HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB 2024-023 Site Plan and Special Permit-Verizon Wiedmaier Court TowerPB RESOLUTION 2024-023: 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 October 21,
2024 and November 4, 2024 follow-up document; 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, a letter with Exhibits JJ, KK,
and LL from the applicant, dated November 14, 2024, and a letter with Exhibits MM and NN
from the applicant, dated November 18, 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:
PB 2024-023 (Filed 2024-11-21)
2
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 8
PB 2024-023 (Filed 2024-11-21)
2. That the Planning Board further finds that not all of 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.
Subject to condition 4.g. below, applicant’s exhibits show compliance with these laws, including Exhibits
P, MM, and NN, and letter from GSS, Inc., dated November 19, 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:
The consultant report prepared by William P. Johnson and Steven M. Ciccarelli dated October 21, 2024,
and November 4, 2024, follow-up document support this finding. Some of the report and document
statements that support this finding include:
1. 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.”
PB 2024-023 (Filed 2024-11-21)
4
2. 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.”
3. 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.”
4. From November 4, 2024, document, pages 1 and 2: “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. Applicants’ 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 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.”
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
Page 5 of 8
PB 2024-023 (Filed 2024-11-21)
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.
[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 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.
Because of the site-specific characteristics of the property, the terrain, lack of vegetation, and direct sight
lines from the public way and adjacent residential properties, the project will inflict a significant adverse
aesthetic impact upon properties that are located adjacent or in close proximity to the proposed site. See
Exhibit Q, figure S-1. The significant adverse aesthetic impact cannot be mitigated by site landscaping or
other visual screening.
[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.
PB 2024-023 (Filed 2024-11-21)
6
[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.
3. That the Planning Board further finds that §270-219.R(2) below has 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 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.
There are significant gaps in the applicant’s personal wireless services, as stated in Section 2(c)[2] above.
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 is the least intrusive means to address the significant gap. 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
Page 7 of 8
PB 2024-023 (Filed 2024-11-21)
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.
The specific location on the proposed portion of the selected site is the least intrusive portion of the site
because there is nowhere else on the site to place the proposed facility.
The proposed height is the minimum height necessary to remedy the significant gap, as shown by the
propagation maps and Applicant’s November 14, 2024, submission, including Exhibits KK and LL.
No pre-existing structure can be used to camouflage the facility.
The installation mitigates adverse impacts to the greatest extent reasonably feasible. William P. Johnson’s
report did not recommend stealth design, and screening is being required to mitigate impacts at the base of
the tower. There is no feasible alternative to remedy the gap through alternative, less intrusive substitute
facilities, as shown by, among other things, Exhibit GG and Applicant’s November 14, 2024, submission,
including Exhibits KK and LL.
Pursuant to the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, because 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 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 landscaping plans with a
planting schedule satisfactory to the Director of Planning, that show additional plantings of
evergreen and deciduous trees along the south side of the access drive,
c. Submission of revised fence details; 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,
d. Before issuance of a building permit, approval of the Basic Erosion and Sedimentation
Control Plan (SWPPP) by the Town of Ithaca Engineering Department;
e. 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;
f. 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; and
g. Completion of the National Environmental Policy Act process with use of a categorical
exclusion, or if an Environmental Assessment is required to be prepared, issuance by the
Federal Communications Commission of a Finding of No Significant Impact.
Moved: Fred Wilcox Seconded: Bill Arms
Vote: Ayes - Wilcox, Cameron, Arms, and Stewart
Nays - Reynolds, McGurk, and Kaufman
Motion passed, 4 to 3.
PB 2024-023 (Filed 2024-11-21)
8
STATE OF NEW YORK)
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS:
TOWN OF ITHACA:
I, Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca, do hereby certify that the above
resolution is an exact copy of the same adopted by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board at a
meeting on the 19th day of November, 2024.
______________________________
SEAL Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk