HomeMy WebLinkAboutVZW SunnyView (Town of Ithaca) 11-14-24 Supplemental Application Thu Nov 14 2024 11-14-50NIXON
PEABODY
Nixon Peabody LLP
1300 Clinton Square
Rochester, NY 14604-1792
Attorneys at Law
nixonpeabody.com
@NixonPeabodyLLP
November 14, 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.ny.us)
Jared C. Lusk
Partner
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 I I I
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 and October 28, 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").
Thereafter, on November 4, 2024 Verizon Wireless received the latest report from the
Town's RF Engineering Consultant, William Johnson (the "Third Johnson Report") containing
certain revised findings (the "Johnson Findings"). The Johnson Findings are reproduced below
in bold italicized type, with Verizon Wireless' responses in regular type:
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) [21 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.
No response necessary.
4874-0645-5798.1
Town of Ithaca
November 14, 2024
Page 2
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 (7001850 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) [21 [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 RFsignal 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 LIE technology to allow two-way exchange of information.
No response necessary.
POTENTIAL "SUNNY VIEW" SITEALTERNATIVE 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
4874-0645-5798.1
Town of Ithaca
November 14, 2024
Page 3
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.
No response necessary.
In the present case, the alternate sites considered by Applicant are in close proximity to each
other. Town Code §279-219 R (1) (c) [SJ 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 RFpropagation 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.
Enclosed as Exhibit JJ (lettered to follow Exhibits A -II previously submitted in furtherance of the
Application) is an aerial tax map depicting the tax parcels in and around the Sunny View search
area that are of sufficient size to host the Project.
Enclosed as Exhibit KK is a Third Supplemental RF Report prepared by Wasif Sharif, Verizon's
RF design engineer for the Ithaca area. In this report, Mr. Sharif provides RF plots depicting
coverage provided from a tower located at an assumed zoning compliant location on each of the
twelve (12) alternate locations (see Slides 4-15 of the report).
As demonstrated in Slides 4-15 of his report, a tower at each potential alternate location provides
substantially less coverage to the Sunny View coverage area when compared to the coverage
provided by the proposed 134' tower located off Wiedmaier Court. These alternate locations
each fail to provide reliable coverage to the Sunny View coverage area.
4874-0645-5798.1
Town of Ithaca
November 14, 2024
Page 4
In fact, while the coverage from a site at the Six Mile Enterprises LLC parcel is the best of the
alternate locations, as demonstrated by Slides 16-17 of the Fourth RF Report, even tower heights
of 150' and 170' fail to provide comparable coverage to what is provided by the proposed 134'
tower off Wiedmaier Court. Therefore, from an RF perspective, none of the twelve (12) alternate
locations are feasible alternate locations, with the "best" alternate location failing to provide
reliable coverage at a height 40' taller than the proposed tower.
Nevertheless, in an effort to provide a thorough analysis of the area to identify a potentially less
intrusive location, Verizon's civil engineering and site acquisition team have reviewed each of
the twelve (12) alternate locations to determine their feasibility for the Board's consideration.
Enclosed as Exhibit LL are a series of Alternate Candidate Location Aerial Exhibits labeled 1-8
and 10-12. Based on the information contained in the Alternate Candidate Location Aerial
Exhibits and information from Verizon's site acquisition team, we offer the following detailed
review of each of the twelve (12) alternate locations:
Cathleen McDermott Donovan
1564 Slaterville Rd Ithaca, NY 14850
56.-3-26.2
Town of Ithaca
6.79 Acres and also has frontage on Park Lane
Trail Easement through parcel
A certified letter with a return receipt was sent to this landowner to gauge interest in
leasing space to Verizon for a tower facility. No response was received.
As depicted on Aerial Exhibit #1 in Exhibit LL, a tower at this location would likely need
to be approximately 409' from the closest residential neighbor on Park Lane (where
currently the closest adjacent residence is 578' from the proposed tower).
In addition, the tower on this location would require the removal of substantially more
trees than what is required for the Project as proposed.
Conclusion: The site is: (1) not available; (2) will not provide reliable wireless coverage
to the Sunny View coverage area (see Exhibit KK); (3) would be closer to adjacent homes
than the proposed tower; and (4) would require the removal of substantially more trees
than the Project as proposed on Wiedmaier Court.
2. Wilfred Bernard Graham and Madeleine Capuano Graham
1590 Slaterville Rd Ithaca, NY 14850
56.-3-25
Town of Ithaca
13.84 Acres
Dr. Bernie Graham stated he was not interested in pursuing a lease agreement with
Verizon.
4874-0645-5798.1
Town of Ithaca
November 14, 2024
Page 5
As depicted on Aerial Exhibit #2 in Exhibit LL, a tower at this location would likely need
to be approximately 279' from the closest residential neighbor along Slaterville Road
(where currently the closest adjacent residence is 578' from the proposed tower).
In addition, the tower on this location would require the removal of substantially more
trees than what is required for the Project as proposed.
Conclusion: The site is: (1) not available; (2) will not provide reliable wireless coverage
to the Sunny View coverage area (see Exhibit KK); (3) would be closer to adjacent homes
than the proposed tower; and (4) would require the removal of substantially more trees
than the Project as proposed on Wiedmaier Court even to access the site.
3. Gary W Foote Sr.
1598 Slaterville Rd Ithaca, NY 14850
56.-3-14.3
Town of Ithaca
8.79 Acres
While Mr. Foote was initially interested in pursuing a lease agreement with Verizon for a
tower facility on this property, this location was rejected by Verizon's RF engineer.
As depicted on Aerial Exhibit #3 in Exhibit LL, a tower at this location would likely need
to be approximately 505' from the closest residential neighbors along Slaterville Road
(where currently the closest adjacent residence is 578' from the proposed tower).
In addition, the tower on this location would require the removal of substantially more
trees than what is required for the Project as proposed.
Conclusion: The site is: (1) not available; (2) will not provide reliable wireless coverage
to the Sunny View coverage area (see Exhibit KK); (3) would be closer to adjacent homes
than the proposed tower; and (4) would require the removal of substantially more trees
than the Project as proposed on Wiedmaier Court.
4. Gary W Foote Sr.
1598 Slaterville Rd Ithaca, NY 14850
56.-3-14.2
Town of Ithaca
11.36 Acres
While Mr. Foote was initially interested in pursuing a lease agreement with Verizon for a
tower facility on this property, this location was rejected by Verizon's RF engineer.
As depicted on Aerial Exhibit #4 in Exhibit LL, a tower at this location would likely need
to be approximately 425' from the closest adjoining residential neighbor along Slaterville
Road (where currently the closest adjacent residence is 578' from the proposed tower).
4874-0645-5798.1
Town of Ithaca
November 14, 2024
Page 6
Conclusion: The site: (1) will not provide reliable wireless coverage to the Sunny View
coverage area (see Exhibit KK); (2) would be closer to adjacent homes than the proposed
tower; and (3) would require the removal of substantially more trees than the Project as
proposed on Wiedmaier Court.
5. Gary W Foote Sr.
1698 Slaterville Rd Ithaca, NY 14850
71.4-1.2
Town of Dryden
16.25 Acres
While Mr. Foote was initially interested in pursuing a lease agreement with Verizon for a
tower facility on this property, this location was rejected by Verizon's RF engineer.
Conclusion: The site will not provide reliable wireless coverage to the Sunny View
coverage area (see Exhibit KK).
6. Edward F and Kimberley A Klimowicz
1650 Slaterville Rd Ithaca, NY 14850
71.-1-5
Town of Dryden
43.02 Acres
A certified letter with a return receipt was sent to this landowner to gauge interest in
leasing space to Verizon for a tower facility on their property. No response was received.
In addition, the tower on this location would require the removal of substantially more
trees than what is required for the Project as proposed.
Conclusion: The site is: (1) not available; (2) will not provide reliable wireless coverage
to the Sunny View coverage area (see Exhibit KK); and (3) would require the removal of
substantially more trees than the Project as proposed on Wiedmaier Court.
7. Faline Woods, LLC
PO Box 6645 Ithaca, NY 14850
71.-1-6
Town of Dryden
26.03 Acres
A certified letter with a return receipt was sent to this landowner to gauge interest in
leasing space to Verizon for a tower facility on the property. No response was received.
As depicted on Aerial Exhibit #7 in Exhibit LL, a tower at this location would likely need
to be approximately 326' from the closest residential neighbors along Slaterville Road
(where currently the closest adjacent residence is 578' from the proposed tower).
In addition, the tower on this location would require the removal of substantially more
trees than what is required for the Project as proposed.
4874-0645-5798.1
Town of Ithaca
November 14, 2024
Page 7
Conclusion: The site is: (1) not available; (2) will not provide reliable wireless coverage
to the Sunny View coverage area (see Exhibit KK); (3) would be closer to adjacent homes
than the proposed tower; and (4) would require the removal of substantially more trees
than the Project as proposed on Wiedmaier Court.
8. Robert R. Rightmyer
1691 Slaterville Rd Ithaca, NY 14850
71.-1-8
Town of Dryden
54.16 Acres
Robert Rightmyer said he was not interested in pursuing a lease agreement with Verizon.
In addition, the tower on this location would require the removal of substantially more
trees than what is required for the Project as proposed.
Conclusion: The site is: (1) not available; (2) will not provide reliable wireless coverage
to the Sunny View coverage area (see Exhibit KK); and (3) would require the removal of
substantially more trees than the Project as proposed on Wiedmaier Court.
9. NYS Electric & Gas Corp (NYSEG)
One City Center — 5th Floor Portland, ME 04101
70.-2-2
Town of Dryden
3.06 Acres
This parcel was reviewed, but as depicted on Exhibit ii, it is simply too narrow to
accommodate a tower facility and meet the NYSEG setback requirement of 1.5 times the
height of telecommunications from electrical transmission towers (138' tower facility
times 1.5 equals 207') as the parcel is only approximately 250' wide.
Conclusion: The site is not a viable location given the narrow width of the parcel.
10. Robert Rightmyer
1691 Slaterville Rd Ithaca, NY 14850
56.-4-2
Town of Ithaca
23.75 Acres
Robert Rightmyer said he was not interested in pursuing a lease agreement with Verizon.
As depicted on Aerial Exhibit #10 in Exhibit LL, a tower at this location would likely
need to be approximately 445' from the closest residential neighbor on Burns Road
(where currently the closest adjacent residence is 578' from the proposed tower).
In addition, the tower on this location would require the removal of substantially more
trees than what is required for the Project as proposed.
