Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommunity Letters updated 2.24.251 Lori Kofoid From:James W Hamilton <jameswaldo@bluefrog.com> Sent:Wednesday, November 20, 2024 11:49 PM To:Lori Kofoid Subject:please deny variance to ZBAA-24-18 Appeal for Verizon "Sunny View" wireless service tower at 111 Wiedmaier Ct Thanks, Marty Moseley, for inviting my comments on the proposed Verizon Sunny View tower height variance appeal. I received your notice of public hearing in today’s mail. Please do not allow S Roberts WC Land LLC to lease his Conservation Zone property to Verizon for the proposed “Sunny View” 138-foot wireless service tower. The destruction of this wooded land broke both state and town laws when Wiedmaier had the ridge top removed and adjacent hillsides buried under the bulldozed soil. The site plans provided by Verizon falsely claim there is an “EXISTING TREE LINE,” where in fact no trees have survived, and a supposedly “EXISTING FORESTED LAND,” where only a few trees from an incomplete and insufficient forest restoration effort 15 years ago failed dismally to restore the site to woods. In 2008, the Planning Board resolved that “approximately 250 trees” should be planted to remediate Wiedmaier’s criminal destruction. Less than 25 trees have managed to hang on to the very edges of the flattened ridge. I attended the first Planning Board public hearing for the Sunny View project on October 1, 2024, where I heard the lawyer Jared Lusk claim that the current owner of 111 Wiedmaier Ct did not know there was any problem with hilltop removal or the need to restore once-forested land to woods. But S Roberts WC Land LLC shares the same address as Wiedmaier at 1129 Avenida Sevilla #5C, Walnut Creek, CA 94595; the two of them are listed as owners of 4 of the other 5 lots in the subdivision. S Roberts bought the 111 Wiedmaier Ct lot for $1 from Clare George Wiedmaier on December 6, 2021; this was not an arms-length sale, and a lawyer claiming Roberts knows nothing of Wiedmaier’s problems with the site does not convince me this is a good way of avoiding responsibility for an ecological disaster. If Roberts can profit from the horrifically cleared land, now so simply and in its ruin ready-made for a 138 foot tall monopole antenna, in what way is Conservation Zoning, or any kind of zoning for that matter, effectively enforced? If Verizon is serious about leasing a 50’X50’ fenced compound, then the once forested land around it should be restored as woods. It seems Verizon is hoping the Town of Ithaca will forget Planning Board’s Resolution No. 2008 - 013, which called for the remediation of Weidmaier’s hilltop woods removal. But I have owned my home at 1603 Slaterville Rd since 1980, and remember the woods that used to grow on the ridge just south of my property. I remember Weidmaier’s excuses for the laws broken at 111 Wiedmaier Ct: his landscaper misunderstood his plans for the property, the conversion of woods into firewood there did not need a forest management plan, since it was just a landscaping project. Now, 16 years after turning the wooded ridge into a wasteland we should not pretend that a cell phone tower is the proper reward for a fictional “existing forested land” with a fake “existing tree line” around “existing meadow/range land.” These terms on Verizon’s “aerial map with proposed overlay,” a project sheet No. ESC-1 in Verizon’s application material, may be buried under the many pages of minutiae, but they do not stand up to fact checking. Five members of the Town’s Conservation Board visited the “Sunny View” site October 8th last month and found no “forested land” or “tree line” in the areas falsely labeled on Verizon’s planning sheets. 2 The fact is, this lot at 111 Wiedmaier Ct still needs restoration. It does not need to provide a profitable lease to anyone who shares an address with Wiedmaier in Walnut Creek CA. Please require that this neighboring woods in the Sixmile Creek Conservation Zone be restored in fact, where just now it is restored only in fiction. Its proximity to Sixmile Creek, just upstream of the City’s water reservoir, makes its return to woodland ecologically important. Please deny the variance requested in the ZBAA-24-18 Appeal! Wiedmaier did not respect Town Conservation Zoning code; don’t let him (or anyone sharing his address) get relief from Town height limitations. I hope you understand my strong concerns in this matter. If you have any questions, I'd be glad to discuss them further. James Hamilton 1603 Slaterville Rd Ithaca NY (607) 273-1335 1 Lori Kofoid From:Diane Allyn Florini <diflorini@hotmail.com> Sent:Thursday, November 21, 2024 9:31 PM To:Lori Kofoid Subject:Please deny the height variance to ZBAA-24-18 tower at 111 Wiedmaier Court **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 Dear Mr. Moseley, I received your mailed notice of the public hearing regarding Verizon's proposed appeal for a height variance for its proposed Sunny View cell phone tower. I was disappointed when the Planning Board decided to allow the Zoning Board to consider allowing the construction of a 138-foot personal wireless service facility tower in a Conservation Zone near a neighborhood at the eastern border of the Town of Ithaca. Mr. Wiedmaier originally planned to build one house in the Conservation area where Verizon wants to site the tower. This house would have been consistent with housing that he planned to build on four other lots outside of the Conservation Area. One of the four lots needed to have a strange shape to allow it to meet the town code requiring road frontage, so my neighbors and I attended a board meeting where Mr. Wiedmaier's agent explained that there would be minimal disturbance to the forest covering the land. We did not object to the planned development. However, we ARE now objecting to a cell tower whose height exceeds heights permitted by town code. "The standard of approval for a dimensional variance is 'practical difficulty'...the 'practical difficulty' standard could be amplified and clarified as follows: Does strict compliance with the ordinance totally prevent improvement of the property in a manner which is reasonable, customary and consistent with other properties in the area" (Local Government Law Bulletin April 9, 2018 by James F. Scales, cited in https://www.mikameyers.com/practical-advice-for-variances/). A tower 138 feet tall is NOT an improvement of the property in a manner which is reasonable, customary and consistent with other properties in the area. Verizon proposes to build the tower in a Conservation Zone located above Six Mile Creek which provides the City of Ithaca with drinking water. This natural area may not be among the 10 most scenic views of the Town of Ithaca, but it is a haven for wildlife and a soothing sight for people traveling on Route 79 and Burns Road. Many citizens mentioned this at the Planning Board hearings. If a 10-story building were being proposed for this Conservation Zone, you can be sure that neighbors would NOT want you to grant a variance for the building. Why would we treat a cell phone tower which is not consistent with the neighborhood any differently? Verizon proposes mitigating the ugliness of the tower by planting some trees, but even mature redwoods would not make the tower look like it belonged in the neighborhood. "A variance should only be available when a unique circumstance of the property results in a practical difficulty or undue hardship." (Local Government Law Bulletin April 9, 2018 by James F. Scales, cited in https://www.mikameyers.com/practical-advice-for-variances/). Denying a height variance to Verizon for this tower will NOT result in a practical difficulty or undue hardship for the company. Maps of alternative sites show that distances to residences were 2 measured from sites close to the residences as opposed to sites that could have been chosen further back on each property. The NYSEG site was rejected because the 207-foot distance separating the proposed tower from the high-tension wires was "more" than the 250 feet required. What kind of math is that? Furthermore, the consultant William P. Johnson suggested that a backdrop of foliage on the north side of Route 79 could help hide a tall cell phone tower. He also suggested that Verizon could deploy small cells to provide reasonable service to the Route 79 corridor which would obviate the need for Verizon to get a variance for the monstrosity they now plan to build in many people's backyard. Having Verizon move the tower north of Route 79 or build small cells is not "undue hardship." Please deny Verizon's request for a height variance on the cell phone tower proposed for 111 Wiedmaier Court, Ithaca. Sincerely, Diane Florini 1603 Slaterville Road Town of Ithaca 1 Lori Kofoid From:Grace Grace <windowchair@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, November 24, 2024 11:50 PM To:Codes Subject:Please deny height variance for 140 ft cell tower in conservation area To the Ithaca town planning board, Please deny the height variance for 140-ft cell tower in a conservation area because it goes against town codes, and it is not the least intrusive means possible. Small cells to fill the gap would be the least intrusive means possible. It is unthinkable to put this giant, unsightly tower in a beautiful conservation area. It will hurt property values and the health of the nearby residents. Sincerely, Grace 1 Lori Kofoid From:Heyltje Bond <heyltjerose@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, November 24, 2024 2:00 PM To:Codes Subject:Verizon cell tower I’m writing to oppose the height variance for the proposed Verizon cell phone tower at Burns Rd & 79. Ithaca’s town codes' say that we are to use the least intrusive means possible to fill gaps, which would most certainly be small cells. Verizon does not want to use small cells because they will lose the ability to gain rents from other telecom carriers. They do not have the town’s best interest in mind but their own profit. I also oppose the height variance as it will intrude on a beautiful conservation area. Further, I have personally felt the detrimental health effects that have been proven to exist from the radiation emitted by such towers. I urge you to really consider the multitude of reasons why smaller towers should be used as opposed to this behemoth they’re proposing. Thank you for your time, Heyltje Bond Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone 1 Lori Kofoid From:Ravindra <ravi@raviwalsh.com> Sent:Sunday, November 24, 2024 12:21 PM To:Codes Subject:Oppose the variance **WARNING** This email comes from an outside source. Please verify the from address, any URL links, and/or aachments. Any quesons please contact the IT department Hello, I am stymied as to why this commiee agreed to Verizon’s first hyped up pitch for a tower! What were you thinking? Secondly, now they “need”, but that’s not really true, a variance from you. Corporaon Games! They just keep pushing, which is intenonal, for wearing you out so you will just agree. Please DON’T. Know maer how much money they promise to give back, the variance isn’t necessary. But you know that already bc you read and heard what I heard. Thank you 607-220-6088 www.heartpathme.com 1 Lori Kofoid From:Britton Dougherty <great.britton@hotmail.com> Sent:Sunday, November 24, 2024 12:43 AM To:Codes Subject:height variance **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 Dear Planning Board members, Thank you for your time and diligence. I urge you to reject the height variance that Verizon is seeking based on multiple factors. First, property values of the homes near the tower will decline. A study published in the Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics found that for properties located within 0.72 kilometers [2362 feet] of the closest cell tower, property values declined 2.46% on average, and up to 9.78% for homes within tower visibility range compared to homes outside tower visibility range. “In aggregate, properties within the 0.72-kilometer band lose over $24 million