Please review the US Terminal Procedures volume associated with this airport. If a procedure for this airport and/or runway exist use Terps@ Professional software to determine the height limits (if any) the procedure will have on the proposed structure. Non -precision instrument procedures can extend 10 NM from the runway and a circling approach to the airport or runway can extend out up to 4.5 NM from every runway end. 77.19(e) A height exceeding a transitional surface runway. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY TRANSITIONAL SURFACE RUNWAY 06/24 PROPOSED RUNWAY 06/24 77.19(c) A height exceeding runway primary surface. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY PRIMARY SURFACE 77.19(d) A height exceeding an approach surface of RUNWAY 06/24 THE ABEAM DISTANCE TO CENTERLINE FROM CASE IS ....... 5065.283 ft. THE RUNWAY THRESHOLD ELEVATION IS...................955 ft. THE DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD + 200' TO THE CASE IS ... 146779.7 ft. THE CRITICAL WIDTH OF HALF THE APPROACH IS .......... 22266.96 ft. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** CASE MEETS ANGULAR CRITERIA BUT IS LOCATED GREATER THAN 50,000 ft. FROM THE START OF ANY APPROACH TYPE, OUT BY 96779.7 ft. RUNWAY CENTERLINE OFFSET IS.........................5065.283 ft. DISTANCE FROM THE THRESHOLD TO OFFSET IS ............ 146779.7 ft. THE SLOPE OF RUNWAY 06 IS: 34 TO 1. The FAA has defined this runway as a non -utility runway. It has a non -precision approach. The obstacle surface extends 10,000 feet (34:1 Slope) symmetrically centered along the runway centerline extended. Please review the US Terminal Procedures volume associated with this airport. If a procedure for this airport and/or runway exist use Terps@ Professional software to determine the height limits (if any) the procedure will have on the proposed structure. Non -precision instrument procedures can extend 10 NM from the runway and a circling approach to the airport or runway can extend out up to 4.5 NM from every runway end. 77.19(e) A height exceeding a transitional surface runway. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY TRANSITIONAL SURFACE RUNWAY 10/28 PROPOSED RUNWAY 10/28 77.19(c) A height exceeding runway primary surface. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY PRIMARY SURFACE 77.19(d) A height exceeding an approach surface of RUNWAY 10/28 THE ABEAM DISTANCE TO CENTERLINE FROM CASE IS ....... 91590.74 ft. THE RUNWAY THRESHOLD ELEVATION IS...................945 ft. THE DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD + 200' TO THE CASE IS ... 118257.7 ft. THE CRITICAL WIDTH OF HALF THE APPROACH IS .......... 17988.66 ft. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** BEYOND DEFINED APPROACH & TRANSITIONAL AREAS. CASE MEETS ANGULAR CRITERIA BUT IS LOCATED GREATER THAN 50,000 ft. FROM THE START OF ANY APPROACH TYPE, OUT BY 68257.7 ft. RUNWAY CENTERLINE OFFSET IS.........................91590.74 ft. DISTANCE FROM THE THRESHOLD TO OFFSET IS ............ 118257.7 ft. THE SLOPE OF RUNWAY 10 IS: 34 TO 1. The FAA has defined this runway as a non -utility runway. It has a non -precision approach. The obstacle surface extends 10,000 feet (34:1 Slope) symmetrically centered along the runway centerline extended. Please review the US Terminal Procedures volume associated with this airport. If a procedure for this airport and/or runway exist use Terps@ Professional software to determine the height limits (if any) the procedure will have on the proposed structure. Non -precision instrument procedures can extend 10 NM from the runway and a circling approach to the airport or runway can extend out up to 4.5 NM from every runway end. 77.19(e) A height exceeding a transitional surface runway. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY TRANSITIONAL SURFACE RUNWAY 23/05 PROPOSED RUNWAY 23/05 77.19(c) A height exceeding runway primary surface. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY PRIMARY SURFACE 77.19(d) A height exceeding an approach surface of RUNWAY 23/05 THE ABEAM DISTANCE TO CENTERLINE FROM CASE IS ....... 4849.499 ft. THE RUNWAY THRESHOLD ELEVATION IS...................945 ft. THE DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD + 200' TO THE CASE IS ... 148077.9 ft. THE CRITICAL WIDTH OF HALF THE APPROACH IS .......... 22461.69 ft. ************ *DOES NOT EXCEED ************** CASE MEETS ANGULAR CRITERIA BUT IS LOCATED GREATER THAN 50,000 ft. FROM THE START OF ANY APPROACH TYPE, OUT BY 98077.9 ft. RUNWAY CENTERLINE OFFSET IS.........................4849.499 ft. DISTANCE FROM THE THRESHOLD TO OFFSET IS ............ 148077.9 ft. THE SLOPE OF RUNWAY 23 IS: 34 TO 1. The FAA has defined this runway as a non -utility runway. It has a non -precision approach. The obstacle surface extends 10,000 feet (34:1 Slope) symmetrically centered along the runway centerline extended. Please review the US Terminal Procedures volume associated with this airport. If a procedure for this airport and/or runway exist use TerpsO Professional software to determine the height limits (if any) the procedure will have on the proposed structure. Non -precision instrument procedures can extend 10 NM from the runway and a circling approach to the airport or runway can extend out up to 4.5 NM from every runway end. 77.19(e) A height exceeding a transitional surface runway. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY TRANSITIONAL SURFACE ********************************************* BEGIN AIRPORT ANALYSIS FOR CZG ********************************************* 77.17(a)(2) A height AGL or airport elevation, whichever is higher. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** BECAUSE: Proposed height does not exceed 200 feet AGL. THE REFERENCE AIRPORT IDENT IS: ........ CZG THE AIRPORT ELEVATION IS: .............. 832.7 ft. AMSL THE DISTANCE FROM THE CASE TO ARP IS:..25.4974 NAUTICAL MILES THE BEARING AIRPORT TO CASE IS: ........ 321.89 DEGREES THE HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE IS: ........ 134 ft. 77.19(a) A height exceeding a horizontal surface 150 ft. above airport elevation within a radius of >> CZG <<. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED HORIZONTAL SURFACE AREA 77.19(b) A height exceeding a conical surface (a slope outward 4000 ft. from the horizontal surface at 20/1 ratio). ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED CONICAL SURFACE AREA ************************* * BEGIN RUNWAY ANALYSIS ************************* RUNWAY 03/21 EXISTING RUNWAY 03/21 77.19(c) A height exceeding runway primary surface. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY PRIMARY SURFACE 77.19(d) A height exceeding an approach surface of RUNWAY 03/21 THE ABEAM DISTANCE TO CENTERLINE FROM CASE IS ....... 136548.3 ft. THE RUNWAY THRESHOLD ELEVATION IS...................826.5 ft. THE DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD + 200' TO THE CASE IS ... 70532.57 ft. THE CRITICAL WIDTH OF HALF THE APPROACH IS .......... 10829.89 ft. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** BEYOND DEFINED APPROACH & TRANSITIONAL AREAS. CASE MEETS ANGULAR CRITERIA BUT IS LOCATED GREATER THAN 50,000 ft. FROM THE START OF ANY APPROACH TYPE, OUT BY 20532.57 ft. RUNWAY CENTERLINE OFFSET IS.........................136548.3 ft. DISTANCE FROM THE THRESHOLD TO OFFSET IS ............ 70532.57 ft. THE SLOPE OF RUNWAY'03 IS: 20 TO 1. The FAA has defined this runway as a utility runway. It has a non -precision approach. The obstacle surface extends 5000 feet (20:1 Slope) symmetrically centered along the runway centerline extended. Please review the US Terminal Procedures volume associated with this airport. If a procedure for this airport and/or runway exist use Terps@ Professional software to determine the height limits (if any) the procedure will have on the proposed structure. Non -precision instrument procedures can extend 10 NM from the runway and a circling approach to the airport or runway can extend out up to 4.5 NM from every runway end. 77.19(e) A height exceeding a transitional surface runway. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY TRANSITIONAL SURFACE RUNWAY 03/21 PROPOSED RUNWAY 03/21 77.19(c) A height exceeding runway primary surface. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY PRIMARY SURFACE 77.19(d) A height exceeding an approach surface of RUNWAY 03/21 THE ABEAM DISTANCE TO CENTERLINE FROM CASE IS ....... 136550 ft. THE RUNWAY THRESHOLD ELEVATION IS...................826.2 ft. THE DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD + 200' TO THE CASE IS ... 70370.36 ft. THE CRITICAL WIDTH OF HALF THE APPROACH IS .......... 10805.55 ft. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** BEYOND DEFINED APPROACH & TRANSITIONAL AREAS. CASE MEETS ANGULAR CRITERIA BUT IS LOCATED GREATER THAN 50,000 ft. FROM THE START OF ANY APPROACH TYPE, OUT BY 20370.36 ft. RUNWAY CENTERLINE OFFSET IS .........................136550 ft. DISTANCE FROM THE THRESHOLD TO OFFSET IS ............ 70370.36 ft. THE SLOPE OF RUNWAY 03 IS: 34 TO 1. The FAA has defined this runway as a non -utility runway. It has a non -precision approach. The obstacle surface extends 10,000 feet (34:1 Slope) symmetrically centered along the runway centerline extended. Please review the US Terminal Procedures volume associated with this airport. If a procedure for this airport and/or runway exist use TerpsO Professional software to determine the height limits (if any) the procedure will have on the proposed structure. Non -precision instrument procedures can extend 10 NM from the runway and a circling approach to the airport or runway can extend out up to 4.5 NM from every runway end. 77.19(e) A height exceeding a transitional surface runway. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY TRANSITIONAL SURFACE BEGIN AIRPORT ANALYSIS FOR PEO ********************************************* 77.17(a)(2) A height AGL or airport elevation, whichever is higher. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** BECAUSE: Proposed height does not exceed 200 feet AGL. THE REFERENCE AIRPORT IDENT IS: ........ PEO THE AIRPORT ELEVATION IS: .............. 988.0 ft. AMSL THE DISTANCE FROM THE CASE TO ARP IS:..29.9292 NAUTICAL MILES THE BEARING AIRPORT TO CASE IS: ........ 116.961 DEGREES THE HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE IS: ........ 134 ft. 77.19(a) A height exceeding a horizontal surface 150 ft. above airport elevation within a radius of >> PEO <<. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED HORIZONTAL SURFACE AREA 77.19(b) A height exceeding a conical surface (a slope outward 4000 ft. from the horizontal surface at 20/1 ratio). ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED CONICAL SURFACE AREA * BEGIN RUNWAY ANALYSIS ************************* RUNWAY 01/19 EXISTING RUNWAY O1/19 77.19(c) A height exceeding runway primary surface. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY PRIMARY SURFACE 77.19(d) A height exceeding an approach surface of RUNWAY 01/19 THE ABEAM DISTANCE TO CENTERLINE FROM CASE IS ....... 157920 ft. THE RUNWAY THRESHOLD ELEVATION IS...................990 ft. THE DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD + 200' TO THE CASE IS ... 86781.43 ft. THE CRITICAL WIDTH OF HALF THE APPROACH IS .......... 13267.21 ft. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** BEYOND DEFINED APPROACH & TRANSITIONAL AREAS. CASE MEETS ANGULAR CRITERIA BUT IS LOCATED GREATER THAN 50,000 ft. FROM THE START OF ANY APPROACH TYPE, OUT BY 36781.43 ft. RUNWAY CENTERLINE OFFSET IS .........................157920 ft. DISTANCE FROM THE THRESHOLD TO OFFSET IS ............ 