4874-0645-5798.1
Town of Ithaca
November 14, 2024
Page 8
Conclusion: The site is: (1) not available; (2) will not provide reliable wireless coverage
to the Sunny View coverage area (see Exhibit KK); (3) would be closer to adjacent homes
than the proposed tower; and (4) would require the removal of substantially more trees
than the proposed Project on Wiedmaier Court.
11. Mark D. and Kathleen M. Lucas
1571 Slaterville Rd Ithaca, NY 14850
56.-2-7.1
Town of Ithaca
19.02 Acres
A certified letter with a return receipt was sent to the landowners to gauge their interest in
leasing space to Verizon Wireless for a tower facility on the property. No response was
received.
As depicted on Aerial Exhibit # 11 in Exhibit LL, a tower at this location would likely
need to be approximately 406' from the closest residential neighbors along Slaterville
Road (where currently the closest adjacent residence is 578' from the proposed tower).
In addition, the tower on this location would require the removal of substantially more
trees than what is required for the Project as proposed.
Conclusion: The site is: (1) not available; (2) will not provide reliable wireless coverage
to the Sunny View coverage area (see Exhibit KK); (3) would be closer to adjacent homes
than the proposed tower; and (4) would require the removal of substantially more trees
than the proposed Project on Wiedmaier Court.
12. Six Mile Enterprises, LLC
1551 Slaterville Rd Ithaca, NY 14850
56.-2-1.1
Commonly known as Six Mile Creek Vineyard
Town of Ithaca
25.22 Acres
The landowner was interested in pursuing a lease agreement with Verizon for a tower
facility on their property, but there was only one spot on the property that was acceptable
to the landowner. The available location would have required crossing a feeder creek,
and would have been directly behind homes along Slaterville Road.
As depicted on Aerial Exhibit 91 in Exhibit LL, a tower at this location would likely need
to be approximately 323' from the closest residential neighbors along Slaterville Road
(where currently the closest adjacent residence is 578' from the proposed tower).
Conclusion: The site: (1) will not provide reliable wireless coverage to the Sunny View
coverage area (even at tower heights of 150' and 170') (see Exhibit KK); (2) would be
closer to adjacent homes than the proposed tower; (3) would require the removal of
4874-0645-5798.1
Town of Ithaca
November 14, 2024
Page 9
substantially more trees than the Project as proposed on Wiedmaier Court; and (4) will
require the crossing of a creek to gain access to the only available location (obtaining the
required permits to cross the creek are unlikely as a viable alternate on Wiedman Ct.
exists).
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.
As outlined above, towers at any of the alternate locations south of Slaterville Road (Route 79)
are simply not feasible.
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 coverage to
the south despite the lack of need for enhanced capacity that would be provided by two sites.
As set forth in Exhibit GG of our October 22, 2024 supplemental application materials, a two -
tower solution is not a feasible alternative to the Project.
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.
As set forth in Exhibit GG of our October 22, 2024 supplemental application and discussed by
Mr. Sharif with the Planning Board at the October 29, 2024 meeting, small cell design is not a
viable alternative to the Project.
4874.0645-5798.1
Town of Ithaca
November 14, 2024
Page 10
For the reasons set forth above, and as previously and more fully set forth by Verizon in
its Application, and during appearances before the Planning Board on October 1 and October 29,
2024, Verizon has submitted substantial and compelling evidence demonstrating that (1) there is
a significant gap in coverage in the Sunny View coverage areal; and (2) the subject property is
the only feasible and least intrusive location to remedy the significant gap in accordance with
applicable law. Thus, Verizon is entitled to receive the necessary zoning approvals from the
Town to construct and operate the proposed wireless telecommunications facility at the Site.
Should you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
V4ry truly
C. Lusk
JCL/mkv
Enclosures
cc: Brett Morgan, Airosmith Development,
Jeff Twitty, Esq., Nixon Peabody LLP
The existence of the "significant gap" has been set forth in the Application and testimony before the Planning
Board confirmed by the Johnson Findings in its Third Johnson Report.
4874-0645-5798.1
EXHIBIT JJ
John St
-0
Ly-
#
TA#
OWNERNAME
1
56.-3-26.2
CATHLEEN MCDERMOTTDONONVAN
a�
E
2
56,-3-25
WILFREDBF�I ARDGRAHAM&MADELBNECAPUANOGRAHAM
m
r
3
56.-3-14.3
GARYW. FOOTS SR
,p Cn
4
56.-3-14.2
GARYW. FOOTS, SR
5
71.-1-1.2
GARYW. FOOTE, SR
6
71.-1-5
®WARDF. &14MBE:Z-EYA. K IMOWCZ
1
7
71.-1-6
FAUNEWOODS, LLC
A
8
71.-1-8
ROBERTRGHTMYER
56.-3-26.2
9
70.-2-2
NYSELECTRC&GAS CORP.
56.3-14.3
10
56.-4-2
ROBERTRGHTMYER
3
11
12
56.-2-7.1
56.-2-1.1
MARKD & KATHLEEN M. LUCAS
SIXMILE ENTHFPRSES, U_C
12 \
11
56.-2-7.1
@®
�..� C
-' cn
CD
Legend
Q Alternate Candidates
Roads
�•—•• Creeks
100 Yr Floodplains
DEC Wetlands
® Federal Wetlands
Urban Areas
® Search Ring
Parcels
56.-3-25
56.-3-14.2
4 `
Z� �
r
71.4-5
m a k
G
a
®7
56®2 , I . --
9
70�2
8
71.4-8
i
\171A1 _ C1 IAIAGV \11F:1A/
ti 71.4-6
gee
5�
sk
Rey
SnYde N
COSTI
This product is for informatior
11/7/2024 TOWN OF ITHACA/TOMPKINS COUNTY orbesuitpurposes.It,engineering, s
surveying purposes. It does not represent an
0 500 1, 000 on -the -ground survey and represents only
Feet ALTERNATE CANDIDATE LOCATIONS EXHIBIT the approximate relative location of property boundaries.
EXHIBIT KK
Verizon Wireless
Communications Facility
Engineering Necessity Case -"Sunny View"
Town Boundary
Town/City Border
Existing ITHACA HD Site
Search Area
Project Location
Route 79
Existing DANBY Site
Existing BROOKTONDALE
S ite
Prepared by: Wasif Sharif, RF Engineer, Verizon Wireless
Project: The project is the installation and operation of a new tower co -located wireless
telecommunications site in the Town of Ithaca (the "Project Facility").
verizonNI
Nov 13th, 2024
RIF Justification Supplemental Materials
verizonvi
Alternative Sites - RF Analysis
56.-3-26.2
LL
Cathleen McDermott Donovan
AddressParcel
1564 Slaterville Rd Ithaca, NY 14850
..
42.418576
Longitude
-76.452243
56.-3-25
Wilfred Bernard Graham and Madeleine Capuano Graham
1590 Slaterville Rd Ithaca, NY 14850
42.416917
-76.450358
56.-3-14.3
Gary W Foote Sr
1598 Slaterville Rd Ithaca, NY 14850
42.417643
-76.448339
56.-3-14.2
Gary W Foote Sr
1598 Slaterville Rd Ithaca, NY 14850
42.415457
-76.447856
71.4-1.2
Gary W Foote Sr
1698 Slaterville Rd Ithaca, NY 14850
42.416553
-76.446923
71.4-5
Edward F and Kimberley A Klimowicz
1650 Slaterville Rd Ithaca, NY 14850
42.415288
-76.44405
71.-1-6
Faline Woods, LLC
PO Box 6645 Ithaca, NY 14850
42.412875
-76.44059
71.-1-8
Robert Rightmyer
1691 Slaterville Rd Ithaca, NY 14850
42.409161
-76.444533
70.-2-2
NYS Electric & Gas Corp
One City Center — 5th Floor Portland, ME 04101
42.411967
-76.445608
56.-4-2
Robert Rightmyer
1691 Slaterville Rd Ithaca, NY 14850
42,412063
-76.448247
56.-2-7.1
Mark D and Kathleen M Lucas
1571 Slaterville Rd Ithaca, NY 14850
42.415221
-76.45211
56.-2-1.1
Six Mile Enterprises, LLC
1551 Slaterville Rd Ithaca, NY 14850
42.416186
-76.454064
• Slides 4-15 display the individual footprint of Sunny View site from above mentioned alternative site
locations, and it can be seen that alternative locations fail to provide the adequate coverage that is
needed to resolve the significant coverage gap in targeted service improvement area.
• Slide 16 and17 display the individual footprint of Sunny View site from Six Mile Enterprises parcel at
higher ACL of 150' and 170' respectively, and it can be seen that even with higher ACL (taller tower),
this alternative location fails to provide the similar coverage footprint that our primary candidate (shown
on Slide 18) will provide.
verizon)' 3
Sunny View Low band footprint — Cathleen McDermott Donovan
-S5 Best Signal level (d5m) > =-85
-95 Best Signal level (d5m) > =-95
J- -105 Best Signal Level (dBm) > =-105
�SIINNY JIE14 _
erookm�nu.
verizonNI 4
Sunny View Low band footprint —Wilfred Bernard Graham and Madeleine Capuano
Graham
ic
-85 Best Signal Level (dBm} >=-85
95 Best Signal Level (dBm) > =-95
-105 Best Signal Level (dBmi ; =-105
'k
h�
d
t_
�Y
�SURBr OIfiN
i
E
Y. B
�
-nr
�
_
6roaktontlal.
0
F
a �
`.�
V.k, 16) e H
e
1
verizon-I 5
Sunny View Low band footprint- Gary W Foote Sr
-35 Best Signal Level (d8m) >=-85
-95 Best Signal Level (d8m) > - -95
-105 Best Signal Level (d8m) >--105
verizonNI
Sunny View Low band footprint— Gary W Foote Sr
I
1: K!
4a rt�,a
•w '
f
� V
r. l
A
a - y
• M, f
At
Si a ler. ril. RJ—` -
-85 Best Signal Level (dBm) > =-85
-95 Best Signal Level (dBm) > =-95
.105 Best Signal Level (dBm) s=-105
4
i
1
s�''
�4 pa a
p •
verizonJ
7
Sunny View Low band footprint- Gary W Foote Sr
-35 Best Signal Level OBm) :
-95 Best Signal Level (dBmj > = -95
-105 Best Signal Level (dBm) , =-105
verizon)/ 8
Sunny View Low band footprint— Edward F and Kimberley A Klimowicz
_ = \
-85 Best Signal Level (dBm) >=-85
j�
-95 Best Signal Level (dBm) > =-95
.105 Best Signal Level (dBm) > =-105
•
�IY NEVI
% v
Ak
'C
3
4 `
W*, R! k
verizon/ 9
Sunny View Low band footprint— Faline Woods, LLC
- 85 Best Signal Level (dBm) > =-85
95 Best Signal Level (dBm) > =-95
-105 Best Signal Level (dBm) > --105
a�
r,
verizon/ 10
Sunny View Low band footprint— Robert Rightmyer
-S5 Best Signal Level (dEml >=-S5
-95 Best Signal Level (d6ft > =-95
-105 Best Signal level WSmj >=-1p5
oaN "
r
} � w
A 4
f
- 0rookloneale -
verizon)/ 11
Sunny View Low band footprint— NYS Electric & Gas Corp
-S5 Best Signal Level (dBm; ,=-35
-95 Best Signal Level (dBm; : =-95
-105 Best Signal Level (dBmj _ =-105
i .:.,�.r ) t-.ter-�. � •'Y�
rr -
I � -
�b
a
c P Oki L�
Ar
s
0
fry
s e
f
verizon)/ 12
Sunny View Low band footprint— Robert Rightmyer
O Y'•N'
R
. rt
F
.I., Fo !