dollars.” https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11146-017-9600-9 Also here is an article by REALTOR magazine, "An overwhelming 94 percent of home buyers and renters surveyed by the National Institute for Science, Law & Public Policy (NISLAPP) say they are less interested and would pay less for a property located near a cell tower or antenna." "The NISLAPP survey echoes the findings of a study by Sandy Bond of the New Zealand Property Institute and past president of the Pacific Rim Real Estate Society (PRRES). “The Impact of Cell Phone Towers on House Prices in Residential Neighborhoods,” which was published in The Appraisal Journal in 2006, found that buyers would pay as much as 20 percent less for a property near a cell tower or antenna." http://realtormag.realtor.org/daily-news/2014/07/25/cell- towers-antennas-problematic-for-buyers Here is a compellation of realtors documenting the property devaluation possible from a cell tower to a home. https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/Cell-Towers-Drop-Property-Values-Oakland-Township-Realtor- Letters-2024-1.pdf It was wrong of Verizon to state that denying their tower would have been an effective prohibition. Verizon has NOT PROVEN that their LARGE tower is the least intrusive means possible to fill this gap, they just stated that it was the least intrusive of all the 12 that they had looked at. The least intrusive MEANS, NOT LOCATION is what is relevant here to you all. The least intrusive means is almost guaranteed to be a few small cells, which Verizon does not want because then they can't charge other carriers rent to use their GIANT 140-foot tower. Verizon needs to provide a burden of proof that small cells couldn't work for this situation, and they did not provide that proof. If you previously approved this, and upon further contemplation and review, see that because this is infact not the least intrusive means possible and because it will certainly lower property values and be a HUGE eye sore for the conservation area and community, I urge you to retract your vote. I must say, also, that watching Fred Wilcox bully the members of the board, as a community member watching in on the process, was so disturbing. Once a few board members expressed concern, he said, "We all know the answer is a yes!," and then demanded that you all take a "straw pull" to see who was out of line. As someone 2 who has been on many boards, I have never seen such egregious behavior from a chair. It was absolutely appalling. And how horribly unethical it was for him to have worked off the approval resolution, once he saw that many were ready to deny the tower! A decent chair would have worked off the denial resolution. I talked to a member of the board directly afterwards who thought they had just voted on the landscaping, not understanding what they even were voting on because of how convoluted that was. I urge you to turn down this height variance and seek out safer small cells which are far less likely to lower property values and won't be a GIANT (literally) eye sore in a beautiful conservation area. The 140-foot tower is in no way the least intrusive means possible when we can fill the gap with small cells. Thank you, Britton Dougherty 1 Lori Kofoid From:Jerone Gagliano <jeronegagliano@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, November 25, 2024 5:04 PM To:Codes Subject:Deny Verizon's Height Variance Application **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 Dear Zoning Board Members, Please deny Verizon's height variance. This will force them to look at smaller cell tower options which they are supposed to anyway as the monopole is not the least intrusive means. I want to remind the Zoning Board that: - Verizon is purposefully lying and misleading the Board when they stated that denying their tower would be an effective prohibition. This is not true since our independent consultant attested that smaller cell towers would be a viable solution and therefore they did not meet the requirements of least intrusive means from our Codes. - Verizon has yet to prove that there is a gap in service as defined by our local wireless codes. As I stated during a previous meeting, I reviewed their dropped data records and conclude that these were not actual drop calls like the user experiences but likely network data package drops which is different than what our code requires. - Once you approve this large monopole tower, more will follow and use this as precedent, and these monstrous eye sores will be here forever. Below is what I wrote to the Planning Board: I am appalled by the actions of Chairman Fred Wilcox for using the approval resolution when the majority of the board was ready to deny it during the last meeting! He ignored the proper procedure to work off the denial resolution and ignored the board member who questioned this. He manipulated the process and put each member on the spot to say why they were voting against it. From these actions, I can only conclude that Fred Wilcox will personally benefit from approving this application and would like to hear Chairman Fred Wilcox to explain his actions at the next meeting I encourage any members who were brow beaten into changing their vote to have the courage to vote their conscience. I also want to remind the Board, again, that: - Verizon is purposefully lying and misleading the Board when they stated that denying their tower would be an effective prohibition. This is not true since our independent consultant attested that smaller cell towers would be a viable solution and therefore they did not meet the requirements of least intrusive means from our Codes. - Verizon has yet to prove that there is a gap in service as defined by our local wireless codes. As I stated during a previous meeting, I reviewed their dropped data records and conclude that these were not actual drop calls like the user experiences but likely network data package drops which is different than what our code requires. 2 - Once you approve this large monopole tower, more will follow and use this as precedent, and these monstrous eye sores will be here forever. 1) Please retract your vote if you felt coerced to voting yes when you wanted to deny the application. 2) Please deny Verizon's height variance. This will force them to look at smaller cell tower options which they are supposed to anyway as the monopole is not the least intrusive means. Thank you, Jerone Gagliano PE, CEM, CMVP 1 Lori Kofoid From:Daniel Seib <danielcseib@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, November 25, 2024 8:50 PM To:Lori Kofoid Subject:Please deny variance to ZBAA-24-18 Appeal for Verizon "Sunny View" wireless service tower at 111 Wiedmaier Ct **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 Hi Lori, I am writing to add my name to the list of Ithaca residents who are asking that the Zoning Board deny Verizon's appeal for a height variance for their proposed tower at 111 Wiedmaier Court. I and my family live nearby and have been to all the meetings so far with the Planning Board, and I was present when the Chair of that Board pulled his underhanded tactics (which I'm sure you've already heard about) to the benefit of Verizon and to the detriment of the people of Ithaca. That tower shouldn't have passed the environmental review and its site plan subsequently shouldn't have been approved. You have a chance to stop it though, as it clearly violates the height that our codes allow. We don't want this tower near our homes and our families, there are plenty of other places to put it, it will be an eyesore for those entering our beautiful city, and it will lower our property values. Verizon wants it here because it will maximize their profits, plain and simple. We don't exist just to be profitable for Verizon, or any other corporation, and I hope the Zoning Board chooses the people of Ithaca over corporate profits. Thank you, Daniel Seib 1581 Slaterville Road Ithaca, NY 1 Lori Kofoid From:Codes <codes@townithacany.gov> Sent:Tuesday, November 26, 2024 8:11 AM To:Marty Moseley; Lori Kofoid Subject:FW: Request to Reverse the Vote on Verizon's Wiedmeier Ct cell tower Please see email below. Thank you, Emily Banwell Administrative Assistant II Code Enforcement & Zoning Dept Town of Ithaca 215 N. Tioga St Ithaca, NY 14850 607-273-1783 From: Marie/Andrew Molnar <marieandrew93@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 8:27 PM To: Town Of Ithaca Planning <planning@townithacany.gov>; Codes <codes@townithacany.gov> Cc: robertbergesq@aol.com; Chris Balestra <CBalestra@townithacany.gov>; CJ Randall <cjrandall@townithacany.gov>; DCurren@wbng.com; nysag@ag.ny.gov; mbutler@ithacavoice.org; Bill Chaisson <editor@ithacatimes.com>; ffigueroa@ithacavoice.org Subject: Request to Reverse the Vote on Verizon's Wiedmeier Ct cell 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 Planning Board (and Zoning Board) members, We are writing to ask you to reconsider your approval of the Wiedmeier Court application and to file a formal complaint concerning the unethical and potentially illegal Ithaca Town Planning Board meeting on November 19, 2024. At that meeting: 1. Verizon untruthfully claimed that denying their new proposed cell tower would be 'effective prohibition' when in fact, they had not shown any proof, as our codes require, that their large tower is the least intrusive means to fill the gap in service coverage. In fact, when pressed by Town Attorney Susan Brock about the effective prohibition, the Verizon rep stated "of all the 12 different options that we looked at, this was the least intrusive." And elsewhere Verizon stated that their large tower was the least intrusive means to meet their “project goals”. Neither of these is the least intrusive means to remedy the gap in service (i.e. the small area with the 11% of dropped calls). What was glaringly apparent was that no one from Verizon 2 could explicitly say that the tower is the least intrusive means to fill the gap in service. Instead, what we heard was carefully evasive language. When the subject of small cells came up, consultant William Johnson attested that they are a viable solution. Verizon “respectfully disagreed”, referring to their Exhibit GG, the subject of which was their conclusory “evidence” that small cells were not viable to achieve “the necessary coverage goals sought by VZW” (again, not for remedying the gap). Tellingly, neither the RF engineer nor the Verizon rep ever explicitly said that small cells could not remedy the gap in service. More obfuscation. Thus, it was highly misleading for Verizon to claim that denying their tower would constitute effective prohibition, given that they never showed proof that small cells couldn’t remedy the gap. 2. Given what we heard at the meeting, we are concerned that Board members' decision to approve was based on this false claim, especially since a majority of the Board said they were going to deny the tower before Verizon's statement about effective prohibition. It seemed like the Board members felt that it was a done deal and that they couldn't deny the application. 3. Allowing Verizon to give further input, while denying the public an opportunity to respond is, according to our lawyer, a violation of due process. Had we been given the time, we would have questioned Verizon on their misleading statements, asking them directly if it is absolutely impossible to fill this service gap with small cells, and, if so, why they didn’t offer proof. 