HomeMy WebLinkAbout10.22.24 Supplemental app materials VZW tower 111 Wiedmiaer Court-1EXHIBIT GG
Network Engineering Group
225 Jordan Road
Troy, New York 12180
N e t w o r k E n g i n e e r i n g - U P N Y
1 2 7 5 J o h n S t r e e t , S u i t e 1 0 0
W est H e n r iet t a , N e w Y o r k 145 8 6
Oct. 21st, 2024
Hon. Members of the Planning Board
Town of Ithaca
215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca, NY, 14850
RE: Evidence from a licensed engineer that smaller and shorter towers will not achieve the
necessary coverage goals sought by VZW (not smaller towers on the same property, but
smaller/shorter facilities in the area, possibly collocated on existing structures and/or telephone
poles, and the like)
Honorable Members of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board:
During the PB meeting held on Oct 1st, 2024, some members of the public raised the suggestion
of shorter towers located elsewhere, instead of a 134’ tall monopole at 111 Wiedmaier Court.
Verizon RF engineering team reviewed these suggestions and concluded that shorter towers (or
smaller cells) will fail to achieve the site objectives for the following reasons.
• The proposed “Sunny View” site is proposed as a macro telecommunication tower since it is
designed to be the backbone (anchor) network solution throughout the area it is intended
to provide coverage. When compared with a small cell site alternative (or a cluster of smaller
cell sites) in a rural area like this which is subject to significant terrain, large geographic
coverage area and laced with foliage challenges the small cell coverage capability is
unsuitable. Small cells or smaller macro tower sites would be blocked (shadowed) by terrain
and foliage rendering them ineffective. This macro tower site will provide the requisite
coverage throughout the objective area, contiguous for several miles, making this solution
appropriate for the challenging morphology and less densely populated area. Small cell sites
are intended to cover a much smaller area, typically a few hundred feet, and are better
suited for dense urban environments or specific locations where their smaller footprint can
be engineered to provide hotspot coverage or capacity enhancements (complimentary to
the area macro site). Macro sites have the structural capability of deploying Verizon’s
numerous licensed bands of spectrum through the more capable macro antennas where
small cells are limited in antenna size/number/weight not to mention small cells do not offer
the necessary physical space to house all of the equipment needed to support this proposed
site’s radio configuration.
• A macro site must be installed on a strategically and centrally located tall structure (relative
to the objective area) for several key reasons. For instance, LOS (Line Of Sight), towers that
are above area “clutter” provide a clear line of sight between the antenna and the devices it
serves, which is crucial for maintaining adequate and reliable signals, especially for higher
frequency bands including but not limited to AWS, PCS, and C-band. These higher frequency
bands have shorter wavelengths but wider bandwidth capabilities. Another reason is
coverage footprint (service area). As antenna height increases so does the site’s coverage
capabilities. In order for the proposed site to be effective throughout this objective area the
antennas must be located above area clutter in order to overcome physical obstructions
such as buildings, trees, and terrain features. By strategically locating the antenna above
these obstacles, the signal can propagate without excessive and unwanted signal
degradation allowing the site to serve the users as intended. In this case Verizon Wireless
RF has determined that one centrally located solution of adequate elevation (130’ ACL at the
proposed location) will resolve the identified area problems and minimize community
impact (minimize tower proliferation). Previously discussed alternatives of lowering the
antenna centerline will result with the site being incapable of solving the area problems.
Further discussion of adding additional smaller sites resulting with a higher number of
towers in this area is counterintuitive to minimizing community impact and results with
multiple sites that do not achieve objectives perpetuating the need for even more sites and
greater community impact.
• In summary an alternative deployment located on new or existing smaller structures
(including utility poles) is impractical as they have too many limitations including but not
limited to low antenna centerline, equipment space/size/power constraints, and structural
limitations causing gaps in coverage and inability to achieve objectives stated in the RF
Justification. Simply put utility poles or other smaller towers or structures are not capable of
supporting the equipment and coverage requirements needed for this project area.
In view of the aforementioned details, in order for the “Sunny View” facility to successfully achieve
the necessary RF objectives, it must be a macro site on a new 134’ tall monopole (130’ ACL) instead
of a small cell site (or a cluster of smaller cell sites) on new or existing structures. This macro solution
will provide adequate and reliable coverage to the southern portion of the Town of Ithaca known
as the “Sunny View” project area.
Thank you for your consideration.
Very truly yours,
Wasif Sharif
Wasif Sharif
Radio Frequency (RF) Design Engineer