S5 Best Signal Level (dEmi >_ 95
-55 Best Signal Level i.dEm) >=-95
-105 Best Signal Level fdErn; > =-105
9rooklaneni:
verizonv' 13
Sunny View Low band footprint —Mark D and Kathleen M Lucas
�I
r
e
4
-55 Best Signal Level (d6m( >=-85
-95 Best Signal Level (d6m) > =-95
-105 Best Signal Level ld6mj > =-105
b'.11k I...a I.
Verizonv 14
Sunny View Low band footprint — Six Mile Enterprises, LLc
-85 Best Signal level (dBm) >=-85
-95 Best Signal Level (dBm) >--95
-105 Best Signal Level (dBm) > --105
Broaklontlalb
0
4.
4+ Fri
,rr wens rw ♦a ti��. ml�
tale..•,,,. .�
VerizonJ 15
Sunny View Low band footprint — Six Mile Enterprises, LLC (150' ACL)
.a -
-35 Best Signal Level (dBmf %=-85
a� -95 Best Signal Level (dBMI > =-95
J.105 Best Signal Le -.'el (dBm} . =-105
/ 4 _
A l�
fir. w
erooktontlatx tT 1
0
t
verizonv' 16
Sunny View Low band footprint —Six Mile Enterprises, LLC (170" ACL)
+x ti,n Yn
M., .1,
-85 Best Signal Level (d6m) > =-85
-95 Best Signal Level (dBm( s =-95
-105 Best Signal Level (dBm) > =-105
}
# � Bluuh�uptla.
IS
� � r � _ � ono,,. ' ; •�I ,W'" s � .,r.
verizom' 17
Sunny View Low band footprint- Suzanne Roberts
5 Ect Signal Level (dBmj 15
-95 Best Signal Level (d 6m) > = -9 5
105 6 est Signal Level fd6m) > = -105
......... ..
VIC,
verizon)/ 18
EXHIBIT LL
N
N/F
ESTEP, LYNETTE C
56.-3-13.34
F
N/F
KENNEDY,SEAN
56.-3-13.2
\ �'AMOXIMATEPARCELBOUNDS
TO
�F9
REST
RFs�o�
N/F
N MCDERMOTT DONOVAN
56.-3.26.6
N/F
THLEEN MCDERMOTT DONOVAN
56.-3.26.7 /
**1_1 N1.1 N""� _N111 N'll
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
2 m m PROPOSED TOWER LOCATION
m m O LAT: 42.418576', LONG:-76.452243`
u,
D
' m
mT�o
N
4F
N/F
CATHLEEN MCDERMOTT DONOVAN
56.-3-26.2 /
J
qAA
qT�
R�F<
e0G
��OS
N/F
ELIZABETH BONINI-STEWART
56.-3-26.8
N/F
WILFRED BERNARD GRAHAM &
MADELEINE CAPUANO GRAHAM
56.-3-25
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
EXISTING CREEK/STREAM PER
TOMPKINS COUNTY GIS
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 40 80
( IN FEET)
I inch = 80 ft.
• CIVIL
ENGINEERING
• LAND
SURVEYING
-LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTURE
COSTICH 217 LAKE AVENUE
ROCHESTER, NY 14608
ENGINEERING (585)458-302C
SUNNY VIEW -ALTERNATE
CANDIDATE LOCATIONS
AERIAL EXHIBIT #1
11-08-2024
CE# 7806
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
EXISTING CREEK/STREAM PER
TOMPKINS COUNTY GIS
N/F
CATHLEEN MCDERMOTT DONOVAN
56: 3.26.2
N/F
ELIZABETH BONINI-STEWART
56.-3.26.B
N/F
MARK D RENODIN
56.-2-2
/
/
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
EXISTING CREEK/STREAM PER
/ TOMPKINS COUNTY GIS
N/F N/F
KENNEDY, SEAN TOWN OF ITHACA
56.-3.13.2 57.-2-12
138'
/ I TOWER
SETBACK
ENVELOPE
/ N/F
WILFRED BERNARD GRAHAM 8
MADELEINE CAPUANO GRAHAM
56.-3-25
/Q / I
� / I
lz /
/ I
/ I
/ I
/ I
/ I
/ I
\ I
\ I
\ I
a���tib
^a9�,
Pc' GAO = 2 Z 2 4' \
�r05 O
�P 2y4zt
cb
0 5
N/F
GARY W FOOTE SR
56.-3-14.3
v
v
0
O
a APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
m EXISTING CREEK/STREAM PER
I TOMPKINS COUNTY GIS
A
m
d
z
zl
0
N/F
K D REN(
56: 3.16.1
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
PROPOSED TOWER LOCATION
LAT: 42.416917°, LONG:-76.450358'
N/F
TERRY L SINGLETON
56.-3-14.1
N/F
GARY W FOOTE SR
56.-3-14.2
N
r
s
z
0
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 75 150
(INFEET)
1 inch = 150 ft.