4. Lastly, the meeting process was shocking to witness. A straw poll indicated a majority of the Board was in favor of denying the tower, then Board inexplicably changed from working off the 'denial' resolution to working off the ‘approval’ resolution. Board member Cindy Kaufman even questioned this saying, "I don't understand why we're reviewing the approval [resolution]." She was ignored. Unfortunately, it seemed that Chairperson Fred Wilcox was biased in favor of approving the resolution, when at the beginning of the discussion he said, "I'm concerned right now that members of this board are trying to find reasons to say no when the answer is YES.” ?!? This and his subsequent demeanor/actions made it seem that he was manipulating the process to meet the end he wanted. This behavior is unethical and a disgrace to our town. Therefore, we ask the Planning Board to reconsider this action as soon as possible. We know that a path of recourse is to file an Article 78, but for everyone’s sake we are hoping that we might resolve this “in house” to simply ensure that there is a fair process and that the Board has the correct facts and is not unduly influenced in their decision. Thank you for your careful attention to this matter. Marie and Andrew Molnar Ithacans for Responsible Technology PS: Zoning Board members: we are asking you to deny the variance. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Virus-free.www.avast.com 1 Lori Kofoid From:Caroline Ashurst <hello@carolineashurst.com> Sent:Wednesday, December 4, 2024 12:46 AM To:Codes; Town Of Ithaca Clerks Department; Chris Balestra Cc:Fernando Figueroa; CJ Randall Subject:Zoning Board Follow-Up from 111 Wiedmaier Cell 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 Dear ZB Staff: I am following up from the board meeting last Tuesday. Thank you for reflecting the concerns that our community has been expressing for the past 2 months regarding this proposed project. Your inquiries about defining the -actual- necessity of this location (which again, is truly subjective). I am grateful that you engaged in critical questioning in regards to this specific location, the actual types of gaps (who- drivers vs residents, what- texts vs calls, etc, why-the actual quantity of calls and tiny area actually affected by this, and how- least intrusive means, size of pole to fill small gap which you expertly identified through your very astute questioning). THANK YOU. We are asking now that Verizon carry the burden of proof. They have neglected to show us WHY they cannot accomplish their task with small cells, ie the LEAST intrusive means. I will reiterate what the Ithacans for Responsible Technology have shared regarding the small cells: Fact #1: As Susan Brock has repeatedly pointed out, voice calls are the only applicable standard per our code. Fact #2: Almost all voice calls and texting are done using the low-band frequencies. Fact #3: Low band frequencies (like Verizon’s main low band 700 MHz (Band 13) or even 850 MHz (Band 5/n5) are particularly suited to this gap area as they offer excellent broad/distant coverage as well as the most effective building and foliage penetration (more than mid- or high-band frequencies). Fact #4: Small cells use considerably less energy than a macro tower. Fact #5: Small cells can often use already existing poles. Fact#6: How much mid-range bandwidth Verizon has to use is irrelevant to our situation of remedying a gap. It has been extremely problematic for the residents of the Town of Ithaca to hear the consultant hired by the Planning board change opinions throughout this process (starting with the Planning Board), and I ask this quite seriously: Has the consultant signed a non-compete agreement with the Planning Board solidifying his allegiance to neutrality, the Town of Ithaca’s best interests and the Planning Board for his consultancy? In his initial letters, he was clear that small cells would work, which he reiterated in the Zoning Board meeting. But then he backpedaled in his declaration. First he said they were technically feasible many 2 times, then tried to assert that in practice they might be more complicated. It’s problematic that he declares small cells are feasible in his written documentation then backpedals in our meetings. If it is feasible to use small cells in this situation, they would likely constitute the least intrusive means to fill this gap, and likely mollify most of the community concerns. Another important piece I would like to reiterate from IRT is that: “The Planning Board’s consultant raised the issue that Verizon has no mid-band coverage in the gap areas and that (mid-band) is ‘90% of their usable licensed bandwidth that they can provide to their subscribers; the other 10% is low band...Along Route 79 there's adequate coverage at low band. ...90% of the bandwidth that Verizon has available is not even on the map in this particular gap area....Without something in this gap area, we're going to be dealing with that outdoor marginal kind of coverage that Mr Lusk described in a lot of the target area, and not have the other 90% of the bandwidth for high-speed data and other types of services.’ " Fortunately, Susan Brock reminded all that "We're talking about voice calls only, nothing about other things." Midband is rarely used for phone or text coverage. This investment of mid-band (which primarily utilizes macro towers) is based on Verizon's projections of fixed wireless broadband and other data heavy uses (streaming, gaming, video conferencing, etc). Our concern is that they are utilizing a relatively small gap in phone coverage to justify a macro tower for the companies' larger projected needs. Additionally, and unrelated- we also are aware that according to the FCC’s website about Tower and Antenna siting: it clarifies how it’s obligation under NEPA requires them to follow the Endangered Species Act. Following their link to the iPaC online mapping tool for the Endangered species locator, we see that this site is a home to an endangered species. This potential site will require additional inquiry from the US Fish and Wildlife Service because of its impact on the endangered Northern Long-Eared bat which is an integral part of our local ecosystem and agricultural longevity as they naturally kill predator insects from attacking local food growth on agricultural land. Was this addressed at any point in the process? If not, I wanted to make sure there was an awareness about this requirement in the environmental assessment as I question the comprehensiveness of the Planning Board's address of this. In closing, again I thank you again for your commitment to understanding this decision through a varied, comprehensive lens. I am grateful that you honored the citizens’ voices and gave us the respect we all deserve to share without feeling reproach from the board (unfortunately this is not the case for the public’s recent experiences with the Planning Board - and NOT just with this zoning issue particularly). Thank you for your decorum (which our community also felt was not present at the Planning Board meetings). We are grateful that you reflect our concern with the choice of location and for representing what we truly feel Ithaca is: a place where ecological preservation should be paramount. In closing, we urge you to request that you ask Verizon to follow through on what several of you said earlier in the meeting: showing (having the burden of proof) how a small cell or 2 could remedy the existing gap in voice coverage. So far, all we have heard is claims, not proof. 3 Thank you so much again for your diligence and devotion to Ithacan Values, Caroline Grace Ashurst With Gratitude, Caroline Grace Ashurst, L.Ac., M.Ac. www.carolineashurst.com @restorativeharmony -- The Fertility Formula Functional Fertility Coaching + Restorative Harmony Acupuncture 2022|2020|2019 Philadelphia Family LOVE Award Best Acupuncture in Philadelphia! To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. *******©2024 Restorative Harmony Acupuncture, LLC. All rights reserved. This document is for educational and informational purposes only and solely as a self-help tool for your own use. I am not providing medical, psychological, or nutrition therapy advice. You should not use this information to diagnose or treat any health problems or illnesses without consulting your own medical practitioner. Always seek the advice of your own medical practitioner and/or mental health provider about your specific health situation. For my full Disclaimer, please go to https://www.restorativeharmony.com/legal-disclaimers 1 Lori Kofoid From:Caroline Ashurst <hello@carolineashurst.com> Sent:Wednesday, December 4, 2024 12:55 PM To:Codes; Town Of Ithaca Clerks Department; Chris Balestra Cc:Fernando Figueroa; CJ Randall Subject:White Deer vs. Verizon - A Deeper Look Into Effective Prohibition **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 Hi, I respectfully wanted to follow up about what constitutes "a significant gap" as well as the circumstances surrounding the often-referenced White Deer vs. Verizon case. Verizon has claimed that a "significant gap", by definition, is 1% in service loss. Have we established where they are getting that information from? There seems to be no known official determination available for public consumption, other than a "he said, she said" commentary. I'm citing a case about the effect of prohibition here from the Liberty Towers, LLC v. Zoning Hearing Board of Falls Township, Bucks County, PA (2011 WL 6091081(E.D.Pa.)) case. (Also- Is there something more recent that has determined what that is exactly? I think it should be requested that this determination be uncovered for obvious reasons, if so): In the Liberty Towers case, the court did not reach the question of whether it should adopt the multiple-provider approach over the user-oriented approach currently favored by the Third Circuit because it determined no “significant gap” existed regardless of which approach was adopted. The court noted “there are no magic numbers or percentages that constitute a significant gap.” Neither the TCA, the FCC, nor the courts have established the “significant gap” threshold. In order to determine if there is a significant gap in coverage, courts are required to consider “the quality of the service in the area and the effect on the users.” This involves a number of factors, including call failure rates and the number of people impacted by the gap. In analyzing the evidence presented at the hearing by Liberty Towers, the court was unable to determine that a “significant gap” existed. I am aware that since then, there has been a precedential case which has further determined what "effective prohibition" is. I encourage you to read this report of the "precedent" closely as the circumstances of 111 Wiedmaier are different and do not quantify our particular situation (Link to case report). It seems as though Verizon was able to win this case on a loophole due to the proceedings and determinations (and their timing) on behalf of the ZB: Verizon satisfied two requirements under applicable case law, first by presenting evidence of a significant gap in wireless coverage in the township and showing the proposed tower would fill it, said the opinion. White Deer’s zoning board “acknowledged 2 the gap in its variance application denial and does not challenge its existence on appeal,” it said. To be noted is that in their formal Application Denial, White Deer accepted that which Verizon claimed was a significant gap. This became a fatal error in their argument, having no leg to stand on in a court of law. And further: On appeal, the zoning board argued for the first time that Verizon should have challenged an indefinite 2000 Pennsylvania moratorium on the building of new cell towers on state forest land because the moratorium severely limited Verizon’s options for filling the service gap, said the opinion. In its application denial, the zoning board said Verizon couldn’t have exhausted all reasonable alternatives unless it legally challenged the Pennsylvania moratorium. But the zoning board didn’t renew that argument in district court, said the opinion. The district court also found that the zoning board provided no evidence or argument suggesting another location or technological means to address the service gap, it said: “We agree with the District Court’s assessment of the record.” Because the zoning board didn’t raise its arguments before the district court, “it did not preserve them for appeal,” said the opinion. Notable here is that: a.) The ZB failed to provide alternative strategies for alternate locations as well as any argument relating to that. Documentation on Draft Denials is of paramount importance. b.) The ZB did not adequately reference the FCC and NEPA limitations for federally designated wildlife land (aka they lost an opportunity to address and leverage this important point adequately being they did not assert it originally, and therefore had no power in asserting it for the appeal). Again, very important to identify that Denial Appeal documentation must be clear, comprehensive and detailed to represent the position of the ZB. I share this information because it's obvious White Deer lost opportunities for protecting their community by making errors in the initial stages of their process; errors that the ZB of The Town of Ithaca can be aware of moving forward. I also believe that this case didn't have a shot at winning because of these errors, and therefore being that we have established conservation land (local vs federal, duly noted regardless), and that we have yet to give official determination with reasoning, that we perhaps will not fall into the same category as this overly-mentioned case we keep hearing about meant to threaten and subdue our efforts. Of course, I am not a professional of the law, so I acknowledge any lack of information that may be needed for the full scope of understanding of this particular case. However, I feel it necessary to point out these issues now while there has been no official declarations made. 3 Thank you. With Gratitude, Caroline Grace Ashurst, L.Ac., M.Ac. www.carolineashurst.com @restorativeharmony -- The Fertility Formula Functional Fertility Coaching + Restorative Harmony Acupuncture 2022|2020|2019 Philadelphia Family LOVE Award Best Acupuncture in Philadelphia! To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. *******©2024 Restorative Harmony Acupuncture, LLC. All rights reserved. This document is for educational and informational purposes only and solely as a self-help tool for your own use. I am not providing medical, psychological, or nutrition therapy advice. You should not use this information to diagnose or treat any health problems or illnesses without consulting your own medical practitioner. Always seek the advice of your own medical practitioner and/or mental health provider about your specific health situation. For my full Disclaimer, please go to https://www.restorativeharmony.com/legal-disclaimers On Wed, Dec 4, 2024 at 12:45 AM Caroline Ashurst <hello@carolineashurst.com> wrote: Dear ZB Staff: I am following up from the board meeting last Tuesday. Thank you for reflecting the concerns that our community has been expressing for the past 2 months regarding this proposed project. Your inquiries about defining the -actual- necessity of this location (which again, is truly subjective). I am grateful that you engaged in critical questioning in regards to this specific location, the actual types of gaps (who- drivers vs residents, what- texts vs calls, etc, why-the actual quantity of calls and tiny area actually affected by this, and how- least intrusive means, size of pole to fill small gap which you expertly identified through your very astute questioning). THANK YOU. We are asking now that Verizon carry the burden of proof. They have neglected to show us WHY they cannot accomplish their task with small cells, ie the LEAST intrusive means. I will reiterate what the Ithacans for Responsible Technology have shared regarding the small cells: Fact #1: As Susan Brock has repeatedly pointed out, voice calls are the only applicable standard per our code. 4 Fact #2: Almost all voice calls and texting are done using the low-band frequencies. Fact #3: Low band frequencies (like Verizon’s main low band 700 MHz (Band 13) or even 850 MHz (Band 5/n5) are particularly suited to this gap area as they offer excellent broad/distant coverage as well as the most effective building and foliage penetration (more than mid- or high-band frequencies). Fact #4: Small cells use considerably less energy than a macro tower. Fact #5: Small cells can often use already existing poles. Fact#6: How much mid-range bandwidth Verizon has to use is irrelevant to our situation of remedying a gap. It has been extremely problematic for the residents of the Town of Ithaca to hear the consultant hired by the Planning board change opinions throughout this process (starting with the Planning Board), and I ask this quite seriously: Has the consultant signed a non-compete agreement with the Planning Board solidifying his allegiance to neutrality, the Town of Ithaca’s best interests and the Planning Board for his consultancy? In his initial letters, he was clear that small cells would work, which he reiterated in the Zoning Board meeting. But then he backpedaled in his declaration. First he said they were technically feasible many times, then tried to assert that in practice they might be more complicated. It’s problematic that he declares small cells are feasible in his written documentation then backpedals in our meetings. If it is feasible to use small cells in this situation, they would likely constitute the least intrusive means to fill this gap, and likely mollify most of the community concerns. Another important piece I would like to reiterate from IRT is that: “The Planning Board’s consultant raised the issue that Verizon has no mid-band coverage in the gap areas and that (mid-band) is ‘90% of their usable licensed bandwidth that they can provide to their subscribers; the other 10% is low band...Along Route 79 there's adequate coverage at low band. ...90% of the bandwidth that Verizon has available is not even on the map in this particular gap area....Without something in this gap area, we're going to be dealing with that outdoor marginal kind of coverage that Mr Lusk described in a lot of the target area, and not have the other 90% of the bandwidth for high-speed data and other types of services.’ " Fortunately, Susan Brock reminded all that "We're talking about voice calls only, nothing about other things." Midband is rarely used for phone or text coverage. This investment of mid-band (which primarily utilizes macro towers) is based on Verizon's projections of fixed wireless broadband and other data heavy uses (streaming, gaming, video conferencing, etc). Our concern is that they are utilizing a relatively small gap in phone coverage to justify a macro tower for the companies' larger projected needs. Additionally, and unrelated- we also are aware that according to the FCC’s website about Tower and Antenna siting: it clarifies how it’s obligation under NEPA requires them to follow the Endangered Species Act. Following their link to the iPaC online mapping tool for the Endangered species locator, we see that this site is a home to an endangered species. This potential site will require additional inquiry from the US Fish and Wildlife Service because of its impact on the endangered Northern 5 Long-Eared bat which is an integral part of our local ecosystem and agricultural longevity as they naturally kill predator insects from attacking local food growth on agricultural land. Was this addressed at any point in the process? If not, I wanted to make sure there was an awareness about this requirement in the environmental assessment as I question the comprehensiveness of the Planning Board's address of this. In closing, again I thank you again for your commitment to understanding this decision through a varied, comprehensive lens. I am grateful that you honored the citizens’ voices and gave us the respect we all deserve to share without feeling reproach from the board (unfortunately this is not the case for the public’s recent experiences with the Planning Board - and NOT just with this zoning issue particularly). Thank you for your decorum (which our community also felt was not present at the Planning Board meetings). We are grateful that you reflect our concern with the choice of location and for representing what we truly feel Ithaca is: a place where ecological preservation should be paramount. In closing, we urge you to request that you ask Verizon to follow through on what several of you said earlier in the meeting: showing (having the burden of proof) how a small cell or 2 could remedy the existing gap in voice coverage. So far, all we have heard is claims, not proof. Thank you so much again for your diligence and devotion to Ithacan Values, Caroline Grace Ashurst With Gratitude, Caroline Grace Ashurst, L.Ac., M.Ac. www.carolineashurst.com @restorativeharmony -- The Fertility Formula Functional Fertility Coaching + Restorative Harmony Acupuncture 2022|2020|2019 Philadelphia Family LOVE Award Best Acupuncture in Philadelphia! To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. *******©2024 Restorative Harmony Acupuncture, LLC. All rights reserved. This document is for educational and informational purposes only and solely as a self-help tool for your own use. I am not providing medical, psychological, or nutrition therapy advice. You should not use this information to diagnose or treat any health problems or illnesses without consulting your own medical practitioner. Always seek the advice of your own medical practitioner and/or mental health provider about your specific health situation. For my full Disclaimer, please go to https://www.restorativeharmony.com/legal-disclaimers 1 Lori Kofoid From:Daniel Seib <danielcseib@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, December 5, 2024 5:23 PM To:Town Of Ithaca Clerks Department; Codes Subject:Zoning Board Vote for 111 Wiedmaier Court Verizon Tower Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed **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 Hello again, I'd like to thank you all for your thoughtful questioning of the Verizon lawyers and landmen who are pushing that gigantic cell tower for the Wiedmaier Court location. I want to repeat my objection to it based on the fact that it will look horrible, we don't need it (my Verizon cell service is fine and I live right there on Slaterville Road), it will lower my property's value, and it is not the best option for us, the people who live there. Its the best option for Verizon because it will make them the most money, but we live here and they don't. I really hope that you push them to look into, and hopefully adopt, using low band frequencies and small cells, hopefully on existing poles. The Verizon lawyers will claim it can't be done, but they are just saying that because they want that huge pole to make money on, so rent space to others and make it even more of an eyesore to us, the residents. Please stand strong against them, and stick up for us and the community. Thanks for doing this...I know its a thankless job, but we appreciate you, Daniel Seib 1581 Slaterville Road 1 Lori Kofoid From:Dara Riegel <darariegel@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, December 5, 2024 6:01 PM To:Codes; Town Of Ithaca Clerks Department; Chris Balestra Subject:Wiedmaier Court Cell Phone Tower Project Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed **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 Dear Zoning Board, I was unable to attend the board meeting last Tuesday due to a family commitment but have been in contact with others who attended and said it was a fruitful conversation. Thank you for considering the concerns and issues our neighborhood and community have been expressing about this project. We, like you, deeply question the necessity of having this tower in this specific location, given its proximity to our homes, growing children, and ecological area. According to Verizon's own website (see page here), it certainly seems that small cells would be the most appropriate and least intrusive choice to address the communication needs without disrupting this residential neighborhood in a rural setting and disrupting the natural area. I will also reiterate what the Ithacans for Responsible Technology have shared regarding the small cells: Fact #1: As Susan Brock has repeatedly pointed out, voice calls are the only applicable standard per our code. Fact #2: Almost all voice calls and texting