86781.43 ft. THE SLOPE OF RUNWAY O1 IS: 34 TO 1. The FAA has defined this runway as a non -utility runway. It has a non -precision approach. The obstacle surface extends 10,000 feet (34:1 Slope) symmetrically centered along the runway centerline extended. Please review the US Terminal Procedures volume associated with this airport. If a procedure for this airport and/or runway exist use TerpsG Professional software to determine the height limits (if any) the procedure will have on the proposed structure. Non -precision instrument procedures can extend 10 NM from the runway and a circling approach to the airport or runway can extend out up to 4.5 NM from every runway end. 77.19(e) A height exceeding a transitional surface runway. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY TRANSITIONAL SURFACE RUNWAY 10/28 EXISTING RUNWAY 10/28 77.19(c) A height exceeding runway primary surface. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY PRIMARY SURFACE 77.19(d) A height exceeding an approach surface of RUNWAY 10/28 THE ABEAM DISTANCE TO CENTERLINE FROM CASE IS ....... 87464.44 ft. THE RUNWAY THRESHOLD ELEVATION IS...................903.2 ft. THE DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD + 200' TO THE CASE IS ... 158214 ft. THE CRITICAL WIDTH OF HALF THE APPROACH IS .......... 23982.09 ft. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** BEYOND DEFINED APPROACH & TRANSITIONAL AREAS. CASE MEETS ANGULAR CRITERIA BUT IS LOCATED GREATER THAN 50,000 ft. FROM THE START OF ANY APPROACH TYPE, OUT BY 108214 ft. RUNWAY CENTERLINE OFFSET IS.........................87464.44 ft. DISTANCE FROM THE THRESHOLD TO OFFSET IS ............ 158214 ft. THE SLOPE OF RUNWAY 10 IS: 20 TO 1. The FAA has defined this runway as a utility runway. It has a non -precision approach. The obstacle surface extends 5000 feet (20:1 Slope) symmetrically centered along the runway centerline extended. Please review the US Terminal Procedures volume associated with this airport. If a procedure for this airport and/or runway exist use TerpsO Professional software to determine the height limits (if any) the procedure will have on the proposed structure. Non -precision instrument procedures can extend 10 NM from the runway and a circling approach to the airport or runway can extend out up to 4.5 NM from every runway end. 77.19(e) A height exceeding a transitional surface runway. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY TRANSITIONAL SURFACE BEGIN AIRPORT ANALYSIS FOR 6B9 77.17(a)(2) A height AGL or airport elevation, whichever is higher. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** BECAUSE: Proposed height does not exceed 200 feet AGL. THE REFERENCE AIRPORT IDENT IS: ........ 6B9 THE AIRPORT ELEVATION IS: .............. 1039.0 ft. AMSL THE DISTANCE FROM THE CASE TO ARP IS:..30.0728 NAUTICAL MILES THE BEARING AIRPORT TO CASE IS: ........ 180.807 DEGREES THE HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE IS: ........ 134 ft. 77.19(a) A height exceeding a horizontal surface 150 ft. above airport elevation within a radius of >> 6B9 <<. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED HORIZONTAL SURFACE AREA 77.19(b) A height exceeding a conical surface (a slope outward 4000 ft. from the horizontal surface at 20/1 ratio). ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED CONICAL SURFACE AREA ************************* * BEGIN RUNWAY ANALYSIS ************************* RUNWAY 04/22 EXISTING RUNWAY 04/22 77.19(c) A height exceeding runway primary surface. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY PRIMARY SURFACE 77.19(d) A height exceeding an approach surface of RUNWAY 04/22 THE ABEAM DISTANCE TO CENTERLINE FROM CASE IS ....... 75422.89 ft. THE RUNWAY THRESHOLD ELEVATION IS...................1000 ft. THE DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD + 200' TO THE CASE IS ... 164795.1 ft. THE CRITICAL WIDTH OF HALF THE APPROACH IS .......... 16604.51 ft. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** BEYOND DEFINED APPROACH & TRANSITIONAL AREAS. CASE MEETS ANGULAR CRITERIA BUT IS LOCATED GREATER THAN 50,000 ft. FROM THE START OF ANY APPROACH TYPE, OUT BY 114795.1 ft. RUNWAY CENTERLINE OFFSET IS.........................75422.89 ft. DISTANCE FROM THE THRESHOLD TO OFFSET IS ............ 164795.1 ft. THE SLOPE OF RUNWAY 04 IS: 20 TO 1. The FAA has defined this runway as a utility runway. It has a visual approach. The obstacle surface extends 5000 feet (20:1 Slope) symmetrically centered along the runway centerline extended. This airport may have a circling approach. Please review the US Terminal Procedures volume associated with this airport. If a procedure for this airport and/or this runway exist, use Terps® Professional software to determine the height limits (if any) the procedure will have on the proposed structure. A circling approach to the airport or any runway can extend out up to 4.5 NM from every runway end. 77.19(e) A height exceeding a transitional surface runway. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY TRANSITIONAL SURFACE RUNWAY 10/28 EXISTING RUNWAY 10/28 77.19(c) A height exceeding runway primary surface. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY PRIMARY SURFACE 77.19(d) A height exceeding an approach surface of RUNWAY 10/28 THE ABEAM DISTANCE TO CENTERLINE FROM CASE IS ....... 182018.9 ft. THE RUNWAY THRESHOLD ELEVATION IS...................994 ft. THE DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD + 200' TO THE CASE IS ... 12159.6 ft. THE CRITICAL WIDTH OF HALF THE APPROACH IS .......... 1340.96 ft. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** BEYOND DEFINED APPROACH & TRANSITIONAL AREAS. CASE NOT WITHIN APPROACH SURFACE AREA, OUT BY ....... 175677.94 ft. RUNWAY CENTERLINE OFFSET IS.........................182018.9 ft. DISTANCE FROM THE THRESHOLD TO OFFSET IS ............ 12159.6 ft. THE SLOPE OF RUNWAY 10 IS: 20 TO 1. The FAA has defined this runway as a utility runway. It has a visual approach. The obstacle surface extends 5000 feet (20:1 Slope) symmetrically centered along the runway centerline extended. This airport may have a circling approach. Please review the US Terminal Procedures volume associated with this airport. If a procedure for this airport and/or this runway exist, use Terps@ Professional software to determine the height limits (if any) the procedure will have on the proposed structure. A circling approach to the airport or any runway can extend out up to 4.5 NM from every runway end. 77.19(e) A height exceeding a transitional surface runway. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY TRANSITIONAL SURFACE ********************************************* BEGIN AIRPORT ANALYSIS FOR 4N7 ********************************************* 77.17(a)(2) A height AGL or airport elevation, whichever is higher. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** BECAUSE: Proposed height does not exceed 200 feet AGL. THE REFERENCE AIRPORT IDENT IS: ........ 4N7 THE AIRPORT ELEVATION IS: .............. 935.0 ft. AMSL THE DISTANCE FROM THE CASE TO ARP IS:..30.2109 NAUTICAL MILES THE BEARING AIRPORT TO CASE IS: ........ 282.651 DEGREES THE HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE IS: ........ 134 ft. 77.19(a) A height exceeding a horizontal surface 150 ft. above airport elevation within a radius of >> 4N7 <<. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED HORIZONTAL SURFACE AREA 77.19(b) A height exceeding a conical surface (a slope outward 4000 ft. from the horizontal surface at 20/1 ratio). ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED CONICAL SURFACE AREA * BEGIN RUNWAY ANALYSIS ************************* RUNWAY 07/25 EXISTING RUNWAY 07/25 77.19(c) A height exceeding runway primary surface. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY PRIMARY SURFACE 77.19(d) A height exceeding an approach surface of RUNWAY 07/25 THE ABEAM DISTANCE TO CENTERLINE FROM CASE IS ....... 143095.6 ft. THE RUNWAY THRESHOLD ELEVATION IS...................904 ft. THE DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD + 200' TO THE CASE IS ... 115063.7 ft. THE CRITICAL WIDTH OF HALF THE APPROACH IS .......... 11631.37 ft. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** BEYOND DEFINED APPROACH & TRANSITIONAL AREAS. CASE MEETS ANGULAR CRITERIA BUT IS LOCATED GREATER THAN 50,000 ft. FROM THE START OF ANY APPROACH TYPE, OUT BY 65063.7 ft. RUNWAY CENTERLINE OFFSET IS.........................143095.6 ft. DISTANCE FROM THE THRESHOLD TO OFFSET IS ............ 115063.7 ft. THE SLOPE OF RUNWAY 07 IS: 20 TO 1. The FAA has defined this runway as a utility runway. It has a visual approach. The obstacle surface extends 5000 feet (20:1 Slope) symmetrically centered along the runway centerline extended. This airport may have a circling approach. Please review the US Terminal Procedures volume associated with this airport. If a procedure for this airport and/or this runway exist, use TerpsO Professional software to determine the height limits (if any) the procedure will have on the proposed structure. A circling approach to the airport or any runway can extend out up to 4.5 NM from every runway end. 77.19(e) A height exceeding a transitional surface runway. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY TRANSITIONAL SURFACE ********************************************* BEGIN AIRPORT ANALYSIS FOR OG7 77.17(a)(2) A height AGL or airport elevation, whichever is higher. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** BECAUSE: Proposed height does not exceed 200 feet AGL. THE REFERENCE AIRPORT IDENT IS: ........ OG7 THE AIRPORT ELEVATION IS: .............. 491.8 ft. AMSL THE DISTANCE FROM THE CASE TO ARP IS:..31.8223 NAUTICAL MILES THE BEARING AIRPORT TO CASE IS: ........ 152.717 DEGREES THE HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE IS: ........ 134 ft. 77.19(a) A height exceeding a horizontal surface 150 ft. above airport elevation within a radius of >> OG7 <<. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED HORIZONTAL SURFACE AREA 77.19(b) A height exceeding a conical surface (a slope outward 4000 ft. from the horizontal surface at 20/1 ratio). ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED CONICAL SURFACE AREA ************************* * BEGIN RUNWAY ANALYSIS RUNWAY 01/19 EXISTING RUNWAY 01/19 77.19(c) A height exceeding runway primary surface. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY PRIMARY SURFACE 77.19(d) A height exceeding an approach surface of RUNWAY 01/19 THE ABEAM DISTANCE TO CENTERLINE FROM CASE IS ....... 75535.83 ft. THE RUNWAY THRESHOLD ELEVATION IS...................490.7 ft. THE DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD + 200' TO THE CASE IS ... 175765.7 ft. THE CRITICAL WIDTH OF HALF THE APPROACH IS .......... 26614.85 ft. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** BEYOND DEFINED APPROACH & TRANSITIONAL AREAS. CASE MEETS ANGULAR CRITERIA BUT IS LOCATED GREATER THAN 50,000 ft. FROM THE START OF ANY APPROACH TYPE, OUT BY 125765.7 ft. RUNWAY CENTERLINE OFFSET IS.........................75535.83 ft. DISTANCE FROM THE THRESHOLD TO OFFSET IS ............ 175765.7 ft. THE SLOPE OF RUNWAY 01 IS: 20 TO 1. The FAA has defined this runway as a utility runway. It has a non -precision approach. The obstacle surface extends 5000 feet (20:1 Slope) symmetrically centered along the runway centerline extended. Please review the US Terminal Procedures volume associated with this airport. If a procedure for this airport and/or runway exist use TerpsO Professional software to determine the height limits (if any) the procedure will have on the proposed structure. Non -precision instrument procedures can extend 10 NM from the runway and a circling approach to the airport or runway can extend out up to 4.5 NM from every runway end. 77.19(e) A height exceeding a transitional surface runway. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY TRANSITIONAL SURFACE RUNWAY 11/29 EXISTING RUNWAY 11/29 77.19(c) A height exceeding runway primary surface. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY PRIMARY SURFACE 77.19(d) A height exceeding an approach surface of RUNWAY 11/29 THE ABEAM DISTANCE TO CENTERLINE FROM CASE IS ....... 161199.4 ft. THE RUNWAY THRESHOLD ELEVATION IS...................465.7 ft. THE DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD + 200' TO THE CASE IS ... 105079.6 ft. THE CRITICAL WIDTH OF HALF THE APPROACH IS .......... 10632.96 ft. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** BEYOND DEFINED APPROACH & TRANSITIONAL AREAS. CASE MEETS ANGULAR CRITERIA BUT IS LOCATED GREATER THAN 50,000 ft. FROM THE START OF ANY APPROACH TYPE, OUT BY 55079.6 ft. RUNWAY CENTERLINE OFFSET IS.........................161199.4 ft. DISTANCE FROM THE THRESHOLD TO OFFSET IS ............ 105079.6 ft. THE SLOPE OF RUNWAY 11 IS: 20 TO 1. The FAA has defined this runway as a utility runway. It has a visual approach. The obstacle surface extends 5000 feet (20:1 Slope) symmetrically centered along the runway centerline extended. This airport may have a circling approach. Please review the US Terminal Procedures volume associated with this airport. If a procedure for this airport and/or this runway exist, use Terps® Professional software to determine the height limits (if any) the procedure will have on the proposed structure. A circling approach to the airport or any runway can extend out up to 4.5 NM from every runway end. 77.19(e) A height exceeding a transitional surface runway. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY TRANSITIONAL SURFACE BEGIN AIRPORT ANALYSIS FOR 7N1 ********************************************* 77.17(a)(2) A height AGL or airport elevation, whichever is higher. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** BECAUSE: Proposed height does not exceed 200 feet AGL. THE REFERENCE AIRPORT IDENT IS: ........ 7N1 THE AIRPORT ELEVATION IS: .............. 962.4 ft. AMSL THE DISTANCE FROM THE CASE TO ARP IS:..32.9835 NAUTICAL MILES THE BEARING AIRPORT TO CASE IS: ........ 64.757 DEGREES THE HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE IS: ........ 134 ft. 77.19(a) A height exceeding a horizontal surface 150 ft. above airport elevation within a radius of >> 7N1 <<. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED HORIZONTAL SURFACE AREA 77.19(b) A height exceeding a conical surface (a slope outward 4000 ft. from the horizontal surface at 20/1 ratio). ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED CONICAL SURFACE AREA ************************* * BEGIN RUNWAY ANALYSIS ************************* RUNWAY 13/31 EXISTING RUNWAY 13/31 77.19(c) A height exceeding runway primary surface. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY PRIMARY SURFACE 77.19(d) A height exceeding an approach surface of RUNWAY 13/31 THE ABEAM DISTANCE TO CENTERLINE FROM CASE IS ....... 159911.4 ft. THE RUNWAY THRESHOLD ELEVATION IS...................956.9 ft. THE DISTANCE FROM THRESHOLD + 200' TO THE CASE IS ... 120212.5 ft. THE CRITICAL WIDTH OF HALF THE APPROACH IS .......... 12146.25 ft. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** BEYOND DEFINED APPROACH & TRANSITIONAL AREAS. CASE MEETS ANGULAR CRITERIA BUT IS LOCATED GREATER THAN 50,000 ft. FROM THE START OF ANY APPROACH TYPE, OUT BY 70212.5 ft. RUNWAY CENTERLINE OFFSET IS.........................159911.4 ft. DISTANCE FROM THE THRESHOLD TO OFFSET IS ............ 120212.5 ft. THE SLOPE OF RUNWAY 13 IS: 20 TO 1. The FAA has defined this runway as a utility runway. It has a visual approach. The obstacle surface extends 5000 feet (20:1 Slope) symmetrically centered along the runway centerline extended. This airport may have a circling approach. Please review the US Terminal Procedures volume associated with this airport. If a procedure for this airport and/or this runway exist, use Terps® Professional software to determine the height limits (if any) the procedure will have on the proposed structure. A circling approach to the airport or any runway can extend out up to 4.5 NM from every runway end. 77.19(e) A height exceeding a transitional surface runway. ************* DOES NOT EXCEED ************** NOT WITHIN SPECIFIED RUNWAY TRANSITIONAL SURFACE Airspace@) State Data version 7/15/2024 AIRSPACE@ and TERPS@ are registered @ trademarks of Federal Airways & Airspace@ Copyright © 1989 - 2024 09-11-2024 6:12:11 * VFR - TRAFFIC PATTERN AIRSPACE ANALYSIS SITE ID: 2126343 TRANSACTION ID: 26012295 LATITUDE: 42° 24' 45.237" LONGITUDE: 76° 27' 1.569" SITE ELEVATION AMSL . . . . . 825 ft. STRUCTURE HEIGHT. . . . . . . . 134 ft. OVERALL HEIGHT AMSL . . . . . . 959 ft. Traffic Pattern Airspace, a structure that exceed any of the following maximum allowable heights is considered to constitute a hazard to air navigation : 1. The height of the transition surface (other than abeam the runway), the approach slope, the horizontal surface, and the conical surface(as applied to visual approach runways). 2. Beyond the lateral limits of the conical surface and in the climb/descent area - 350' above airport elevation or the height of part 77.17(a)(2), whichever is greater not to exceed 499' above ground level (AGL). The climb / descent area begins abeam the runway threshold being used and is the area where the pilot is either descending to land on the runway or climbing to pattern altitude after departure. 3. Beyond the lateral limits of the conical surface and NOT in the climb/descent area of any runway. —Above Airport Elevation not to exceed 499' AGL. ************************Landing Facility Identifier************************ ITH FAR 77.17(a)(1): DNE - Maximum Height Less Than 499 feet AGL FAR 77.17(a)(2): DNE - Maximum height is 1473.16 feet AMSL. Does Not Exceed VFR Horizontal Surface. Does Not Exceed VFR Conical Surface. The structure is within VFR - Traffic Pattern Airspace. Structures that exceed horizontal, conical, and / or traffic pattern will receive a hazard determination from the FAA. Existing Runway 14/32 Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Approach Runway. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Transitional Surface. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Primary Surface. Existing Runway 15/33 Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Approach Runway. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Transitional Surface. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Primary Surface. ************************Landing Facility Identifier************************ NO3 FAR 77.17(a)(1): DNE - Maximum Height Less Than 499 feet AGL FAR 77.17(a)(2): DNE - Greater than 5.99 NM. Does Not Exceed VFR Horizontal Surface. Does Not Exceed VFR Conical Surface. Does Not Exceed VFR - Traffic Pattern Airspace Runway Side Area. Does Not Exceed VFR - Traffic Pattern Airspace Climb/Descent Area. Existing Runway 06/24 Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Approach Runway. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Transitional Surface. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Primary Surface. ************************Landing Facility Identifier************************ 2N4 FAR 77.17(a)(1): DNE - Maximum Height Less Than 499 feet AGL FAR 77.17(a)(2): Does Not Apply. Does Not Exceed VFR Horizontal Surface. Does Not Exceed VFR Conical Surface. Does Not Exceed VFR - Traffic Pattern Airspace Runway Side Area. Does Not Exceed VFR - Traffic Pattern Airspace Climb/Descent Area. Existing Runway 11/29 Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Approach Runway. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Transitional Surface. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Primary Surface. ************************Landing Facility Identifier************************ D82 FAR 77.17(a)(1): DNE - Maximum Height Less Than 499 feet AGL FAR 77.17(a)(2): Does Not Apply. Does Not Exceed VFR Horizontal Surface. Does Not Exceed VFR Conical Surface. Does Not Exceed VFR —Traffic Pattern Airspace Runway Side Area. Does Not Exceed VFR - Traffic Pattern Airspace Climb/Descent Area. Existing Runway 01L/19R Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Approach Runway. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Transitional Surface. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Primary Surface. Existing Runway 01R/19L Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Approach Runway. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Transitional Surface. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Primary Surface. ************************Landing Facility Identifier************************ BGM FAR 77.17(a)(1): DNE - Maximum Height Less Than 499 feet AGL FAR 77.17(a)(2): DNE - Greater than 5.99 NM. Does Not Exceed VFR Horizontal Surface. Does Not Exceed VFR Conical Surface. Does Not Exceed VFR - Traffic Pattern Airspace Runway Side Area. Does Not Exceed VFR - Traffic Pattern Airspace Climb/Descent Area. Proposed Runway 10/28 Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Approach Runway. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Transitional Surface. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Primary Surface. Proposed Runway 16/34 Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Approach Runway. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Transitional Surface. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Primary Surface. Runway 10/28 Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Approach Runway. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Transitional Surface. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Primary Surface. Runway 16/34 Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Approach Runway. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Transitional Surface. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Primary Surface. ************************Landing Facility Identifier************************ ELM FAR 77.17(a)(1): DNE - Maximum Height Less Than 499 feet AGL FAR 77.17(a)(2): DNE - Greater than 5.99 NM. Does Not Exceed VFR Horizontal Surface. Does Not Exceed VFR Conical Surface. Does Not Exceed VFR - Traffic Pattern Airspace Runway Side Area. Does Not Exceed VFR - Traffic Pattern Airspace Climb/Descent Area. Existing Runway 05/23 Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Approach Runway. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Transitional Surface. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Primary Surface. Existing Runway 06/24 Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Approach Runway. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Transitional Surface. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Primary Surface. Existing Runway 10/28 Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Approach Runway. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Transitional Surface. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Primary Surface. Proposed Runway 06/24 Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Approach Runway. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Transitional Surface. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Primary Surface. Proposed Runway 10/28 Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Approach Runway. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Transitional Surface. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Primary Surface. Proposed Runway 23/05 Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Approach Runway. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Transitional Surface. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Primary Surface. ************************Landing Facility Identifier************************ CZG FAR 77.17(a)(1): DNE - Maximum Height Less Than 499 feet AGL FAR 77.17(a)(2): DNE - Greater than 5.99 NM. Does Not Exceed VFR Horizontal Surface. Does Not Exceed VFR Conical Surface. Does Not Exceed VFR - Traffic Pattern Airspace Runway Side Area. Does Not Exceed VFR - Traffic Pattern Airspace Climb/Descent Area. Existing Runway 03/21 Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Approach Runway. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Transitional Surface. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Primary Surface. Proposed Runway 03/21 Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Approach Runway. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Transitional Surface. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Primary Surface. ************************Landing Facility Identifier************************ PEO FAR 77.17(a)(1): DNE - Maximum Height Less Than 499 feet AGL FAR 77.17(a)(2): DNE - Greater than 5.99 NM. Does Not Exceed VFR Horizontal Surface. Does Not Exceed VFR Conical Surface. Does Not Exceed VFR - Traffic Pattern Airspace Runway Side Area. Does Not Exceed VFR - Traffic Pattern Airspace Climb/Descent Area. Existing Runway 01/19 Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Approach Runway. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Transitional Surface. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Primary Surface. Existing Runway 10/28 Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Approach Runway. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Transitional Surface. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Primary Surface. ************************Landing Facility Identifier************************ 6B9 FAR 77.17(a)(1): DNE - Maximum Height Less Than 499 feet AGL FAR 77.17(a)(2): DNE - Greater than 5.99 NM. Does Not Exceed VFR Horizontal Surface. Does Not Exceed VFR Conical Surface. Does Not Exceed VFR - Traffic Pattern Airspace Runway Side Area. Does Not Exceed VFR - Traffic Pattern Airspace Climb/Descent Area. Existing Runway 04/22 Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Approach Runway. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Transitional Surface. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Primary Surface. Existing Runway 10/28 Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Approach Runway. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Transitional Surface. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Primary Surface. ************************Landing Facility Identifier************************ 4N7 FAR 77.17(a)(1): DNE - Maximum Height Less Than 499 feet AGL FAR 77.17(a)(2): Does Not Apply. Does Not Exceed VFR Horizontal Surface. Does Not Exceed VFR Conical Surface. Does Not Exceed VFR - Traffic Pattern Airspace Runway Side Area. Does Not Exceed VFR - Traffic Pattern Airspace Climb/Descent Area. Existing Runway 07/25 Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Approach Runway. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Transitional Surface. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Primary Surface. ************************Landing Facility Identifier************************ OG7 FAR 77.17(a)(1): DNE - Maximum Height Less Than 499 feet AGL FAR 77.17(a)(2): DNE - Greater than 5.99 NM. Does Not Exceed VFR Horizontal Surface. Does Not Exceed VFR Conical Surface. Does Not Exceed VFR - Traffic Pattern Airspace Runway Side Area. Does Not Exceed VFR - Traffic Pattern Airspace Climb/Descent Area. Existing Runway 01/19 Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Approach Runway. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Transitional Surface. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Primary Surface. Existing Runway 11/29 Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Approach Runway. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Transitional Surface. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Primary Surface. ************************Landing Facility Identifier************************ 7N1 FAR 77.17(a)(1): DNE - Maximum Height Less Than 499 feet AGL FAR 77.17(a)(2): DNE - Greater than 5.99 NM. Does Not Exceed VFR Horizontal Surface. Does Not Exceed VFR Conical Surface. Does Not Exceed VFR - Traffic Pattern Airspace Runway Side Area. Does Not Exceed VFR - Traffic Pattern Airspace Climb/Descent Area. Existing Runway 13/31 Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Approach Runway. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Transitional Surface. Does Not Exceed Runway VFR Primary Surface. *************************************************************************** * * The above analysis was conducted using default parameters - Category C * aircraft and a maximum of 4 like category aircraft in the VFR -Traffic * Pattern at one time. * * * To view a graphical image of VFR - Traffic Pattern Airspace for these * airports use Terps@ Professional Software. Open the airport and Airspace@ * study. From the Map Menu select 'VFR - Traffic Pattern Airspace'. The * proposed structure, airport, and the traffic pattern will now be shown * together. Use this information to locate an alternate site if necessary. Airspace@ State Data version 7/15/2024 AIRSPACE@ and TERPS@ are registered @ trademarks of Federal Airways & AirspaceG Copyright © 1989 - 2024 09-11-2024 8:12:11 * AIRWAY ANALYSIS * FAR 77.17(a)(4) (EN ROUTE CRITERIA) * MINIMUM OBSTACLE CLEARANCE ALTITUDE (MOCA) * MINIMUM ENROUTE ALTITUDE (MEA) SITE ID: 2126343 TRANSACTION ID: 26012295 LATITUDE: 42° 24' 45.237" LONGITUDE: 76° 27' 1.56911 SITE ELEVATION AMSL . . . 825 ft. STRUCTURE HEIGHT. . . . . . . . 134 ft. OVERALL HEIGHT AMSL . . . . . . 959 ft. LOW ALTITUDE AIRWAY AIRWAY SEQUENCE LATITUDE LONGITUDE MEA LENGTH (NM) 982 60 42-28-00.76N 076-46-23.61W 18000 21.03 Q82 70 42-30-59.71N 076-18-15.43W 18000 Minimum Obstacle Clearance Altitude (MOCA) is: 18000 AMSL. Proposed structure is between the above points along Airway Q82.The Abeam distance from the course centerline is 5.20 NM. The proposedstructure is within the width of the secondary area of this airway. The width of the primary area is 8 NM and the width of the secondary is 2 NM. The maximum allowable height permitted by the secondary area MOCA of this airway at this location is 17615 feet AMSL. Airspace® State Data version 7/15/2024 AIRSPACE® and TERPSO are registered O trademarks of Federal Airways & Airspace0 Copyright © 1989 - 2024 09-11-2024 8:12:11 * IFR RUNWAY DEPARTURE SURFACE ANALYSIS SITE ID: 2126343 TRANSACTION ID: 26012295 LATITUDE: 42° 24' 45.237" LONGITUDE: 761 27' 1.569" SITE ELEVATION AMSL . . . . . . 825 ft. STRUCTURE HEIGHT. . . . . . . . 134 ft. OVERALL HEIGHT AMSL . . . . . . 959 ft. An airport with at least one instrument approach procedure (IAP) will require all airport runways to be analyzed using 40: 1 criteria for Departure. FAA application of the 40: 1 screening criteria extendes 22.09 nautical miles and 1801 semi - circle area around the Runway centerline extended. Penetration of the 40: 1 surface will result initially in a determination of presumed hazard (NPH). An extended study is normally required to remove the NPH. A specified climb gradient (CG) greater than the standard (200 ft / nm) is sometimes necessary to allow acceptable obstacle clearance. Should the proposed location exceed the maximum height you may need to determine if there is a published climb gradient and conduct additional calculations to determine if the climb gradient will provide proper clearance for the proposed structure. Should you require additional assistance please contact Federal Airways & Airspace or another aeronautical consult to perform these calculations. Ident Dep Rwy Elev Distance 40:1 Max Hgt CG Rwy Status ITH 14 1099.2 26361 DNE Below DNE Existing Rwy ITH 15 1100.1 28174 DNE Below DNE Existing Rwy NO3 24 1198.3 89637 DNE Below DNE Existing Rwy 2N4 11 1377 118219 DNE Below DNE Existing Rwy D82 19R 1088 127788 DNE Below DNE Existing Rwy D82 19L 1095 127282 DNE Below DNE Existing Rwy BGM 28 1591.1 145972 DNE Beyond DNE Existing Rwy BGM 34 1636 143828 DNE Beyond DNE Existing Rwy BGM 28 1591.1 145520 DNE Beyond DNE Proposed Rwy BGM 34 1636 143913 DNE Beyond DNE Proposed Rwy ELM O5 944.2 148382 DNE Beyond DNE Existing Rwy ELM 06 954.3 147093 DNE Beyond DNE Existing Rwy ELM 10 944.5 149369 DNE Beyond DNE Existing Rwy ELM 06 955 147093 DNE Beyond DNE Proposed Rwy ELM 10 945 149369 DNE Beyond DNE Proposed Rwy ELM 05 945 148382 DNE Beyond DNE Proposed Rwy CZG 03 826.5 154044 DNE Beyond DNE Existing Rwy CZG 03 826.2 153971 DNE Beyond DNE Proposed Rwy PEO 19 990 179749 DNE Beyond DNE Existing Rwy PEO 10 903.2 181494 DNE Beyond DNE Existing Rwy 6B9 22 1000 181420 DNE Beyond DNE Existing Rwy 6B9 10 994 182435 DNE Beyond DNE Existing Rwy 4N7 25 904 183047 DNE Beyond DNE Existing Rwy OG7 19 490.7 191221 DNE Beyond DNE Existing Rwy OG7 11 465.7 192871 DNE Beyond DNE Existing Rwy 7N1 13 956.9 199424 DNE Beyond DNE Existing Rwy Airspace@ State Data version 7/15/2024 AIRSPACE@ and TERPS@ are registered @ trademarks of Federal Airways & Airspace@ Copyright © 1989 - 2024 09-11-2024 8:12:11 * NAVAIDS IN PROXIMITY OF CASE ******************************** FAC IDNT TYPE ST AT SITE ID: 2126343 LATITUDE: 42° 24' 45.237" SITE ELEVATION AMSL . . . . STRUCTURE HEIGHT. . . . . . OVERALL HEIGHT AMSL . . . FREQ VECTOR DIST (ft) TRANSACTION ID: 26012295 LONGITUDE: 76° . . 825 ft. . . 134 ft. . . 959 ft. DELTA ST ELEVA 27' 1.569" LOCATION GRD ANGLE APCH BEAR ITH GLIDE I 330.5 359.27 27270 -133 NY RWY 32 ITH -.28 325 SLOPE ITH UN I 122.95 355.55 28802 -140 NY ITHACA -.28 TOMPKINS I ITH DM R 111. 355.23 30146 -153 NY ITHACA -.29 ITH LOCALIZER I 108.7 350.38 31960 -118 NY RWY 32 -.21 325 ITHACA TOM NO3 UN I 122.80 43.99 91338 -238 NY CORTLAND -.15 CNTY/CHA NK09 UN I 122.70 268.42 99978 -521 NY EAGLE RIDGE -.3 ALP NDB I 24 233.13 105863 -328 NY ALPINE -.18 CFB VOR/DME R 112.2 137.68 125943 -624 NY BINGHAMTON -.28 D82 UN I 122.80 313.55 128392 -103 NY OVID -.05 NK49 UN I 123.05 151.29 128796 +52 NY OWEGO .02 9NY3 UN I 123.05 152.06 130149 +75 NY SUSQUEHANNA .03 42NY UN I 122.80 48.54 141510 -601 NY WALTERS FLD -.24 BGM LOCALIZER I 110.3 119.43 143567 -672 NY RWY 34 -.27 340 GREATER BI AAJ GLIDE I 335.0 119.71 145439 -663 NY RWY 16 BGM -.26 158 SLOPE BGM RADAR I 119.24 145857 -770 NY BINGHAMTON -.3 REGION UEK LOCALIZER I 109.1 232.38 146229 +5 NY RWY 06 0.00 62 ELMIRA/COR BGM ATCT I A/G 120.64 147189 -719 NY BINGHAMTON -.28 REGION BGM UN I 122.95 120.45 147491 -676 NY GREATER -.26 BINGHAMTO KBGM RADAR WXL Y 162.47 121.77 147954 -772 NY BINGHAMTON -.3 ELM GLIDE I 331.4 232.45 147991 +13 NY RWY 24 ELM .01 242 SLOPE AAJ LOCALIZER I 110.3 120.56 149636 -616 NY RWY 16 -.24 158 GREATER BI BGM GLIDE I 335.0 120.56 149751 -614 NY RWY 34 BGM -.23 340 SLOPE ITH ATCT I A/G 358.82 150079 -174 NY ITHACA -.07 TOMPKINS R ELM UN I 122..95 232.21 150806 +4 NY ELMIRA/ 0.00 CORNING RG ELM RADAR I 2750. 234.9 151520 -670 NY ELMIRA- -.25 CORNING RE ELM ATCT I A/G 232.72 151655 -79 NY ELMIRA/ -.03 CORNING RE UEK GLIDE I 331.4 232.38 153058 +23 NY RWY 06 ELM .01 62 SLOPE CZG UN I 122.80 141.89 154962 +126 NY TRI-CITIES .05 ELM LOCALIZER I 109.1 232.24 155681 +28 NY RWY 24 .01 242 ELMIRA/COR 06NY UN I 122.80 .51 156796 -141 NY MURPHY FLD -.05 PS81 UN I 123.05 186.84 158987 +179 PA ROBERT .06 PACKER HOS FAC TYPE ST FREQ VECTOR DIST DELTA ST LOCATION GRD APCH IDNT AT (ft) ELEVA ANGLE BEAR NK89 UN I 122.80 254.79 170040 -241 NY ULTRALIGHT -.08 FLIGHT ZNY CO Y A/G 193.95 178403 -592 PA SAYRE -.19 PEO UN I 123.00 296.94 181850 -29 NY PENN YAN -.01 6B9 UN I 122.80 .81 182746 -80 NY SKANEATELES -.03 AERO 4N7 UN I 122.80 102.64 183589 +24 NY GREENE .01 PYA NDB I 26 297.52 183772 +102 NY PENN YAN .03 OG7 VG I A/G 332.46 192315 +472 NY RWY19 TCH40 .14 GS300 OG7 UN I 122.80 332.71 193345 +467 NY FINGER LAKES .14 RGNL ULW VOR/DME R 109.6 233.08 194031 -673 NY ELMIRA -.2 OG7 VG I A/G 332.83 194776 +477 NY RWY01 TCH40 .14 GS300 7N1 UN I 122.80 244.77 200405 -3 NY CORNING- 0.00 PAINTED P GGT TACAN I 117.8 50.55 216837 -1081 NY GEORGETOWN -.29 NK71 UN I 122.80 6.83 219514 +109 NY MARCELLUS .03 THE NEAREST AIR NAVIGATION FACILITY TO CASE COORDINATES IS: ITH (GLIDE SLOPE) Airspace@ State Data version 7/15/2024 AIRSPACE@ and TERPSO are registered O trademarks of Federal Airways & Airspace@ Copyright @ 1989 - 2024 09-11-2024 8:12:11 175 355 * AM RADIO STATIONS * Disturbance of AM Broadcast Station Antenna Pattern * CFR Title 47, Part 1, Subpart BB SITE ID: 2126343 TRANSACTION ID: 26012295 LATITUDE: 42° 24' 45.237" LONGITUDE: 76° 27' 1.569" SITE ELEVATION AMSL . . . . . 825 ft. STRUCTURE HEIGHT. . . . . . . . 134 ft. OVERALL HEIGHT AMSL . . . . . . 959 ft. CALL FREQ POWER ANT P DIST BEARING NAD83 NAD83 CITY ST SIGN KHz Watts MOD T Meters Degrees LATITUDE LONGITUDE WNYY 1470 5,000 D T 3064 220.73 42-23-30 076-28-29 ITHACA NY This station has a current license. The authorized directional antenna pattern is theoretical. This station is operating a directional type antenna system.The electrical height of the studied antenna is: 72'. The studied structure is not within 2039 meters of this AM station. 10 Wavelengths = 2039 meters. WHCU 870 5,000 D T 8646 47.62 42-27-54 076-22-22 ITHACA NY This station has a current license. The authorized directional antenna pattern is theoretical. This station is operating a directional type antenna system.The electrical height of the studied antenna is: 431. The studied structure is not within 3000 meters of this AM station. 10 Wavelengths = 3446 meters. WHCU 870 1,000 D A 13928 246.69 42-21-47 076-36-21 ITHACA NY The authorized directional antenna pattern is augmented. This station is operating a directional type antenna system.The electrical height of the studied antenna is: 431. The studied structure is not within 3000 meters of this AM station. 10 Wavelengths = 3446 meters. DEFINITIONS: SIGNIFICANT MODIFICATION: A significant modification of a tower in the immediate vicinity of an AM station is defined in CFR Title 47, Part 1.30002, as follows; (1) any change that would alter the tower's physical height by 5 electrical degrees or more at the AM frequency; or (2) in addition or replacement of one or more antennas or trnasmission lines on a tower that has been detuned or base -insulated. The addition or modification of an antenna or antenna -supporting structure on a building shall be considered a construction modification subject to the analysis and notice requirements of this subpart if and only if the height of the antenna supporting structure alone exceeds the thresholds in paragraphs(a) and(b) of this section. CALL SIGN: The Call Sign of the station or application. For applications and construction permits which do not have Call Signs a value of 'NEW' is used. FREQUENCY: in Kilohertz POWER: The nominal power of the station, as defined in Section CFR 73.14. This is not necessarily the effective radiated power, the transmitter power, the antenna input power, etc. ANT MOD: Antenna Mode, The mode of the complete antenna system. Indicates directional or non -directional. (D = Directional and N = Non -Directional) If a station is directional at one time during a day and non -directional at another time it is considered to be directional for the purpose of Movement Method Proof. If the same station has multiple locations these are listed as separate AM stations with the same Call Sign. PT: The type of antenna pattern which has been notified to (or by) foreign countries. DIST Meters: This is the calculated distance (in meters) between your proposed site and the latitude/longitude coordinates specified by the FCC data. Bearing Degrees: This is the true bearing from your proposed site to the station. LATITUDE: This is the latitude of the AM Station in NAD 1983 coordinates. LONGITUDE: This is the longitude of the AM Station in NAD 1983 coordinates. ST: This is the state where the AM Station is located. The material in this report on AM radio stations was obtained from the FCC who provided the data on an 'as -is' basis. Therefore, Federal Airways & Airspace@ disclaims all warranties with regard to the contents of these files, including their fitness for your use. In no event shall Federal Airways & Airspace@ be liable for any special, indirect, or consequential damages whatsoever resulting from loss or use, data or profits, whether in connection with the use or performance of the contents of these files, action of contract, negligence, or other action arising out of, or in connection with the use of the contents of these files. Data conversion of the FCC data from NAD27 to NAD83 was accomplished using the USGS NADCON210 software program. Airspace@ State Data version 7/15/2024 AIRSPACE@ and TERPS@ are registered @ trademarks of Federal Airways & Airspace@ Copyright @ 1989 - 2024 09-11-2024 8:12:11 *PRIVATE LANDING FACILITIES IN PROXIMITY OF CASE* SITE ID: 2126343 TRANSACTION ID: 26012295 LATITUDE: 42° 24' 45.23711 LONGITUDE: 761 27' 1.569" SITE ELEVATION AMSL . . . . . . 825 ft. STRUCTURE HEIGHT. . . . . . . . 134 ft. OVERALL HEIGHT AMSL . . . . . . 959 ft. FACIL TYP NAME BEARING RANGE DELTA ARP FAR IDENT To FACIL IN NM ELEVATION P77 NK72 AIR HENION PVT FLD 239.05 4.25 -341 NO NK05 AIR TOM N' JERRY 220.05 4.53 -531 NO NY55 AIR GRUND FLD 287.8 6.83 -494 NO NY18 AIR NENO 286.38 7.7 -324 NO 2NY9 AIR KAYUTAH LAKE/ 258 12.36 -426 NO JAMES &amp; HELENE D NY92 AIR COCHRAN 84.37 16.15 -321 NO NK09 AIR EAGLE RIDGE 268.42 16.45 -521 NO NK54 AIR MATEJKA FLD 210.9 16.49 -731 NO 6NY3 AIR AIRY -ACRES 318.26 18.51 +154 NO NK53 AIR DODGE/COPPOLA/ 228.83 18.89 -71 NO WHEELER NK24 AIR TILDEN 258.24 19.45 +59 NO NY29 AIR SCHUYLER 276.74 20.62 +89 NO NK35 AIR MARIWILL .82 20.65 -171 NO NK49 HEL OWEGO 151.28 21.2 +52 NO 9NY3 HEL SUSQUEHANNA 152.06 21.42 +75 NO NK74 AIR MATCH MATE 334.69 22.04 +119 NO 17NK AIR RE -DUN FLD 277.01 22.39 -392 NO 42NY AIR WALTERS FLD 48.55 23.29 -601 NO 38NY AIR GREENLAWN FARM 290.09 23.97 -51 NO 3NK9 HEL ARNOT OGDEN 221.7 25.11 +50 NO HOSPITAL 06NY AIR MURPHY FLD .52 25.81 -141 NO PS81 HEL ROBERT PACKER 186.83 26.16 +179 YES HOSPITAL 4NY8 AIR HARRIS HILL 228.78 26.63 -750 NO 94NY AIR ST BERNARD FLD 336.75 26.94 +419 NO PA33 AIR LARS/PRIVATE 182.98 27.78 -341 NO NK89 AIR ULTRALIGHT FLIGHT 254.79 27.98 -241 NO FARM 29NK HEL UHS WILSON TOWER 129.3 28.27 -26 NO 9NY1 HEL WILSON MEML RGNL 129.34 28.3 -20 NO MEDICAL CENTE 8NY4 HEL GUTHRIE CORNING 234.1 28.53 +58 NO HOSPITAL 1NK8 AIR CHENANGO BRIDGE 116.23 30.18 +19 NO 25NK AIR LOUCKS 272.91 30.33 -466 NO 4NK4 AIR WOODFORD AIRFIELD 36.96 31.19 -321 NO ONY6 HEL NEW YORK STATE 346.77 31.83 +359 NO POLICE 3NY5 AIR LUKE 136.85 32.06 -599 NO NY12 HEL AUBURN COMMUNITY 351.01 32.1 +229 NO HOSPITAL PN10 AIR CASH CREEK 184.6 32.94 -291 NO 6NY1 AIR OLD PORT ROYAL 237.51 33.67 -741 NO 9PN7 AIR VEIT 177.3 35.69 -401 NO NK71 AIR MARCELLUS 6.84 36.13 +109 NO FAA PROTECTED IFR PROCEDURE IFR Procedure FACIL TYP NAME BEARING RANGE DELTA ARP FAR FAA PROTECTED IDENT To FACIL IN NM ELEVATION P77 IFR PROCEDURE PN54 AIR AKM AIRFIELD 200.96 36.69 -434 NO 59PA AIR J P REILLY 146.19 36.86 -691 NO 5PN2 HEL ROBERT PACKER 179.91 37.65 +159 NO HOSPITAL - TOWAN NK12 AIR CANAAN FLD 229.33 37.72 -641 NO NY19 AIR WALLS 359.24 37.87 +349 NO 2NY7 AIR TOWNER FARM 242.49 38.13 -289 NO NY73 AIR MILLER FLD 98.79 38.29 -621 NO 7PA6 AIR CARRAR FARM 138.32 38.55 -588 NO NK76 AIR GRAMMAR 316.85 38.77 +204 NO 46NY AIR SAVANNAH 339.42 38.88 +494 NO THE NEAREST PRIVATE USE LANDING FACILITY IS: HENION PVT FLD HENION PVT FLD is an Airport type landing facility. landing facilities with IFR procedures are protected under FAR 77.17 (a) (3). Airspace@ State Data version 7/15/2024 AIRSPACE@ and TERPS@ are registered @ trademarks of Federal Airways & Airspace@ Copyright @ 1989 - 2024 09-11-2024 8:12:11 EXHIBIT NN ass INC. November 18, 2024 GSS Project #D24246-19-NY Ms. Katherine Jaeckel Verizon Wireless 1275 John Street Rochester, NY 14586 Submitted via email: katie.jaeckel@verizonwireless.com 1054 Texan Trail, Ste 300 Grapevine, TX 76051 Tel:682.651.0034 Fax:817.527.4081 ustxApassmidwest.com www.gssmidwest.com RE: NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (NEPA) STATUS — VERIZON SITE: SUNNY VIEW, FUZE PID# 2126343 111 WIEDERMAIER CT, ITHACA, TOMPKINS COUNTY, NY 14850 At the request of Verizon Wireless, GROUNDWATER SERVICE & SUPPLY INC (GSS) has prepared this NEPA Status Letter (Letter) for the below -referenced proposed wireless communications facility. This letter outlines the current stage of the environmental review process set forth in Title 47 CFD Part 1, Subpart I, rule sections 1.1301 to 1.1319. PROJECT INFORMATION Verizon Site Name: Sunny View Verizon Project ID: 2126343 Site Address: 111 Wiedmaier Court (0.17 miles SW of Slaterville Rd. and Wiedmaier Ct.), Ithaca, Tompkins County, NY 14850 Project Type: Raw Land Tower Type/Height: Monopole / 134' (Overall 138') Latitude/Longitude: 42°24'45.2376" N / 76°27'1.5696" W e-106 Number: 0011318208 TCNS Number: 285451 NEPA Process Summary Tower Construction Notification System (TCNS) and Notification of Organization (NOO) The FCC TCNS process for tribal consultation was initiated on September 17, 2024. A Notification of Organization (NOO) was issued to tribal entities (Tribes) on September 20, 2024. Public Notice A public notice was issued on September 20, 2024, to inform the public of the proposed project and to invite comments regarding potential environmental and cultural impacts. The notice was published in Ithaca Journal, and the public comment period ended on October 20, 2024. No comments or concerns have been received. Notice of Initiation of the Section 106 Process Letter Notice of Initiation of the Section 106 Process Letters were sent to Landmarks Preservation Commission, City of Ithaca and History Center in Tompkins County on September 17, 2024, to inform the related parties the proposed project and to invite comments regarding potential environmental and cultural impacts. The comment period ended on October 17, 2024. No comments or concerns have been received. Section 106 Submission to New York State Historic Preservation Offices (NY SHPO) and Tribes Section 106 submission was made to the NY SHPO and Tribes on November 7, 2024. We are currently awaiting a response from NY SHPO and Tribes. NY SHPO has 30 days to review the submission, with the review period concluding on December 7, 2024. Any Tribes that have not responded by December 9, 2024, and December 17, 2024, will be referred to 1054 Texan Trail, Ste 300 Grapevine, TX 76051 Tel:682.651.0034 Fax:817.527.4081 5755 jzsstx(a passmidwest.com www.gssmidwest.com INC. the FCC to initiate the process to close out consultation. The anticipated tribal clearance date is January 4, 2025. However, this date is subject to change if significant events occur, such as requests for additional consultation, new findings, or unforeseen delays in the review process. GSS anticipates submitting the final NEPA report to Verizon Wireless on January 6, 2025. LIMITATIONS This Letter was completed according to the terms and conditions authorized by you. There are no intended or unintended third -party beneficiaries, unless specifically named. GSS is an independent contractor, not an employee of either the property owner or the project proponent, and its compensation was not based on the findings or recommendations made in this Letter or on the closing of any business transaction. Thank you for the opportunity to be of assistance to Verizon Wireless. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Stephen J. Blazenko, CEO GSS, Inc. (jti4frJ%ACfl’/I’/L(_fecFrom:davidgallahan<davidgallahan@yahoo.com>Sent:Monday,November18,20241:40PMTo:TownOfIthacaPlanningSubject:VerizoncelltowerproposalToTownofIthacaPlanningBoardre:ProposedVerizontowernear79&BurnsRd.IcannotattendthemeetingNovember1gth,butwanttostronglyurgeyoutodenythepermit.The“gap”(whatVerizon’sdatashows)issmallenoughthatitcouldeasilyberemediedbyasmallcellantenna.Indeed,isanythingreallyneeded?Haveyoureceivedanycommentsfromthepublicrequestingmorecellularcoverage?Theproposedtowerisclearlynottheleastintrusivemeansavailable,whichiswhatourcodesrequire.Ifbuilt,thistowerwilldevastatethisneighborhood.Sincerely,DavidGallahanIthaca1 c(i/IIZ-From:Jaazaniah<jrzorn00l@gmail.com>Sent:Sunday,November17,20248:23AMTo:TownOfIthacaPlanningSubject:VerizonExemptionRequestandTuesdayMeeting**WARNING**Thisemailcomesfromanoutsidesource.Pleaseverifythefromaddress,anyURL(inks,and/orattachments.AnyquestionspleasecontacttheITdepartmentPleaseacknowledgereceiptofthismessageandthatithasbeensenttothemembersoftheboard.DearIthacaTownPlanningBoard,IamunabletoattendthemeetingthisTuesday,the19th,soIamsendingabriefnote.Thisisacrucialmeeting.Icannotemphasizethisenough.ThisisthemomentfortheboardtostanduptoBigTech(inthiscaseVerizon)andshowthatIthaca’slocallyproducedregulationsmeanbusinessandcannotbeby-passedbyapoorlyresearchedandwrittenrequestforanexemption.IftheTowndoesnot,atthismomentintime,showVerizonthatourregulationsmeanbusinessitwillopenthedoortomoreandmorepoorlyconcoctedexemptionrequeststhatwillcitethecurrentrequest(ifgranted)asabasisforfurtherexemptions.Donotletthishappen.Thecurrentproposedexemptionfailstomeet“the(eastintrusivemeans”sectionofourregulations.Whycan’ttheyfindaLessintrusivespotfortheirtower?Moreover,theproposedtowerfallswithin1640’ofexistinghomes,wheninordertosupporthumanshealthandtheaestheticsoftheareaitshouldbebeyondthatdistance.Doesthetownwanttoseehomevalues,andthusthetaxbasedecline,inordertosupportVerizon?Verizonhaddeeppockets,makethemuseittocomeupwithsomethingthatdoesnotmakeamockeryofourregulations.Sincerely,JeffJeffZorn202PineTreeRd.Ithaca,NY14850C:607-339-73281 (Omer/‘//9/zPFrom:GentlyborneMidwifery<gentlybornemidwifery@gmail.com>Sent:Sunday,November17,20249:03AMTo:TownOfIthacaPlanningSubject:CellTower**WARNING**ThisemaiLcomesfromanoutsidesource.PLeaseverifythefromaddress,anyURLLinks,and/orattachments.AnyquestionspLeasecontacttheITdepartmentTotheBoard;IDONOTwanttheVerizoncelltowerasproposed.Pleasevotenoandlookatotheroptions.Thistoweristooclosetopeople.AsahealthcareproviderIamespeciallyconcernedabouttheexposuretochildren,babiesandpregnantwomen.Pleasebecarefulhere.ThankyouMonicaDaniel1 CarolineAshurst<hello@carolineashurst.com>Tuesday,November19,202411:59AMTownOfIthacaPlanning111WiedmaierCt.PWSFSitePlan(V1912-c)**WARNING**ThisemaiLcomesfromanoutsidesource.PLeaseverifythefromaddress,anyURLLinks,and/orattachments.AnyquestionspLeasecontacttheITdepartmentDearPlanningBoardMembers,FirstIwanttothankyouforyourservice.Yourjobistime-consuminginyourbusylifeandoftenthankless.Itrulyappreciateandhonorwhatitmeanstobevolunteeringyourtimeinthiswayregularly.I’mwritingasaresidentof106WiedmaierCt.Iamadamantlyagainstthelocationofthisproject--butnotjustformyfamilyandthe20otherfamiliesinthisresidentialcommunity.Iamadamantlyagainstsettingaprecedentinourtownforbuildingtheseunnecessarymonolithtowers.Itisfirstimportanttore-iteratethatRobertBerg,Esq.hasestablishedthatanytowerbuiltoverthe50ft.limitestablishedinzoningbylawsisnolongerautilityandisacommercialendeavor.Verizonmeanstousethistowerasanincomemeans.Theywillauctionoffothercompaniestousethistoweraswell.IdissentthiscommercialuseofthisIthacaConservationBoards’deemednaturalconservationarea.Andinterestingly,theoriginalpropertyownerofthislandwasaconservationistwhodidnotwantanythinglikethiseverhappeningonthisbeautifulland.Verizonisenactingalandgrabrightinfrontofourveryeyes.Whatwillyoudecideforthefuturegenerationsofthiscommunity?Isitsoimportanttocavetotheircarelessness?Doyouwantthesewherevertheyseefitmovingforward?ThezoningbylawswerecreatedtoSTOPTHISMADNESSFROMEVERHAPPENINGHERE.IagreewiththeIthacansforResponsibleTechnology’ssentiment:VerizonshouldnotnowbeaffordedanypreferentialtreatmentbythePlanningBoard.Theyareacorporationwhosepurposeistomaximizefinancialgrowthwiththistower,i.e.buildsomethingaslargeaspossibletosupportasmuchrentalincomeaspossible.So,IaskthatthislanguageaboutVerizonbeingapublicutilityberemovedfromthedraftresolutions.Andfurthermore:areeachofyoupersonallypreparedtoaccepttheresponsibilityofharmingcountlesslthacansforyearstocome?Includingmydaugherandherbestfriendin107Wiedmaier??Asalicensedhealthcareproviderwhopreviouslythought“5gpeople”werecrazy,I’velookedattheresearchthatwasprovidedtomebyIRTandIamhorrified.Iamnowadamantlyopposedtothistowerbeingclosetoaresidentialcommunity(oranycommunity--becauseitisnotjustaboutme)--andthechildrenthatlivehere!I’vesinceheardaccountsofwomencompletelylosingtheirmenstrualcycleforyearsimmediatelyafterrelocatingtoasitenearalargecelltower(andreturningafterfleeingthearea).Thisisunacceptableforhumanlife!Asahormonalhealthexpert,Icannotimaginewhatthismeansforthewholepersonhealth.1From:Sent:To:Subject: Therearemanyotherplacestheycanputthistower,butsinceNOONEintheirresearchforotherlocationswantit(surprisesurprise),andtheownerofthislandhasalreadystruckadeal,theyaredeterminedtoputtheirstakedownhere.Theyarecryingliketheycan’tgoanywhereelse,buttheycanlookharder.AsIhavereadthetownzoningbylawsregardingthesetypesofstructuresandhavereadthecurrentreportbyyourengineeringconsultantMr.Johnson,itisclearthatyourapprovalofthisstructurewouldbetacitlybreakingthepartsofbylaws270-219:Again,Ire-iteratefrompreviousin-personstatementsIhavemade:1.Thisisnotanecessity.Thesizeofthistower(1640ft)isnotnecessary.Mr.Johnsonclearlysaysthatsmallcellswouldbeappropriateandpossible.Ifthisconsultationisn’tadheredto,itwillbehardforyoutomakeacasethatyouarenotindeedbreakingthebylawsstatingthatnotowersshouldbebuiltover50ft.2.ResidentialareasarespecificallyplacedasTHELASTplaceatowershouldbebuilt(andthat’sa50fttowermindyou!!!!!)Thisisclearlyaresidentialcommunity.Again,youwillbebreakingyetanotherzoningbylawifapprovingthisridiculouslocation...areyoureadytodothat?3.Theproposed138’towerdoesnotmeetourcodes’requirementforthe“leastintrusivemeans”tofillasmallgapinservice.Mr.Johnsonwasclearthatsmallcellswouldbeagoodoptiontomeetourcode’srequirementofa“leastintrusive”meansoffillinganygap:“hugegeographicareascanbeservicedbymanyrelativelysmall-diameter“cells”thatallowsufficientsignallevelsandusercapacityforsafeandreliablevoicecommunications....TwoproperlypositionedshorterbasestationslongornearRoute79wouldlikelyhavetheabilitytoilluminatetheRoute9valley.”Smallcellsoffersignificantlylessradiation.Weareopentootheroptions,butonesthataresafe.DONOTLETTHEMBULLYYOU!Theydon’tcareaboutus.WEhaveto.Howeveryouvote,itwillsendasignaltofutureapplicants-eitherthatourcodesdon’treallymatterORthatIthacaisathoughtfulcommunitythatupholdscertainvaluesandthattheyneedtocomereadytoworkcollaborativelywithus.I’maskingyoueachtotakeastandforourcommunity.Iamurgingyoutodotherightthing.Listentoyourdeepinnertruthandguidance.Youknowwhatthatfeelinginyourstomachistellingyou.Thisnaturallandissacredandsoareourchildrenandtheirfuture.IknowyouwantthebestforthemlikeIdo.Youhavethechoice.WithGratitude,CarolineGraceAshurst,L.Ac.,M.Ac.www.carolineashurst.com@restorativeharmony2 ElizabethSalon<elizasalon.np@gmail.com>Tuesday,November19,20248:01AMTownOfIthacaPlanningDenyproposed138VerizonCellTower\fQX2cn.(“/I9/2_C/**WARNING**ThisemaiLcomesfromanoutsidesource.PLeaseverifythefromaddress,anyURLLinks,and/orattachments.AnyquestionspLeasecontacttheITdepartmentAsanursepractitionerhealthcareproviderinIthaca,andascofounderofthesuccessfulIthacaFreeClinic,Icareaboutourcommunity,andknowyoudotoo.ThusIimploreyoutoopposetheproposed138footcelltowerandshowyoucareaboutourcommunitytoo.Theconsultantconfirmedthattheycouldfillthe“gap”inservicewith1ormaybe2smalLceLls.Thus,theproposed138’towerdoesnotmeetourcodes’requirementforthe“leastintrusivemeans”tofilLasmallgapinservice.VerizonuLtimatelywantsalargerpolefortheircorporateinterests,notourcommunity’sinterests.-WithasmalLcelL,theyhavemanymoreoptionsforsites,NOT,asmanyofyoumentionedattheLastmeeting,restrictingittothatveryLimitedrandomhexagonalarea.-Withmanymoreoptions,theycangofurtherfromhomes.TheNHCommissionhasbeenclearthattowersshouLdbe1640feetfromhomes.Atthisdistance,notonlyhumanhealthwilLbesupported,butaestheticsandrealestatevalueswillbemuchbetterpreserved.ElizabethG.Salon,R.N.C.,M.S.,F.N.P.Farni/yNursePractitionerIntegrativeHealth108SouthAlbaiyStIthaca,NY14850607-277-2201eli7abethsalon-np.com1From:Sent:To:Subject: \JLônfFrom:BobBabjak<bobbybabjak@gmail.com>Sent:Tuesday,November19,202412:44AMTo:TownOfIthacaPlanningSubject:PlanningBoardproject:111WiedmaierCt.PWSFSitePlan**WARNING**Thisemailcomesfromanoutsidesource.Pleaseverifythefromaddress,anyURLjlinks,and/orattachments.AnyquestionspleasecontacttheITdepartmentHelloPlanningBoardmembers,ILiveat106WiedmaierCt.,theclosestresidencetotheproposedproject.MyfamilyrecentlymovedherefromPhiladelphiabecausewelovethenaturalbeautyandstrongcommunityspiritofIthaca.ThisgigantictowerbeingbuiltinthemiddLeofthebeautifulmeadowbehindourhousewouLdbasicallybeagiantrefutationofbothofthosethings.Theareaof111WiedmaierCt.iswhollyunsuitableforaprojectofthisnature.Ifyouhaveneverbeentothesiteinperson,IamincludingavideoIshottheretheotherday.Itwillshowthat:•Theentiresitewillbeclearlyvisiblefromboth79andBurnsRd.,completelyalteringtheviewshedagainstthemajesticbackdropofSouthHill/Danby.Thereisnohidingastructureliketheoneproposed.•Theclosesttreesalltopoutaround30-40feetabovethegroundlevelwherethebasestationwillbe.Thatmeansthatthistowerwillbearound100feettallerthananyofthesurroundingnaturaLfeatures.•Thereisampleevidenceofmyriadanimalspeciescongregatingonthesite,provingitwilldisruptanestabLishedmeetingplace.•Thatthemandatedrestorationoftheillegally-gradedsitehasnotbeencompletedaspursuanttoConservationBoardResolutionno.2008-013,includingthe“plantingofapproximately250trees”•Thisprojectiscompletelyoutofcharacterwiththesurroundingarea,wildrasticaLlyalterthenatureoftheland,communityandperceptionofthetownofIthaca.1MG1489.MOVdrive.google.comIbelievetheevidencepresentedshowsthat(A)theprojectisNOTsuitableforthepropertyonwhichitisproposed.(B)TheproposedstructuredesignandsitelayoutareNOTcompatiblewiththesurroundingarea.Almostnoneofthefacilitywillbescreenedbyexistingvegetationasevidencedinmyvideo.(F)Theproposeduse,structuredesignandsitelayoutwiLlNOTcomplywiththeprovisionsofthetowncode-particularlytheprovisionson“leastintrusivemeans”.2.