• CIVIL
ENGINEERING
• LAND
SURVEYING
-LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTURE
k..o05 [ lU171 217 LAKE AVENUE
ROCHESTER, NY 14608
ENGINEERING (585) 458-3020
SUNNY VIEW ALTERNATE
CANDIDATE LOCATIONS
AERIAL EXHIBIT #2
11-08-2024
CE# 7806
6;
N
z
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 40 80
(IN FEET)
I inch = 80 ft.
• CIVIL
ENGINEERING
• LAND
SURVEYING
•LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTURE
COSTICH 217 LAKE AVENUE
ROCHESTER, NY 14608
ENGINEERING (585) 458-3020
SUNNY VIEW ALTERNATE
CANDIDATE LOCATIONS
AERIAL EXHIBIT #3
11-08-2024
CE# 7806
1
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
EXISTING CREEK/STREAM PER
TOMPKINS COUNTY GIS
N/F
WILFRED BERNARD GRAHAM &
MADELEINE CAPUANO GRAHAM
56.-3-25
N/F
K D RENC
56.-3-16.1
N/F
SCOTT CHAFFEE
56.•3.16.2
N/F
GARY W FOOTE SR
56.-3-14.3
mCnm
� m o
OCO
no
°gym
m �
I—
N
GARY WFOOTE SR
56: 3-14.2
�I
REST ADJOI NER
425't TO NEAR IAL BUILDING
RESIDE
/ N/F
TERRY L SINGLETON
'sl 56.•3-14.1
G
�66;LlR
�o�0GT,
\ J
llls''
N/F
JAMES R YOUNG
69.-2-3.2
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
EXISTING FEDERAL WETLANDS
PER NWI MAPPER
f EXISTING C
APPROXIMATE
R EK/STREAAM PER
TOMPKINS COUNTY GIB RJR
50�aG j
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
PROPOSED TOWER LOCATION
LAT: 42.415598°.LONG: -76.447799'
/ N/F
/ GARY W FOOTE SR
/ 71.-1-1.2
N/F
TIMOTHY F LYONS
71.-1-2
N/F
TIMOTHY F LYONS
56.-3-15
Z/
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 60 120
( IN FEET)
I inch = 120 ft.
• CIVIL
ENGINEERING
• LAND
SURVEYING
-LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTURE
COSTICH 217 LAKE AVENUE
1111ESTE1, NY 14608
ENGINEERING (585) 458-3020
/ \ SUNNY VIEW —ALTERNATE
N/F 2ENA MEYER \ CANDIDATE LOCATIONS
71-1-112 AERIAL EXHIBIT #4
% 11-08-2024
CE# 7806
N/F
GARY W FOOTE SR
56: 3-14.3
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
EXISTING CREEKISTREAM PER
TOMPKINS COUNTY GIS
N/F
WILFRED BERNARD GRAHAM &
MADELEINE CAPUANO GRAHAM
56.-3-25
N/F
GARY W FOOTE SR
56.-3-14,2
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
PROPOSED TOWER LOCATION
LAT: 42.416079°. LONG:-76.446659`
O O AapROk�PP,41 \
z z
O O
T m
x �
v m
z
N/F �
MARK D RENODIN.
56.-3-16.1 ' y
0
O
x
1>
N/F m
SCOTT CHAFFEE -O
56.-3-16.2 ` n
m
m
m
O
C
z
■ U)
N/F \�
JOHN W BRADY N!F
56.-2.9 TERRY L SINGLETON
sL 56.-3.14.1
91�?
G
0 SRO
N/F
JAMES R YOUNG
69.-2-3.2
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
EXISTING FEDERAL WETLANDS
PER NWI MAPPER
"I
I w \
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
168t EXISTING CREEK/STREAM PER PJ /
II TOMPKINS COUNTY GIS
Q• I � /
Co C
D�J
�o��g
AZ
P
N/F
GARY W FOOTE SR
71: 1.1.2 / p
I
z
a
I
I
u�
SI
m.
�I
U
ui lU
to
w
L
4I
N/F
TIMOTHY F LYONS
71.-1.2
N/F
TIMOTHY F LYONS
56.-3-15
N/F IN
ZENA MEYER
71.-1-1.12
r
NINA K M/
71
1
N/F
EDWARD F KLIMOWICZ
71.-1.5
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 60 120
( IN FEET)
1 inch = 120 ft.