are done using the low-band frequencies. Fact #3: Low band frequencies (like Verizon’s main low band 700 MHz (Band 13) or even 850 MHz (Band 5/n5) are particularly suited to this gap area as they offer excellent broad/distant coverage as well as the most effective building and foliage penetration (more than mid- or high-band frequencies). Fact #4: Small cells use considerably less energy than a macro tower. Fact #5: Small cells can often use already existing poles. Fact#6: How much mid-range bandwidth Verizon has to use is irrelevant to our situation of remedying a gap. I do hope you will ask Verizon to demonstrate (having the burden of proof) how a small cell or 2 could remedy the existing gap in voice coverage. Thank you, Dara Riegel 607-346-6062 107 Wiedmaier Ct, Apt A, Ithaca, NY 1 Lori Kofoid From:Andrew J. Molnar <andrewmolnar11@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, December 6, 2024 1:48 PM To:Codes Cc:Chris Balestra; CJ Randall; Marty Moseley Subject:The important larger context **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 Zoning Board members, Thank you again for your work in working through the proposed cell tower issue. This email is to address the elephant in the room: besides aesthetics and property values, a significant concern of citizens all over the country is how these towers are negatively affecting our health. Literally thousands of peer-reviewed studies have shown harm from this radiation. It is this clear science that convinced almost all of Ithaca's City Council and Town Board members, initially skeptical of our claims, to pass new codes limiting new towers. While the telecoms continue to disseminate misinformation to obfuscate this issue, they have told their shareholders they are indeed open to risk around the health issues (see quotes below). Remember, it is in their absolute financial interest--perhaps even their survival--for this issue to be ignored by the general public. To give you insights on the complexity of this issue--including why, shockingly, local towns cannot officially consider health when citing towers--I ask you to read through my letter below. While you cannot publicly state your opposition to this tower in terms of health, you can certainly keep it in mind as you consider the variance (as did, I believe, the members of the Planning Board who voted to deny the tower). After reading through this material, I think it will become clear why reasonable, educated people around the world are outraged about this issue. ---- Though I've been otherwise healthy for my five decades, I suffer from 'Electro-Magnetic Sensitivity' (EMS), a condition affecting millions of Americans and covered under the American Disabilities Act. Whenever I get near a cell tower or high- powered wifi router (same radiation), I start to get a headache and feel dizzy. Within minutes of me moving away, I fully recover. Before Covid, I was traveling in Europe and saw widespread opposition around the significant expansion of cell towers, often right next to homes. This didn’t hit home until I discovered the attempt to do the same in Ithaca. Ignorant of the issues involved, I spent dozens of hours researching the topic. I was shocked by the massive amount of science - literally thousands of peer-reviewed studies (including a 10-year, $30 million one by the NIH) - showing how pulse-modulated microwave (cell) radiation is harmful to humans, especially children, who are 2-10 times more vulnerable. (For an in-depth explanation of how cell radiation negatively impacts our health, see Berkeley's Joel Moskowitz at https://www.saferemr.com/2024/09/health-hazards-of-wireless-technologies.html.) I was even more alarmed by the fact that it seems to have gone under the radar in national media and does not seem to be being addressed at the national level. The millions of dollars of misinformation and lobbying sponsored by the telecom industry certainly hasn't helped, nor has the FCC who is supposed to represent citizens but instead is 'captured' by the telecom industry, according to experts like the Harvard University Center for Ethics. (Propublica has a great article on how the FCC shields telecom firms from safety concerns.) The massive amount of science showing harm is why the World Health Organization classifies this radiation in the same category of carcinogen as DDT and lead. 2 This science is why countries and regions around the world have taken significant steps to minimize the impacts of wireless radiation. This science is why firefighters across America oppose cell antennas on their facilities. This science is why insurance companies will not cover cell antennas - they deem them too “high risk”. And this science is why CELL TOWER COMPANIES THEMSELVES HAVE WARNED THEIR SHAREHOLDERS OF THE RISK OF LAWSUITS DUE TO THE EFFECTS OF CELL RADIATION! (*quotes below). In fact, an Ecolog Institute Report commissioned by T-Mobile and DeTeMobil Deutsche TelekomMobilNet recommended an exposure limit 1000x lower than the FCC’s current power density limit after reviewing the research on biological effects. New Hampshire is the first state to study the science of this issue in depth. After a year of review, their official Commission recently voted overwhelmingly to raise the red flag on cell antennas, and they recommended that any cell antennas should be at least 1640 feet from homes or schools. From their report: This Commission acknowledges the large body of peer-reviewed research that shows that the type of radiation generated by wireless devices can have a deleterious effect on humans, especially children, as well as animals, insects, and vegetation.....The World Health Organization and the whole insurance industry are hedging their bets against this radiation because of potential harm…A large number of independent scientists have concluded that the thresholds for Japan and the U.S. are unsafe…Why are the FCC exposure limits set for the United States 100 times higher than countries like Russia, China, Italy, and Switzerland?...Why have thousands of peer-reviewed studies showing significant DNA damage, brain and heart tumors, infertility, and many other ailments, been ignored by the FCC?...A likely explanation is that [they] are 'captured'...whose Commission members come from the industry they are overseeing. Particularly interesting is this 1-minute clip from an engineering professor emeritus on the official NH Commission studying this issue. He is an expert in this field and was originally a skeptic of the dangers. And here is a 1-minute clip of an EPA scientist speaking on this. Because of this, I helped lead the effort in both the City and Town of Ithaca to pass new codes limiting unnecessary towers. (The initial skepticism I felt from virtually all Board and Council members evaporated as they each learned about the clear science showing harm.) This fight is happening in towns across the country, all with critical implications for the health of Americans. Despite the changes in codes around the country, telecom companies are still rushing to install literally hundreds of thousands of new cell antennas around the country, sowing the seeds for a massive health crisis unfolding under the radar. Perhaps the most frustrating thing about this issue is the fact that in 1996, the telecom industry lobby inserted a clause into the Telecommunications Act saying that local governments are not allowed to officially consider environmental/health effects regarding siting cell towers. (According to experts, this is because they already knew the research showing this danger and wanted to inoculate themselves against risk. After all, why would they need to do this if they were confident of their safety?) I believe this is one of the most immoral and outrageous laws ever passed in our country, especially since the very stated purpose of most local codes (including Ithaca) is to protect the health and safety of its citizens. The expert attorney who Ithaca hired to write its codes, Andrew Campanelli, has said: The Telecommunications Act [of 1996] not only violates the 10th Amendment by stripping local governments of their power to protect their local citizens, but violates a fundamental right of self-defense under the Constitution, because it prevents individuals from protecting themselves against intrusion into their homes of illegally excessive levels of RF radiation. Given the significant negative impacts of this issue, several lawsuits have been set in motion. In a victory for our cause in 2021, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals (with Ketanji Brown-Jackson as a member) ruled against the FCC, essentially saying their cell radiation guidelines have not addressed the science of harm on this issue (the FCC's outdated guidelines are the most lax in the world, 100 times higher than in countries like Italy, Switzerland, Russia and China!). A good 2-minute clip on this. I and the millions of Americans who suffer from EMS are the living proof of the veracity of the science...the 'canaries in the coal mine' for the significant health challenge this poses to humanity. 3 Six decades ago, we knew the science regarding tobacco's harm. Little was done, and millions died prematurely. Four decades ago, we knew the science of global warming. Nothing was done, and we are now facing the consequences. Let's not make the same mistake with wireless radiation. I hope you will take all this into consideration as you deliberate on this new, dangerous tower in town. I welcome any of you contacting me personally if you would like to have a confidential conversation. Thank you. Andrew J. Molnar Cornell A&S, '94 Illumine Consultants 607-277-9420 *Cell Tower Companies Warn Shareholders of Risk From Cell Tower Radiation: Verizon 10-K Report "Our wireless business also faces personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits relating to alleged health effects of wireless phones or radio frequency transmitters. We may incur significant expenses in defending these lawsuits. In addition, we may be required to pay significant awards or settlements.” Crown Castle 10-K Report "We cannot guarantee that claims relating to radio frequency emissions will not arise in the future or that the results of such studies will not be adverse to us...If a connection between radio frequency emissions and possible negative health effects were established, our operations, costs, or revenues may be materially and adversely affected. We currently do not maintain any significant insurance with respect to these matters.” AT&T 10-K Report "In the wireless area, we also face current and potential litigation relating to alleged adverse health effects on customers or employees who use such technologies including, for example, wireless devices. We may incur significant expenses defending such suits or government charges and may be required to pay amounts or otherwise change our operations in ways that could materially adversely affect our operations or financial results.” T- MOBILE 10-K Report "Our business could be adversely affected by findings of product liability for health or safety risks from wireless devices and transmission equipment, as well as by changes to regulations or radio frequency emission standards Vodaphone 2017 Report ranks EMF as a "Principal Risk with “High” impact “Electro-magnetic signals emitted by mobile devices and base stations may be found to pose health risks, with potential impacts including: changes to national legislation, a reduction in mobile phone usage or litigation.” 