(c)[1]PublicUtilityStatusisnotmetbytheapplicant,aspointedoutbylawyerRobertBerginhisOctober28letter:“The“publicutility”legalstandarddoesnotapplytothePlanningBoard’s1 considerationoftheapplicant’srequestforsiteplanapprovalandaspecialusepermit.Rather,thetestappliesonlytorequestsforusevariancesunderthezoninglaw.”Inotherwords,thistowercanonlybeconsideredapublicutilitywhenbeforetheZoningBoardforavariance.Andthus,VerizonshouldnotnowbeaffordedanypreferentialtreatmentbythePlanningBoard.Further,theapplicantrefusesoutrighttoaddresssmallcellsandco-locationoptions.Theyobviouslydonotwanttodothatbecausetheycan’tmakeasmuchmoneybyinstallingsmallcells.Theywanttobuildagianttowerthathasthecapabilitytohouse9antennasthattheycanrenttoothercarriers.ThatisbecausetheyareNOTapublicutilityservingtheneedsofthecommunity,theyareapubliclytradedcorporationservingtheneedsoftheirshareholdersfirstandforemost.Inthereportsubmittedbyapplicant’slegalteam,theyerroneouslyclaimthattheproject“willnotinflictasignificantadverseaestheticimpactupon...propertiesthatarelocatedadjacentorincloseproximity”andthat“Onewouldneedtodeliberatelylookforthetowerinordertoseeitwhiletravelinginavehicle”.Thatislaughable,asthestructurewouldprotrudeover100feetHIGHERthanthetallesttreesaroundit.EvenStevieWonderwouldbeabletoseethat.AsmyvideoclearlyshowsthistowerwouldbeasignificantpresenceloomingoverallthelandliketheEyeofSauron.DoyouwanttoberesponsibleforturningIthacaintoMordor?Inclosing,thisproposaliscompletelyunsuitableonsomanydifferentlevels.Itisoutofcharacterwiththesurroundinglandandcommunity.ItisinviolationofseveraloftheTownCodes,inparticularofthoseinchapter270.Itisasignificantdisruptiontothelocalwildlifeandhumanlife.Itimmenselyexceedsinsizeandscalewhatisneededandwhatisallowed.Finally,IwouldjustliketoremindtheboardthatyouoweVerizonnothing.Youdonotneedtoappeasethem,theyhavetoappeaseyou.ItisincumbentupontheapplicanttoconformtotheestablishedTownCodes,nottheotherwayaround.Theyarenotentitledtowhattheyplease.IfVerizontrulywantstofillinacoveragegap,therearemanyothermethodsavailabletothemtoaccomplishthatgoal,asoutlinedbyWilliamJohnsoninhislatestreport.Unfortunately,Verizonisseeminglyonlyinterestedinonewaytoaddresstheirreportedgap.IftheyareunabletoworkwithintheestablishedguidelinesofTheTown,theboardhaseveryrighttomoveonfromthisproposalandfindanothercarrierwhowill.Ihumblyrequest,forthesakeofmy8yearolddaughterwhowillbesleeping500feetfromthisbehemoth;forthesakeofeveryonewholivesnearordrivespastthissite;forthesakeofallthenativeanimalandplantlifethatliveatthesite;forthesakeofallIthacaresidents,whosefutureswillbegreatlyaffectedbytheprecedentanapprovalofthisunnecessary,unwieldyandunethicalprojectwillset-PLEASEDENYTHISPROPOSAL!Thankyou,BobBabjak106WiedmaierCt.2 VuZcv’2()V4Lc4From:JillUllian/DennisAnello<judax214@gmail.com>Sent:Monday,November18,20249:28PMTo:TownOfIthacaPlanningSubject:Concernre:ProposedNewAntennasLocationfor5GHello,IamwritingtourgetheplanningBoardtoopposeVerizon’srequestedlocationforanewlargetowerintheTownofIthaca.Thesewerethepointsmadesupportingmyrequest:-TheconsuLtantconfirmedthattheycouLdfiLlthe“gap”inservicewithIormaybe2smallcells.Thus,theproposed138’towerdoesnotmeetourcodes’requirementforthe“Leastintrusivemeans”tofillasmallgapinservice.VerizonuLtimateLywantsaLargerpolefortheircorporateinterests,notourcommunity’sinterests.-Withasmallcell,theyhavemanymoreoptionsforsites,NOT,asmanyofyoumentionedattheLastmeeting,restrictingittothatverylimitedrandomhexagonalarea.-Withmanymoreoptions,theycangofurtherfromhomes.TheNHCommissionhasbeenclearthattowersshouldbe1640feetfromhomes.Atthisdistance,notonlyhumanhealthwillbesupported,butaestheticsandrealestatevalueswillbemuchbetterpreserved.-Verizondoesn’tWANTtodoanyofthat.BelowIamforwardinganemailthatIsentpreviously,withbackgroundinformationre:moreofmyconcerns.Thankyou.DennisAnelloFormerPhysicsTeacher(highschool),FormerAdjunctFaculty,Physics&Math(SpringfieldTechnicalCommunityCollege)IthacaForwardedMessageSubject:Re:Concernre:NewAntennasfor5GDate:Tue,10ct202409:15:58-0400From:JillUllian/DennisAnello<judax214cgmail.com>To:ChrisBalestra<CBalestra(townithacany.gov>Thankyou,Chris.1 On10/1/20248:59AM,ChrisBal.estrawrote:Hi,WehavereceivedyourcommentsandwillmakesuretosendthemontothePlanningBoard.Thankyou,Chris(she/her)ChristineBaestra,SeniorPtannerTownofIthacaP[anningDepartment215NorthTiogaStreetIthaca,NY14850(607)273-1721,ext.121cba(estractownithacany.govFrom:TownOfIthacaPlanning<planning@townithacany.gov>Sent:Tuesday,October1,20248:11AMTo:ChrisBalestra<CBalestra@townithacany.gov>Subject:EW:Concernre:NewAntennasfor5GAbbyHomerAdministrativeAssistantPlanningDepartment607-273-1747TOWNOFITHACANEWYORKFrom:JillUllian/DennisAnello<iudax214@gmail.com>Sent:Monday,September30,20242:44PMTo:TownOfIthacaPlanning<planning@townithacany.gov>Subject:Concernre:NewAntennasfor5G**WARNING**ThisemaiLcomesfromanoutsidesource.PLeaseverifythefromaddress,anyURLLinks,and/orattachments.AnyquestionspLeasecontactthe19departmentURe:Verizon’sapplicationtoplaceanewlargetowerintheTownofIthacaat79andBurnsRoadHello,2 ThoughIdonotliveinthevicinityofthenewproposedVerizontower,IdoliveintheTownofIthaca,andamconcernedaboutmyneighbors’healthandsafety.Pleaseseethebelow2resources,whichIbelievegivereasonforprudentcautionontheadditionofthisnewlargetower.Iamaformerphysicsteacher,andIwouldliketoaskthatyoureadtheseresources,andthattheybeincludedintheinformationyoumakeavailabletothepublic.1.WITHGOODREASONradioprograminterviewwithDeborahO’Dell,professorofbiologyattheUniversityofMaryWashington:“Doestheradiationemittedbyourcellphonesharmus?”https://www.withgoodreasonradio.org/episode/do-cell-phones-cause-cancer-2/Doestheradiationemittedbyourcellphonesharmus?ProfessorDeborahO’Dellrecentlyfinishedastudythatfoundcellphoneradiationcancausechangestoourcells.2.ArticlefromTheNationmagazine:HowBigWirelessMadeUsThinkThatCellPhonesAreSafe:ASpecialInvestigationThedisinformationcampaign—andmassiveradiationincrease—behindthe5Gandcelltowerrollouts.https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/how-big-wireless-made-us-think-thatIamrequestingthatVerizon’sapplicationtoplaceanewlargetowerintheTownofIthacaat79andBurnsRoadbedenied.Thanksforyourworkonthisissue.DennisAnelloFormerPhysicsTeacher(highschool),FormerAdjunctFaculty,Physics&Math(SpringfieldTechnicalCommunityCollege)Ithaca3 TomStern<tstern952@gmail.com>Monday,November18,20247:09PMTownOfIthacaPlanningCelltowerpermitapprovalci•\JL(IZLr)_y_p’**WARNING**ThisemaiLcomesfromanoutsidesource.PLeaseverifythefromaddress,anyURLLinks,and/orattachments.AnyquestionspleasecontacttheITdepartmentDearPlanningBoardmembers,PleaserejectthepermitforVerizontoconstructa138foottower.Itisclearthe“gap”incellcoveragedoesnotrequiresuchanobtrusivetowerthatdoesnotmeetcodeandcertainlyisnotintheTownresident’sinterest.Thankyou,TomSternIthaca1From:Sent:To:Subject: ionFrom:Sent:To:Subject:marie<marieskweir@gmail.com>Monday,November18,20244:54PMTownOfIthacaPlanningWedon’tneeda138ftmonopole!**WARNING**ThisemaiLcomesfromanoutsidesource.PLeaseverifythefromaddress,anyURLLinks,and/orattachments.AnyquestionspLeasecontacttheITdepartmentDearPlanningBoard,AfterthelastmeetingonthisWiedmalerCtCellTower,thetwokeypieceslefthangingwereto:•Getclarityfromtheconsultantthat,perourcode,this138’monopoleistheleastintrusivemeanstofillthegap,and•Explorealternatelocations.Tothatend:•TheconsultantconfirmedthatVerizoncouldfillthe“gap”inservicewith1ormaybe2smallcells.Thus,theproposed138’towerdoesflQtmeetourcodes’requirementforthe“leastintrusivemeans”tofillasmallgapinservice.**•Withasmallcell,theyhavemanymoreoptionsforsites,NOT,asmanymentionedatthelastmeeting,restrictingittothatverylimitedandunexplainedhexagonalarea.•Withmanymoreoptions,theycangofurtherfromhomes,whichismoresupportiveofnotonlyhumanhealth,butrealestatevalues,andthenaturalandaestheticconcernssharedbymany.•Verizondoesn’tWANTtodoanyofthat.We’vebeenflexibleandwillingtoconsiderreasonableoptions,andiftheyarenotwillingtoworkwithinourparameters,that’sok.Wedon’tneedtoallowthemtobullytheirwayin.Tome,theansweriscLear:We’reuphoLdingaclearboundarybasedonthoughtfuLLyconsideredcommunityvaLuesandpriorities,wewanttominimizenecessaryinfrastructureandcarefuLLyconsiderthebestoptionsforsuchanimpactfuLproject;VerizonissimpLyunwiLLingtohonorthat.AtaLL.It’sourresponsibilitytostandupforourcommunity...andit’stheirprerogativetorefuseoptionsandtobowout.Howeveryouvote,itwILLsendasignaLtofutureappLicants-eitherthatourcodesdon’treaLLymatterORthatIthacaisathoughtfuLcommunitythatuphoLdscertainvaLuesandthattheyneedtocomereadytoworkcottaborativeLywithus.I’maskingyoueachtotakeastandforourcommunity.Thankyouforyourcontinueddedication,MarieSkweir1 **lnhismostrecentletter,consultantJohnsonwasclearthatsmallcellswouldbeagoodoptiontomeetourcode’srequirementofa“leastintrusive”meansoffillinganygap:“hugegeographicareascanbeservicedbymanyrelativelysmall-diameter“cells”thatallowsufficientsignallevelsandusercapacityforsafeandreliablevoicecommunications....TwoproperlypositionedshorterbasestationslongornearRoute79wouldlikelyhavetheabilitytoilluminatetheRoute9valley.”2 MarileeMurphy<marileemurphy@gmail.com>Monday,November18,20244:53PMTownOfIthacaPlanningCellTowerApplicationJiionfc—i/**WARNING**Thisemailcomesfromanoutsidesource.Pleaseverifythefromaddress,anyURLLinks,and/orattachments.AnyquestionspleasecontacttheITdepartmentToPlanningBoardMembers;AsaTownofIthacaresidentwhoLivesintheEasternHeightsarea,IwritetovoicemycontinuedoppositiontoapprovingthecelltowerapplicationforVerizon.Theproposedtowerseemstoviolatethetown’sclearguidelinesrelatedtoresidentialproximity,andimpactaestheticallyinabeautifulareawhichisheavilytraffickedfornaturalrecreation.Itiscommonsensethatpropertiesintheimmediatevicinitycouldbeimpactedintermsofrealestatevalue.Itishardtoacceptthatthislargetowermeets“minimallyintrusive”criteria.Ifthisapplicationisapprovedandbecomesaprecedent,thenwhydidthetownbothertocarefullycraftsuchresponsibleguidelinestobeginwith?Pleasedonotsacrificeourneighborsandneighborhood.Giventhatthoseofuswholiveinthisvicinitydonotexperiencecellphonecoverageissues,itseemstomakesensetomovethetoweralittlefurtheroutwhereresidentsDOexperiencecoverageissuesandwhereLessresidentswouldbesocloselyimpacted.IfsmallcellscanmeettheTown’sgap,thenthatiswhatmakessense.OthertownscanmaketheirowndeterminationsforgapcoverageifthatisneededbeyondtheTown’sborders.PleasefollowtheTown’sguidelinessoclearlyestablishedthatwarrantsrejectionofVerizon’sproposedtower.Thankyou.MaryMurphy1From:Sent:To:Subject: vFrom:Marie/AndrewMolnar<marieandrew93@gmail.com>Sent:Monday,November18,20244:34PMTo:TownOfIthacaPlanningCc:CiRandall;ChrisBalestraSubject:Importantpieces**WARNING**ThisemaiLcomesfromanoutsidesource.PLeaseverifythefromaddress,anyURLLinks,and/orattachments.AnyquestionspLeasecontacttheITdepartmentHello,I’vereadthroughtheupdatedmaterialsregardingthecelltower.IrespectfullywishtoconveythreecrucialthingstothePlanningBoardmembers:1.First,thetownresolutionscontinuetocontainthemisleadingstatementthatVerizonisapublicutility.AsexplainedinanNov.5email,thisisuntrue,asourlawyerRobertBergelucidatedinhisOctober28letter:“The“publicutility”legalstandarddoesnotapplytothePlanningBoard’sconsiderationoftheapplicant’srequestforsiteplanapprovalandaspecialusepermit.Rather,thetestappliesonlytorequestsforusevariancesunderthezoninglaw.“Inotherwords,thistowercanonlybeconsideredapublicutilitywhenbeforetheZoningBoardforavariance.Andthus,VerizonshouldnotnowbeaffordedanypreferentialtreatmentbythePlanningBoard.Theyareacorporationwhosepurposeistomaximizefinancialgrowthwiththistower,i.e.buildsomethingaslargeaspossibletosupportasmuchrentalincomeaspossible.So,IaskthatthislanguageaboutVerizonbeingapublicutilityberemovedfromthedraftresolutions.2.Thefirststatetoofficiallystudythehealtheffectsofcellradiation,NewHampshire,empoweredapanelofexpertsandscientiststolookthroughthethousandsofstudiesshowingharm.Afterafullyearofthoroughreview,theyfoundthat,indeed,cellradiationwasharmfultohumans,andthattowersshouldbeatleast500meters(1640feet)fromhomes.IfyouapprovethistowerinIthaca,areeachofyoupersonallypreparedtoaccepttheresponsibilityofharmingcountlessIthacansforyearstocome?3.Inhismostrecentletter,consultantJohnsonwasclearthatsmallcellswouldbeagoodoptiontomeetourcode’srequirementofa“leastintrusive”meansoffillinganygap:“hugegeographicareascanbeservicedbymanyrelativelysmall-diameter“cells”thatallowsufficientsignallevelsandusercapacityforsafeandreliablevoicecommunications....TwoproperlypositionedshorterbasestationslongornearRoute79wouldlikelyhavetheabilitytoilluminatetheRoute9valley.”Thus,theproposed138’towerdoesnotmeetourcodes’requirementforthe“leastintrusivemeans”tofillasmallgapinservice.Withasmallcell,theyhavemanymoreoptionsforsites,NOT,asmanymentionedatthelastmeeting,restrictingittothatverylimitedandunexplainedhexagonalarea.However,Verizon’smostrecentresponsehasrejectedanypossibilityofthis,demonstratingacompleteunwillingnesstomeetthetownanditscitizenshalfway.It’s“mywayorthehighway”withthiscorporation,anattituderoutinelydisplayedtoPlanningBoardsacrossthecountry.ThislackofgoodfaithontheirendmustnotberewardedbythePlanningBoard.Forthisreason,aswellastomaintaintheaestheticsandpropertyvaluesofthearea,IurgetheBoardrorejectthisapplication.Thankyou.AndrewMolnar1 1054 Texan Trail, Ste 300 • Grapevine, TX 76051 Tel: 682.651.0034 • Fax: 817.527.4081 gsstx@gssmidwest.com • www.gssmidwest.com November 19, 2024 GSS Project #D24246-19-NY Ms. Katherine Jaeckel Verizon Wireless 1275 John Street Rochester, NY 14586 Submitted via email: katie.jaeckel@verizonwireless.com RE: NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (NEPA) STATUS – VERIZON SITE: SUNNY VIEW, FUZE PID# 2126343 111 WIEDERMAIER CT, ITHACA, TOMPKINS COUNTY, NY 14850 At the request of Verizon Wireless, GROUNDWATER SERVICE & SUPPLY INC (GSS) has prepared this NEPA Status Letter (Letter) for the below-referenced proposed wireless communications site (the Site). This letter outlines the current stage of the environmental review process set forth in Title 47 CFR, Part 1, Subpart I, rule sections 1.1301 to 1.1319. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 established provisions to ensure that all federal agencies evaluate the potential impacts to the environment of projects under their jurisdiction. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) oversees the implementation of NEPA through the authorities of Title 40 CFR, Parts 1500-1508 which requires all federal agencies to develop rules for implementing NEPA and defines “major federal actions”. Major federal actions are defined in Title 40 CFR, Part 1508.18 as actions that include new or continuing activities, including projects and programs entirely or partly financed, assisted, conducted, regulated, or approved by federal agencies. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules for implementing NEPA are found in Title 47 CFR, Part 1, Subpart I, rule sections 1.1301 to 1.1319. In addition, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 36 CFR Part 800, regulates assessment of cultural resources for all federal undertakings. The Nationwide Programmatic Agreement for the Collocation of Wireless Antennas (47 CFR Part 1, Appendix B) and the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement Regarding the Section 106 National Historic Preservation Act Review Process (47 CFR Part 1, Appendix C) further stipulate the review process for cultural resources and amend 47 CFR, Part 1, Subpart I, rule section 1.1307(a)(4) for projects under FCC jurisdiction. This NEPA Review was conducted pursuant to 47 CFR 1.1301-1.1319, as amended. The report includes the evaluation of project impacts to prehistoric and historic resources (archaeological sites, historic structures, and Indian religious sites), threatened or endangered species (protected listed, candidate, and critical habitat), migratory birds, wilderness areas, wildlife preserves, floodplains, and surface features (wetlands, water bodies and forested land). The FCC rules and regulations also address project impacts to humans from tower lighting and radiofrequency radiation which are evaluated by Verizon Wireless, the FCC applicant, and are not part of this scope of work. This NEPA Review has been completed based upon Verizon Wireless-provided site information, the review of readily available information obtained from commercial services, government agencies, and/or other sources as described herein. Throughout this report, the term “the Site” will be used to refer to the proposed site location and associated facilities, access, and easements. This NEPA Review identifies whether a proposed project will require the preparation and filing of an Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance with FCC rules and regulations. If any of the NEPA criteria evaluated in this review are found to be in the affirmative, an EA must be filed with the FCC to further evaluate the identified potential environmental 1054 Texan Trail, Ste 300 • Grapevine, TX 76051 Tel: 682.651.0034 • Fax: 817.527.4081 gsstx@gssmidwest.com • www.gssmidwest.com impacts. In the event that this Review results in the preparation and filing of an EA, the FCC must issue a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) prior to proceeding with the proposed project. This NEPA Review is based upon the application of scientific principles and professional judgment to certain facts with resultant subjective interpretations. Professional judgments expressed herein are based on the facts currently available within the limits of the existing data, scope of work, budget and schedule. To the extent that more definitive conclusions are desired by Verizon Wireless than are warranted by the currently available facts, it is specifically the Consultant’s intent that the conclusions and recommendations stated herein will be intended as guidance and not necessarily a firm course of action except where explicitly stated as such. The Consultant makes no warranties, expressed or implied, including, without limitation, warranties as to merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. In addition, the information provided to Verizon Wireless in this report is not to be construed as legal advice. The Consultant is not engaged in environmental assessing and reporting for the purpose of advertising, sales promotion, or endorsement of any Verizon Wireless interests, including raising investment capital, recommending investment decisions, or other publicity purposes. Verizon Wireless acknowledges this report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Verizon Wireless and agrees that the Consultant’s reports or correspondence will not be used or reproduced in full or in part for such purposes, and may not be used or relied upon in any prospectus or offering circular. Verizon Wireless also agrees that none of its advertising, sales promotion, or other publicity matter containing information obtained from this report will mention or imply the name of the Consultant. Nothing contained in this report shall be construed as a warranty or affirmation by the Consultant that the Site and property described in the report are suitable collateral for any loan or that acquisition of such property by any lender through foreclosure proceedings or otherwise will not expose the lender to potential environmental liability. PROJECT INFORMATION Verizon Site Name: Sunny View Verizon Project ID: 2126343 Site Address: 111 Wiedmaier Court (0.17 miles SW of Slaterville Rd. and Wiedmaier Ct.), Ithaca, Tompkins County, NY 14850 Project Type: Raw Land Tower Type/Height: Monopole / 134’ (Overall 138’) Latitude/Longitude: 42°24'45.2376" N / 76°27'1.5696" W e-106 Number: 0011318208 TCNS Number: 285451 NEPA TOPICS 1. Wilderness Areas Will the facility be located in an officially designated wilderness area? No Source: Site observations, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-Minute Series Topographic Quadrangle, U.S. Department of Interior (DOI) National Map (www.nationalmap.gov) and www.wilderness.net. Finding(s): The proposed Site is not located in an officially designated wilderness area. 1054 Texan Trail, Ste 300 • Grapevine, TX 76051 Tel: 682.651.0034 • Fax: 817.527.4081 gsstx@gssmidwest.com • www.gssmidwest.com 2. Wildlife Preserves Will the facility be located in an officially designated wildlife preserve? No Source: Site observations, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-Minute Series Topographic Quadrangle, U.S. Department of Interior (DOI) National Map (www.nationalmap.gov) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Finding(s): The proposed Site is not located in an officially designated wildlife preserve. 3. Protected Species Will the facility affect listed or proposed threatened or endangered species or designated critical habitats? No Source: Site observations and consultation with or project clearance from the USFWS and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). Finding(s): There are no federal or state listed threatened or endangered species or critical habitat present at the Site that would be adversely affected by the proposed project. Verizon Wireless has included all feasible mitigating factors recommended by the USFWS in the Revised Guidelines for Communication Tower Design, Siting, Construction, Operation, Retrofitting, and Decommissioning (2013). Additionally, Verizon Wireless adheres to all current regulations regarding tower lighting as required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 4. Archaeological and Historical Resources Awaiting a response from New York State Historic Preservation Office (NY SHPO) regarding whether the facility will affect districts, sites, buildings, structures or objects significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering or culture that are listed, or are eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places. Public Notice A public notice was issued on September 20, 2024, to inform the public of the proposed project and to invite comments regarding potential environmental and cultural impacts. The notice was published in Ithaca Journal, and the public comment period ended on October 20, 2024. No comments or concerns have been received. Notice of Initiation of the Section 106 Process Letter Notice of Initiation of the Section 106 Process Letters were sent to Landmarks Preservation Commission, City of Ithaca and History Center in Tompkins County on September 17, 2024, to inform the related parties the proposed project and to invite comments regarding potential environmental and cultural impacts. The comment period ended on October 17, 2024. No comments or concerns have been received. 1054 Texan Trail, Ste 300 • Grapevine, TX 76051 Tel: 682.651.0034 • Fax: 817.527.4081 gsstx@gssmidwest.com • www.gssmidwest.com Section 106 Submission to NY SHPO Section 106 submission was made to the NY SHPO and Tribes on November 7, 2024. We are currently awaiting a response from NY SHPO and Tribes. NY SHPO has 30 days to review the submission, with the review period concluding on December 7, 2024. 5. Indian Religious Sites Awaiting a response from the Tribes regarding whether the facility will affect Indian religious sites. Section 106 Submission to the Tribes Section 106 submission was made to the Tribes on November 7, 2024. We are currently awaiting a response from the Tribes. Any Tribes that have not responded by December 9, 2024, and December 17, 2024, will be referred to the FCC to initiate the process to close out consultation. The anticipated tribal clearance date is January 4, 2025. However, this date is subject to change if significant events occur, such as requests for additional consultation, new findings, or unforeseen delays in the review process. 6. Floodplains The facility will not be located in a 100-year floodplain. No Source: Site observations and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), Panel 3608510025C, 6/19/1985. Finding(s): No 100-year flood hazards are identified on the FIRM map for the proposed Site. 7. Surface Features Will construction of the facility involve a significant change in surface features (e.g. wetland fill, water diversion, or deforestation)? No Source: Site observations, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-Minute Series Topographic Quadrangle, and USFWS National Wetland Inventory (NWI) map. Finding(s): Due to the scope of the proposed project activities, the current Site conditions and review of applicable source data, significant changes in surface features such as wetland fill, water diversion or deforestation will not be required at the Site. GSS anticipates submitting the final completed NEPA/Section 106 review to Verizon Wireless on or before January 6, 2025. 1054 Texan Trail, Ste 300 • Grapevine, TX 76051 Tel: 682.651.0034 • Fax: 817.527.4081 gsstx@gssmidwest.com • www.gssmidwest.com Thank you for the opportunity to be of assistance to Verizon Wireless. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Stephen J. Blazenko, CEO GSS, Inc.