• CIVIL
ENGINEERING
• LAND
SURVEYING
-LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTURE
COSTICH 217 LAKE AVENUE
ROCHESTER, NY 14608
ENGINEERING (585)458-3020
SUNNY VIEW ALTERNATE
CANDIDATE LOCATIONS
AERIAL EXHIBIT #5
11-08-2024
CE# 7806
�Z
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
EXISTING FEDERAL WETLANDS
PER NWI MAPPER `
N/F
GARY W FOOTE SR /
71.-1-1.2 /
_so
ciao/
J5/
e�
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
PROPOSED TOWER LOCATION
LAT: 42.415288°, LONG:-76.444050'
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF /
/ EXISTING CREEK/STREAM PER
/ TOMPKINS COUNTY GIS
(l/
0
N/F P6
\SARE -1 1.12 \yo
sL 71.-1-1.12 ? �
A,
FR ��
N/F
DAVID R TEDEYAN
70.-2-1.2
/F
P Po,o�GP
pp
��oa����P�
0
'o /
� � I
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF A /
EXISTING CREEK/STREAM PER m /
TOMPKINS COUNTY GIS r
O I
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF /
EXISTING FEDERAL WETLANDS I
PER NWI MAPPER /
N/F I I
/ JAMES R YOUNG
/ 69: 2-3.2
/ I I
=� �I A Mj
_ � I
/
i
i
i
i � N
?� O
YZ o
N Nm
O n�
G
& /
oN
/ ON
DN
i
otN
i
oN
N
i
ON I
ON I
N/F
EDWARD F KLIMOWICZ
71.-l-5
N/F
N Y S ELECTRIC & GAS CORP
70.-1.1
APPROXIMATE PARCEL BOUNDS
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
EXISTING FEDERAL WETLANDS
PER NWI MAPPER
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
EXISTING CREEK/STREAM PER
TOMPKINS COUNTY GIS
N/F
FALINE WOODS, LLC
71: 1-6
138.0' TOWER SETBACK
FROM, PROPERTY LINES
oN
ON
oN
OH
r
� oN
Z off
O
. A EXISTING OVERHEAD TRANSMISSION LINES
N/F
JOSHUA SAN MUGUEL
71.-1-7
N
z
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 100 200
( IN FEET)
I inch = 200 ft.
• CIVIL
ENGINEERING
• LAND
SURVEYING
-LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTURE
COSTICH 217 LAKE AVENUE
ROCHESTER, NY 14608
ENGINEERING (585) 458-3020
SUNNY VIEW ALTERNATE
CANDIDATE LOCATIONS
AERIAL EXHIBIT #6
11-08-2024
CE# 7806
W W QN
y ON
ON z
ON
N/F
JAMES R YOUNG
69.-2.3.2
EXISTING OVERHEAD TRANSMISSION LINES
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF N/F
EXISTING FEDERAL WETLANDS
EDWARD F KLIMOWICZ
PER NWI MAPPER
OZ-
y
APPROXIMM PARCEL SOUNDS
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
EXISTING FEDERAL WETLANDS
PER NWI MAPPER
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
EXISTING CREEK/STREAM PER
Or TOMPKINS COUNTY GIB
OS — — — — — — — — I
I I
\ I
\ APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
\ EXISTING CREEK/STREAM PER
\ TOMPKINS COUNTY GIS
\ I
S\
N Y S ELECIC 8 AS CORP \ I
0.-1-b \ W N/F
FALINE WOODS, LLC I N/F
RO \ 71.-1-6 'a
I O JOSHU7SAN MUGUEL
LOCTION
OF 60 \ \ PROPOSEDATOWER AOCATOION I m
LAT: 42.412875°, LONG:-76.440590' I A
N/F \ I mI
Q'- ANDRE JACQUET
70:1-3.1 \ I p�
Z
O
GIDEON T STONE \ / Q�E 5�J� JpE ��y�ey II
sl9r� 70.-1.3.2
GRAPHIC SCALE
N/F gppRO ` I 0 75 150
J T�' STEVEN R LANTZ
70: 1-4
p R`e�vas N/F — — — — — — — (IN FEET)
\ N/F SILBER SYRACUSE I LLC — — "— 1 1t1C17 — 150 ft.
\ SILBER SYRACUSE I LLC 70.-1-8 '
70.-1-5
N/F
SILBER SYRACUSE I
\ \ 70.-1-6
N/F
JACQUELINE S
70.-1-7
N/F
SARAH JANE BURTON
70.-1-9
1
N/F
RENATA J LANGMAIER
70 :1-10.1
• CIVIL
ENGINEERING
• LAND
SURVEYING
•LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTURE
217 LAKE AVENUE
ROCHESTER, NY 14608
ENGINEERING (585) 458-3020
SUNNY VIEW -ALTERNATE
CANDIDATE LOCATIONS
AERIAL EXHIBIT #7
11-08-2024
�� CE# 7806
N/F
ROBERT R RIGHTMYER
56.-4-2
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
EXISTING FEDERAL WETLANDS
PER NWI MAPPER
N/F
CITY OF ITHACA
55.-1-1
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
EXISTING CREEK/STREAM PER
TOMPKINS COUNTY GIS J
O r
O
EXISTING OVERHEAD TRANSMISSION LINES
O-1
f
o�
0
//
or
ort
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
EXISTING FEDERAL WETLANDS
\ O oS PER NWI MAPPER
�
Qe
O
ue
0
�'/SS,0 4 Fs
II
N/F
GREGORY P HEIST
70.-2-3
N/F
ROBERT R RIGHTMYER
71: 1-B
O
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
PROPOSED TOWER LOCATION
LAT: 42.409161°, LONG:-76.444533°
I
I y
m y
w I
y y
C I
Z
O
� I
I
I
Z Z
O O
:zi O
o I
D Z I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN
I`
N/F
D E WRISLEY
�1.-1-24.2
0 /
9Jyo\� / Oy
xl�
E51P-0p\NG� / / ��eU N/F
e- PR 6 P SARAH JANE BURTON
�QP 10 �S 71.-1-9
0�hry0 1019¢�g10E
y
y
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
y
738a
aRo Fregc
R�'17NFSo,�i
y
y y y y (y
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
EXISTING FEDERAL WETLANDS APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
PER NWI MAPPER EXISTING CREEK/STREAM PER
TOMPKINS COUNTY GIS
N/F
MERLE MCELDOWNEY,
IRREVOCABLETRUST
71:1-11.1 �-
N
z
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 125 250
( IN FEET)
I inch = 250 ft.