1 Lori Kofoid From:Bob Babjak <bobbybabjak@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, December 11, 2024 11:49 AM To:Codes; Town Of Ithaca Planning; Town Of Ithaca Clerks Department Cc:CJ Randall; Chris Balestra; Marty Moseley; Rich Depaolo; Rod Howe Subject:I'm concerned about bias in the 111 Wiedmaier Ct. review process **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 Dear Town Staff and Zoning Board members, I live at 106 Wiedmaier Ct, the house closest to the massively intrusive proposed "Sunny View" PWSF. I have several grave concerns about this project, from the actual existence of a "significant gap" in coverage (for which there is no legal definition or universally accepted determination) to the alarming way it has been handled by Fred Wilcox and the Planning Board. The issue I want to address with this letter, though, is the "independent" RF consultant hired by the Town to evaluate new cell tower applications, William Johnson. In researching Mr. Johnson, I heard from those familiar with his work that he is biased toward the telecom industry (a glance at his LinkedIn page shows that he is fairly embedded within it), but I wanted to give him a chance. Unfortunately, even with the limited technical knowledge I have, it is obvious to me that he is biased in favor of Verizon. I imagine that some of you have also picked up on that. Here are a few examples that I believe call his objectivity into question:  Johnson's initial report contained a number of extraneous and irrelevant one-sided opinions on the specific matter at hand of evaluating Verizon's proposed cell tower. This report was so egregious that the Town lawyer, Susan Brock, requested he resubmit his report after removing all those items (as outlined in an email to Mr. Johnson from Chris Balestra on 10/3/24). One of these topics was his opinion denying any harm cell radiation causes humans, a viewpoint the telecoms have been pushing to save their industry, but clearly outside his purview (and proven wrong by thousands of studies). I know health concerns are not legally allowed to be discussed when considering PWSFs, but denying the very existence of adverse health effects connected to RF radiation exposure is like calling climate change a hoax! At best it's ignorant, at worst it demonstrates a willingness to obscure the facts for the benefit of telecom corporations like Verizon. Either way, it's a bad look for a supposed expert.  In the discussion regarding the new proposed tower, Johnson could have made it clear that the vast majority of voice calls use low band, and these voice calls are the only thing required by law for Ithaca to consider (as set forth by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals: "the ability of wireless telephones to make and receive voice calls to and from landlines that are connected to the national telephone network"). He did not do so, and in fact did the opposite by highlighting in his revised 10/21 preliminary report that Verizon has no mid-band coverage in the gap areas and emphasizing that mid-band is "90% of their usable licensed bandwidth that they can provide to their subscribers; the other 10% is low band....90% of the bandwidth that Verizon has available is not even on the map in this particular gap area....Without something in this gap area, we're going 2 to be dealing with that outdoor marginal kind of coverage that Mr Lusk described in a lot of the target area, and not have the other 90% of the bandwidth for high-speed data and other types of services." All of this is totally irrelevant to the Town's consideration. Fortunately, Susan Brock again reminded everyone, "We're talking about voice calls only, nothing about other things." But, this clearly indicates a biased view in favor of the industry and more misdirection.  In another instance of misdirection/distraction, Johnson goes into a long diatribe about other scenarios in which small cells are often used (all true), but he stops short of saying that they are also used to patch a gap in coverage - the very situation the Board is considering.  In both his written materials and verbal comments, Johnson repeatedly made it clear that small cells are "technically" a feasible alternative to a monopole cell tower (a core question in deciding whether or not they could be the least intrusive means to fill the gap and render an applicant's claim of Effective Prohibition null in the case of denial). In his 10/21 revised preliminary report, Johnson even writes, "Other approaches can include use of multiple shorter support structures, co-location on existing shorter structures, distributed antenna systems, and small-cell installations where visual impact is critical." He then follows up these statements with caveats that they might be less effective, or might require them to submit more applications, or could fail in the case of a catastrophic weather event toppling utility poles (again, not the Town's issue). Toward the end of the Zoning Board meeting, after one of his convoluted explanations, a Board member (incorrectly) surmised that the consultant concluded that small cells would not be technically feasible, and Johnson did not correct him. His silence was curious and again seems to support the idea that he favors Verizon getting the pole they want. I was happy to see that Susan Brock has called this out a few times, and I hope his bias is so obvious that The Board, or at least some of its more discerning/knowledgeable members, have to acknowledge it. However, my concern is that the various Boards and staff are making decisions based on a (in my opinion) misplaced trust that the "independent" consultant is a neutral party. I urge the Town to find a more neutral consultant in the future. The bottom line is this: At the 10/1/24 Planning Board meeting, the Board requested more information on whether the "gap in coverage (can) be achieved with several microcells on telephone poles." In return, they only received a statement from Verizon engineer, Wasif Sharif, stating issues such as terrain, foliage, and coverage area as their reasons why small cells would "fail to achieve the site objectives." Notice how he didn't say they would fail to fill the coverage gap. In fact, throughout this whole process, Verizon has never stated that a small cell strategy would "fail to fill the coverage gap." They only ever use language like "fail to achieve the site objectives," but the issue at hand is not the objectives of their proposed site. As per Town Code 270-219.R(4)., the purpose of the proposed PWSF is to address "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." So while Verizon's objectives may be to utilize the mid-range band frequencies that occupy 90% of their licensed bandwidth, and create a space they can rent out to other carriers in the future (and small cells would not meet those objectives), the Zoning Board's objective is to discern whether the LEAST 3 INTRUSIVE MEANS TO ADDRESS A GAP IN COVERAGE is a monopole that exceeds the allowable height limit by over 100 feet. Verizon has provided copious graphs and charts of colorful propagation plots for towers of various sizes at various locations, but they have steadfastly refused to do the same for co-located small cells strategically placed along the areas with the highest concentration of dropped calls. Verizon needs to be pressed on this matter, as it is THE key point in the entire review process. If small cells can fill the coverage gap, then they would be the least intrusive means to remedy the problem, thus negating the need for a giant monopole and nullifying grounds for an Effective Prohibition declaration. If the Town's "independent" consultant is simply accepting Verizon's evidence-free justification for not using small cells, then he is grossly shirking his duty. Why do we have Verizon provide hard data to support their claims on dropped calls, communication failures, and the coverage propagation of multiple sized towers at multiple sites but then accept their unsupported opinion about the efficacy of small cells? Especially in light of Mr. Johnson's constant flip-flopping on the matter, the Board needs to request, no, demand the same level of data-supported evidence for the coverage of small cells that Verizon provided for everything else. Thank you for your attention to this important matter. Bob Babjak 106 Wiedmaier Ct. 1 Lori Kofoid From:James W Hamilton <jameswaldo@bluefrog.com> Sent:Thursday, December 12, 2024 4:18 PM To:Codes Cc:Lori Kofoid Subject:Shot Clock extension for variance to ZBAA-24-18 Appeal for Verizon "Sunny View" wireless service tower at 111 Wiedmaier Ct Attachments:sunny view aerial map with proposed overlay.jpg Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed Thanks, Marty, for your notice about the requested extension of the shot clock for lawyer Jared Lusk's shady Sunny View deal. I would hope you might take this opportunity to kill the horrible Verizon project at your Monday December 16th meeting! Would the extra weeks allow Verizon to correct the lies they print on their "aerial map with proposed overlay," and perhaps admit that the "existing forested land" never really got reforested after Wiedmaier removed the woods there? Would Verizon ever admit that the "existing tree line" on that aerial map does not, in fact, exist? (I attach this bogus map, from the October 22, 2024 supplemental application materials Verizon sent for their project application.) Would lawyer Lusk ever admit that maybe S. Roberts knows that Wiedmaier is hoping everyone will forget that he was supposed to restore the woods to the conservation zoned lot he ruined? I am sure there are many ways Verizon could improve cell phone coverage in the short stretch of Slaterville Road where some calls are dropped when drivers hit the darkest hillside radio shadows. But a big huge tower that Verizon can use to rent space to other wireless communication providers will be real profitable if they can get away with it. I am not at all sure how a shot clock works. I know it's supposed to be spelled "shot," and not "shock," though for sure I am severely shocked to imagine that the Town of Ithaca could possibly approve of Wiedaier's nefarious plans. He ruined the woods in his Conservation Zoned lot, never managed to remediate the mess, which is not even really "existing meadow/range land" despite Verizon's false representation of that lot at 111 Wiedmaier Ct, and it may now be up to the ZBA to prevent a scofflaw landowner from profiting from such arrogant repudiation of our town's zoning laws. The longer we wait to stop the terrible tower, the more ways that elusive "S Roberts WC Land LLC" may find lawyers to make a mockery of our notion of Conservation Zoning. I include a copy of my 20 November 2024 email to the ZBAA, as it's still relevant to the notion that Conservation means something very different from a Limited Liability Corporation's plan to profit from environmental degradation. Yours sincerely, James Hamilton 1603 Slaterville Rd 2 Ithaca NY 14850-6337 (607) 273-1335 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: please deny variance to ZBAA-24-18 Appeal for Verizon "Sunny View" wireless service tower at 111 Wiedmaier Ct Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2024 23:48:54 -0500 From: "James W Hamilton" <jameswaldo@bluefrog.com> To: lkofoid@townithacany.gov Thanks, Marty Moseley, for inviting my comments on the proposed Verizon Sunny View tower height variance appeal. I received your notice of public hearing in today’s mail. Please do not allow S Roberts WC Land LLC to lease his Conservation Zone property to Verizon for the proposed “Sunny View” 138-foot wireless service tower. The destruction of this wooded land broke both state and town laws when Wiedmaier had the ridge top removed and adjacent hillsides buried under the bulldozed soil. The site plans provided by Verizon falsely claim there is an “EXISTING TREE LINE,” where in fact no trees have survived, and a supposedly “EXISTING FORESTED LAND,” where only a few trees from an incomplete and insufficient forest restoration effort 15 years ago failed dismally to restore the site to woods. In 2008, the Planning Board resolved that “approximately 250 trees” should be planted to remediate Wiedmaier’s criminal destruction. Less than 25 trees have managed to hang on to the very edges of the flattened ridge. I attended the first Planning Board public hearing for the Sunny View project on October 1, 2024, where I heard the lawyer Jared Lusk claim that the current owner of 111 Wiedmaier Ct did not know there was any problem with hilltop removal or the need to restore