• CIVIL
ENGINEERING
• LAND
SURVEYING
•LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTURE
COSTICH 217 LAKE AVENUE
ROCHESTER. NY 14608
ENGINEERING (585) 458-3020
SUNNY VIEW -ALTERNATE
CANDIDATE LOCATIONS
AERIAL EXHIBIT #8
11-08-2024
CE# 7806
N/F
S ROBERTS
WIEDMAIER LLC
56.-4-1.24
cy,Fogoe�k--
N/F \
BAJRACHARYA, SRIJANA
/ 56.-4-1.26
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN
N/F
S ROBERTS WC LAND LLC
56.-4-1.22
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
PROPOSED TOWER LOCATION
LAT: 42.412063". LONG:-76.448247'
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
EXISTING CREEK/STREAM PER
TOMPKINS COUNTY GIB
N/F
ROBERT R RIGHTMYER
56.-4-2
Fj
Roe��TR'� 0w�`�G
o?
N/F
DAVID R TEDEYAN
70.-2-1.2
W
CAITLIN M PAL
70: 2-1.3
z z
O O
� o
= A
< /
y z
z
N/F /ROBERT R RIGHTMYER
\ I al
\ m
\ 0
Cn ot
\ J
C�,yFs&s7 N oa
N/F
CITY OF ITHACA
55.-1-1
O-1
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
EXISTING CREEKlSTREAM PER
TOMPKINS COUNTY GIS
EXISTING OVERHEAD TRANSMISSION LINES
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
EXISTING FEDERAL WETLANDS
PER NWI MAPPER
APPRO)
EXISTIN
TOMPKI
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 100 200
(IN FEET)
1 inch = 200 ft.
• CIVIL
ENGINEERING
• LAND
SURVEYING
•LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTURE
COSTICH 217 LAKE AVENUE
ROCHESTER, NY 14608
ENGINEERING (585) 458-302C
SUNNY VIEW ALTERNATE
CANDIDATE LOCATIONS
AERIAL EXHIBIT #10
11-08-2024
CE# 7806
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
EXISTING CREEK/STREAM PER
TOMPKINS COUNTY GIS
7
8
q O•
�Op`rFT
c�F�
ti4 °4'
N/F
SIX MILE ENTERPRISES, LLC
56.-2-1.1
N/F
CITY OF ITHACA
55.-1-1
ROPOSED TOWER LOCATION
42.415221 °, LONG:-76.452110°
�)
9)
o /
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 60 120
/ (IN FEET)
I inch = 120 ft.
5 /
•CIVIL
P
ENGINEERING
}�P N/F
ALBERT P GILLIS LAND
QQ 56.-2-11
\ SURVEYING
0
• LANDSCAPE
IiE �Qe / ARCHITECTURE
Oi (, - COSTICH 217 LAKE AVENUE
Q� PAN .00ATION OF ROCHESTER, NY 14608
Q PQ
STREAM
PER P ' ENGINEERING (585)458-3020
GIS
SUNNY VIEW ALTERNATE
CANDIDATE LOCATIONS
/OFTHACA / 1ERIAL EXHIBIT #11
08 2024
I / �/ CE# 7806
7 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
EXISTING CREEKISTREAM PER
TOMPKINS COUNTY GIS
N/F
CITY OF ITHACA
55.-1-1
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
EXISTING FEDERAL WETLANDS
PER NWI MAPPER
\ \ APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
`100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN
W V V Y IV
N
N/F
SIX MILE ENTERPRISES, C
56.-2-1.22
J�
�v
QG \
/ QP
/ } N/F
P MARK 6. 2E2 ODIN \ c6frl�
Q
/ \ 4p�
�G���
'Qo
\ 60
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
EXISTING CREEK]STREAM PER
TOMPKIMPKI COUNTY
TOMPKINS COUNTY GIS
/ N/F
SIX MILE ENTERPRISES, LLC
56.-2-1.1 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
PROPOSED TOWER LOCATION
/ LAT: 42.416158", LONG:-76.454092"
�38 / GRAPHIC SCALE
pROp SFTg / APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
�707fj0 / EXISTING CREEK/STREAM PER 0 75 150
NFS / TOMPKINS COUNTY GIS
(IN FEET)
1 inch = 150 ft.
\ o
• CIVIL
ENGINEERING
• LAND
SURVEYING
•LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTURE
0
COSTICH 217 LAKE AVENUE
N/F ROCHESTER, NY 14608
\ / MARKD&KATHLEENMLUCAS ENGINEERING (585)458-3020
56.-2-7.1
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OFJ SUNNY VIEW ALTERNATE
EXISTING OMPKIN COUNTY GIS
! CANDIDATE LOCATIONS
TOMPKINS COUNTY GIS
AERIAL EXHIBIT #12
N/F 11-08-2024
CITY OF ITHACA
55.-1-1
CE# 7806