once-forested land to woods. But S Roberts WC Land LLC shares the same address as Wiedmaier at 1129 Avenida Sevilla #5C, Walnut Creek, CA 94595; the two of them are listed as owners of 4 of the other 5 lots in the subdivision. S Roberts bought the 111 Wiedmaier Ct lot for $1 from Clare George Wiedmaier on December 6, 2021; this was not an arms-length sale, and a lawyer claiming Roberts knows nothing of Wiedmaier’s problems with the site does not convince me this is a good way of avoiding responsibility for an ecological disaster. If Roberts can profit from the horrifically cleared land, now so simply and in its ruin ready-made for a 138 foot tall monopole antenna, in what way is Conservation Zoning, or any kind of zoning for that matter, effectively enforced? If Verizon is serious about leasing a 50’X50’ fenced compound, then the once forested land around it should be restored as woods. It seems Verizon is hoping the Town of Ithaca will forget Planning Board’s Resolution No. 2008 - 013, which called for the remediation of Weidmaier’s hilltop woods removal. But I have owned my home at 1603 Slaterville Rd since 1980, and remember the woods that used to grow on the ridge just south of my property. I remember Weidmaier’s excuses for the laws broken at 111 Wiedmaier Ct: his landscaper misunderstood his plans for the property, the conversion of woods into firewood there did not need a forest management plan, since it was just a landscaping project. Now, 16 years after turning the wooded ridge into a wasteland we should not pretend that a cell phone tower is the proper reward for a fictional “existing forested land” with a fake “existing tree line” around “existing meadow/range land.” These terms on Verizon’s “aerial map with proposed overlay,” a project sheet No. ESC-1 in Verizon’s application material, may be buried under the many pages of minutiae, but they do not stand up to fact checking. Five members of the Town’s Conservation Board visited the “Sunny View” site October 8th last month 3 and found no “forested land” or “tree line” in the areas falsely labeled on Verizon’s planning sheets. The fact is, this lot at 111 Wiedmaier Ct still needs restoration. It does not need to provide a profitable lease to anyone who shares an address with Wiedmaier in Walnut Creek CA. Please require that this neighboring woods in the Sixmile Creek Conservation Zone be restored in fact, where just now it is restored only in fiction. Its proximity to Sixmile Creek, just upstream of the City’s water reservoir, makes its return to woodland ecologically important. Please deny the variance requested in the ZBAA-24-18 Appeal! Wiedmaier did not respect Town Conservation Zoning code; don’t let him (or anyone sharing his address) get relief from Town height limitations. I hope you understand my strong concerns in this matter. If you have any questions, I'd be glad to discuss them further. James Hamilton 1603 Slaterville Rd Ithaca NY (607) 273-1335 1 Lori Kofoid From:Bob Babjak <bobbybabjak@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, December 12, 2024 10:01 PM To:Codes; Town Of Ithaca Planning; Town Of Ithaca Clerks Department Cc:CJ Randall; Chris Balestra; Marty Moseley; Rich Depaolo; Rod Howe Subject:URGENT UPDATE: William Johnson conflict of interest!!! Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged Dear Town Staff and Zoning Members, I need to make a correction to the email I sent yesterday regarding the bias of the Town's "independent" consultant, William Johnson. I unfortunately included a link to the wrong LinkedIn page; it was a similar- looking, but completely different, man named William Johnson who also worked in the telecom industry. I apologize for this error. Here is the correct LinkedIn page, and I'm sorry to say his alleged bias is actually much more disturbing than I thought. If you scroll down to the "Recommendations" section, you will see a glowing review from none other than the applicant's lead counsel, Jared Lusk! (I also included a screenshot of the page attached to this email). He actually closes with, "I recommend him to any municipality..." Oh, I bet he does. Especially to municipalities where he currently has a pending case! This is unacceptable! How does no one from the Town know about their previous relationship? Why did Mr. Johnson not recuse himself from this case? This is an obvious conflict of interest. How can he maintain the basic appearance of independence when the applicant's lawyer is singing his praises on LinkedIn!?! As someone who recently moved to the area and has an outsider’s perspective on local governance, I must say that I’m appalled by what I’ve witnessed. From Fred Wilcox’s patronizing attitude and obvious favoritism toward the applicant to his strong-arm tactics employed on the Planning Board, along with the lack of notice given to nearby residents about this project, the refusal to allow public comments on the day of the vote, and the Planning Board’s inability or unwillingness to require the applicant to provide evidence—not just the opinion of their engineer, but actual data-supported propagation maps as they did for the alternate sites—on the effectiveness of small cells to address the coverage gap, it all raises serious concerns. And now, the independent consultant appears to be in bed with the applicant’s attorney! With all due respect, it looks like a clown show! I am formally requesting that William Johnson be relieved as the independent consultant and replaced with someone who has no prior connection to the applicant's attorney, Jared Lusk; and the Planning Board reopen its evaluation of the 111 Wiedmaier Ct. site plan and demand the applicant produce in-kind RF propagation analysis for multiple small cells deployed on existing utility poles along 79, Burns, and Coddington as they have for alternative tower sites. Once that evidence has been presented to the Board and reviewed by a new and truly independent consultant, then the Board can have a legitimate re-vote on the site plan. 2 I, along the rest of the Town of Ithaca, eagerly await your response to the serious issues brought up in this email. We have put our trust in you to be stewards of this sacred land. Do not let us down. On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 11:49 AM Bob Babjak <bobbybabjak@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Town Staff and Zoning Board members, I live at 106 Wiedmaier Ct, the house closest to the massively intrusive proposed "Sunny View" PWSF. I have several grave concerns about this project, from the actual existence of a "significant gap" in coverage (for which there is no legal definition or universally accepted determination) to the alarming way it has been handled by Fred Wilcox and the Planning Board. The issue I want to address with this letter, though, is the "independent" RF consultant hired by the Town to evaluate new cell tower applications, William Johnson. In researching Mr. Johnson, I heard from those familiar with his work that he is biased toward the telecom industry (a glance at his LinkedIn page shows that he is fairly embedded within it), but I wanted to give him a chance. Unfortunately, even with the limited technical knowledge I have, it is obvious to me that he is biased in favor of Verizon. I imagine that some of you have also picked up on that. Here are a few examples that I believe call his objectivity into question:  Johnson's initial report contained a number of extraneous and irrelevant one-sided opinions on the specific matter at hand of evaluating Verizon's proposed cell tower. This report was so egregious that the Town lawyer, Susan Brock, requested he resubmit his report after removing all those items (as outlined in an email to Mr. Johnson from Chris Balestra on 10/3/24). One of these topics was his opinion denying any harm cell radiation causes humans, a viewpoint the telecoms have been pushing to save their industry, but clearly outside his purview (and proven wrong by thousands of studies). I know health concerns are not legally allowed to be discussed when considering PWSFs, but denying the very existence of adverse health effects connected to RF radiation exposure is like calling climate change a hoax! At best it's ignorant, at worst it demonstrates a willingness to obscure the facts for the benefit of telecom corporations like Verizon. Either way, it's a bad look for a supposed expert.  In the discussion regarding the new proposed tower, Johnson could have made it clear that the vast majority of voice calls use low band, and these voice calls are the only thing required by law for Ithaca to consider (as set forth by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals: "the ability of 3 wireless telephones to make and receive voice calls to and from landlines that are connected to the national telephone network"). He did not do so, and in fact did the opposite by highlighting in his revised 10/21 preliminary report that Verizon has no mid-band coverage in the gap areas and emphasizing that mid-band is "90% of their usable licensed bandwidth that they can provide to their subscribers; the other 10% is low band....90% of the bandwidth that Verizon has available is not even on the map in this particular gap area....Without something in this gap area, we're going to be dealing with that outdoor marginal kind of coverage that Mr Lusk described in a lot of the target area, and not have the other 90% of the bandwidth for high-speed data and other types of services." All of this is totally irrelevant to the Town's consideration. Fortunately, Susan Brock again reminded everyone, "We're talking about voice calls only, nothing about other things." But, this clearly indicates a biased view in favor of the industry and more misdirection.  In another instance of misdirection/distraction, Johnson goes into a long diatribe about other scenarios in which small cells are often used (all true), but he stops short of saying that they are also used to patch a gap in coverage - the very situation the Board is considering.  In both his written materials and verbal comments, Johnson repeatedly made it clear that small cells are "technically" a feasible alternative to a monopole cell tower (a core question in deciding whether or not they could be the least intrusive means to fill the gap and render an applicant's claim of Effective Prohibition null in the case of denial). In his 10/21 revised preliminary report, Johnson even writes, "Other approaches can include use of multiple shorter support structures, co-location on existing shorter structures, distributed antenna systems, and small-cell installations where visual impact is critical." He then follows up these statements with caveats that they might be less effective, or might require them to submit more applications, or could fail in the case of a catastrophic weather event toppling utility poles (again, not the Town's issue). Toward the end of the Zoning Board meeting, after one of his convoluted explanations, a Board member (incorrectly) surmised that the consultant concluded that small cells would not be technically feasible, and Johnson did not correct him. His silence was curious and again seems to support the idea that he favors Verizon getting the pole they want. I was happy to see that Susan Brock has called this out a few times, and I hope his bias is so obvious that The Board, or at least some of its more discerning/knowledgeable members, have to acknowledge it. However, my concern is that the various Boards and staff are making decisions based on a (in my opinion) misplaced trust that the "independent" consultant is a neutral party. I urge the Town to find a more neutral consultant in the future. The bottom line is this: At the 10/1/24 Planning Board meeting, the Board requested more information on whether the "gap in coverage (can) be achieved with several microcells on telephone poles." In return, they only received a statement from Verizon engineer, Wasif Sharif, stating issues such as terrain, foliage, and coverage area as their reasons why small cells would "fail to achieve the site objectives." Notice how he didn't say they would fail to fill the coverage gap. In fact, throughout this whole process, Verizon has never stated that a small cell strategy would "fail to fill the coverage gap." They only ever use language like "fail to achieve the site objectives," but the issue at hand is not the objectives of their proposed site. As per Town Code 270-219.R(4)., the purpose of the proposed PWSF is to address "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 4 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." So while Verizon's objectives may be to utilize the mid-range band frequencies that occupy 90% of their licensed bandwidth, and create a space they can rent out to other carriers in the future (and small cells would not meet those objectives), the Zoning Board's objective is to discern whether the LEAST INTRUSIVE MEANS TO ADDRESS A GAP IN COVERAGE is a monopole that exceeds the allowable height limit by over 100 feet. Verizon has provided copious graphs and charts of colorful propagation plots for towers of various sizes at various locations, but they have steadfastly refused to do the same for co-located small cells strategically placed along the areas with the highest concentration of dropped calls. Verizon needs to be pressed on this matter, as it is THE key point in the entire review process. If small cells can fill the coverage gap, then they would be the least intrusive means to remedy the problem, thus negating the need for a giant monopole and nullifying grounds for an Effective Prohibition declaration. If the Town's "independent" consultant is simply accepting Verizon's evidence-free justification for not using small cells, then he is grossly shirking his duty. Why do we have Verizon provide hard data to support their claims on dropped calls, communication failures, and the coverage propagation of multiple sized towers at multiple sites but then accept their unsupported opinion about the efficacy of small cells? Especially in light of Mr. Johnson's constant flip-flopping on the matter, the Board needs to request, no, demand the same level of data-supported evidence for the coverage of small cells that Verizon provided for everything else. Thank you for your attention to this important matter. Bob Babjak 106 Wiedmaier Ct. 1 Lori Kofoid From:Diane Allyn Florini <diflorini@hotmail.com> Sent:Friday, December 13, 2024 11:51 PM To:Codes Subject:Wiedmaier Court Cell Phone tower Attachments:Wiedmaier tower comments 12-13-24.rtf **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 Dear Director Moseley, Attached, please find some comments pertaining to the proposed Verizon tower at 111 Wiedmaier Court. Please share with the Zoning Board. Thanks for your attention to this matter, Diane Florini 1603 Slaterville Road Dear Director Moseley and Planning Board members, December 13, 2024 At the Zoning Board hearing of 26 November 2024, I appreciated the thoughtful opinions and questions of Zoning Board members as they examined Verizon's request for a height variance for a cell tower at 111 Wiedmaier Court. Thank you. Could you please ask Verizon more questions before your next meeting with their representative? Consultant Johnson wrote that wireless companies develop plans for the build-out of their networks on a 3-year schedule. Has Verizon given the Town its plans for covering other areas of the Town as is required when filing paperwork for a particular site? For example, it looks like the Snyder Hill area has no coverage at all. Would a tower on Snyder Hill help cover some of the gaps Verizon wishes to address? Before the next meeting with Verizon's representatives, Zoning Board members need more information from Verizon concerning the "least intrusive means of addressing a significant gap in the applicant's personal wireless services." Verizon has submitted neither sufficient "evidence showing that the applicant considered other sites and other means of addressing the gaps, and evidence showing the feasibility of addressing the gaps through the use of other sites and other means" nor sufficient "evidence that the facility presents a minimal intrusion on the community." Does the facility present a minimal intrusion on the community? No. It is not minimal. Reason 1 Exhibit G from 11-13-2023 submission - VZW Sunny View 111 Wiedmaier Ct- Initial Application to Town of Ithaca mistakenly intimates that the tower will be minimally intrusive when it answers the question: Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or be a detriment to nearby properties? And replies: "The proposed location of the Site is set back from the public rights of way and residential neighborhoods and will result in minimal to no visual obstruction to the neighborhood." IN REALITY, THE TOWER WILL BE THE FOCAL POINT IN AN UNPOPULATED NATURAL VALLEY IN A CONSERVATION ZONE. IT WILL BE IN THE BACK YARDS OF THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD CALLED WIEDMAIER COURT AND VISIBLE FROM THE BACK AND FRONT YARDS OF MANY HOMES ALONG SLATERVILLE ROAD. HOW CAN THAT NOT BE CONSIDERED A VISUAL OBSTRUCTION—WHICH IS NOT A MINIMAL INTRUSION? A tower at 111 Wiedmaier Court will NOT be a minimal intrusion on the community. Reason 2 Article V. Conservation Zones (https://ecode360.com/8661513#8661581) § 270-22 Additional requirements and restrictions says: F. Scenic views, in particular those with viewing points from adjacent roads (and, in the case of the Conservation Zone along Six Mile Creek, from Six Mile Creek and the gorge) should be preserved using practices such as the following: • Buildings should be sited below the crest or ridgeline of hills to preserve a natural topographic and vegetative profile. EXHIBIT Q (Photosimulation Report) in 11-13-2023 submission - VZW Sunny View 111 Wiedmaier Ct- Initial Application to Town of Ithaca SHOWS A RED BALL INDICATING THE TOP OF THE TOWER FAR ABOVE THE NATURAL TOPOGRAPHIC PROFILE AS SEEN FROM HOUSES IN WIEDMAIER COURT AND BURNS WAY. • Buildings proposed to be located within significant viewing areas should be screened and landscaped to minimize their intrusion on the character of the area. THIS WILL BE DIFFICULT BECAUSE OF THE HEIGHT OF THE TOWER. TREE PLANTINGS SUGGESTED BY THE PLANNING BOARD WILL TAKE YEARS TO GROW. • Where possible, buildings and structures should be located on the edges of open fields and in wooded areas to minimize visual impacts. NOT PRACTICAL AS THE EDGES OF THE SITE SLOPE DOWNWARDS. • Visibility of proposed buildings or structures from public trails within Conservation Zones should be considered so as to minimize visual intrusion on views from the public trails. A GOOD REQUIREMENT--RESIDENTS SHOULD HAVE THE SAME CONSIDERATION. Verizon's proposed tower at Wiedmaier Court satisfies none of the Conservation Zone requirements intended to minimize the ruin of a natural topographic and vegetative profile. Reason 3 Zoning section 270-219 regarding Personal wireless service facilities [Amended 5-9-2005 by L.L. No. 5-2005; 5-12-2014 by L.L. No. 9-2014; 6-26-2023 by L.L. No. 12-2023] (https://ecode360.com/8662692#8662691) says: J. Visual impact analysis. Each application shall include a visual impact analysis that contains an assessment of the proposed facility's visual impact on abutting properties and streets, taking into consideration any PWSF structure that is to be constructed, as well as the rest of the facility. The visual impact analysis shall, at a minimum, include the following for Personal wireless service facilities which do not meet the definition of a small wireless facility: (a) A visibility map to determine locations from where the facility will be seen. ONLY DONE FROM ROADS, NOT BACKYARDS OF NEIGHBORS. (b) Line-of-sight drawings. WHERE ARE THESE? (c) Detailed elevation maps. WAS DONE FOR THE WIEDMAIER COURT SITE. WHAT ABOUT FOR THE BEST TWO ALTERNATE SITES? (d) Visual simulations, including photographic images, depicting the height at which the proposed facility shall stand when completed, taken from the perspectives of the public right-of-way, and of any properties situated in closest proximity to the location being proposed for the facility siting. Photos should also be taken from the perspectives of any properties that would reasonably be expected to sustain significant adverse aesthetic impacts due to their elevation relative to the site, or due to the facility location and the property location. ONLY DONE FROM ROADS, NOT BACKYARDS OF NEIGHBORS. NEED TO DO THIS FOR THE BEST FEW ALTERNATE SITES. (e) Before-and-after renderings. DONE FOR A FEW PHOTOS BUT NOT THE WIEDMAIER PHOTO. Some of these evaluations of Visual Impact were done, but visual evaluations should also be done for the most promising alternative sites. We in the neighborhood will still see the tower if it is located on property north of Slaterville Road; however, it won't be close to eye level as it is in the backyards of homes along Slaterville Road and Wiedmaier Court. How the Planning Board could have concluded that a cell tower in a barren landscape would not inflict a significant adverse aesthetic impact on these properties is incomprehensible. The Planning Board wisely recommended "additional plantings of native trees located closer on the site to the closest-affected residences" (which IS possible since the "no-disturbance zone" is supposed to have been reforested!). Unfortunately, such trees will barely obscure the bottom of the tower even if they grow reasonably quickly. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Exhibit G from 11-13-2023 submission - VZW Sunny View 111 Wiedmaier Ct- Initial Application to Town of Ithaca asks: Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by a feasible alternative to the variance? Suggestion 1 HOW ABOUT PUTTING THE TOWER ON THE HILLSIDE TO THE NORTH OF SLATERVILLE ROAD? ACCORDING TO WASIF SHARIF OF VERIZON, THE TOWER NEEDS TO BE HIGH. "...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..." PB Packet 2024-11-19, pages 56–83 (Exhibits KK and LL) show alternative sites and their low-band Rf plots. Gary Foote's parcel 4 (called 2 in PB Packet 2024-10-29) showed a very extensive lowband footprint which covered many areas not covered in other Rf maps provided by Verizon. If the tower site were moved to an open field closer to the east of the property, the Rf signal might be as good as Verizon needs it to be with significantly less intrusion than a tower in Wiedmaier Court. The neighbors along Route 79 already have trees in their back yards which would mask the tower base. It is, however, hard to judge whether the Foote property or others would be a reasonable alternative to the Wiedmaier site because Verizon did not provide mid-band footprints for the alternate sites. Additionally, landmarks allowing comparison of various maps (such as the MAP - RF Report from Sept 25, 2024 showing the Supplemental – Height Justification Mid-Band Coverage(AWS/PCS/C-Band) are not clear enough to permit comparisons. On the Supplemental – Height Justification Mid-Band Coverage(AWS/PCS/C-Band) page showing four maps comparing Rf plots for different tower heights, many areas show NO coverage at all. On South Hill, parts of King Road and the Chase Lane neighborhood have poor coverage. Too bad we can’t really tell if we are looking at Chase Lane. It is hard to compare these mid-band maps to the Rf maps for alternative sites because: 1) the Rf band depicted is not the same, 2) the area covered is not the same, and 3) the landmarks or roads that are distinct enough to permit comparisons are almost impossible to see. Suggestion 2 HOW ABOUT GETTING SIMILAR Rf PLOTS FOR STRATEGICALLY PLACED SMALL CELLS? Hard evidence is what you need to see. For the two best alternative tower locations and for strategically placed small cells, please ask Verizon for Rf plots in all bands that can be OVERLAID on the plots from Wiedmaier Court. Last but not least, Zoning section 270-219 regarding Personal wireless service facilities [Amended 5-9-2005 by L.L. No. 5-2005; 5-12-2014 by L.L. No. 9-2014; 6-26-2023 by L.L. No. 12-2023] (https://ecode360.com/8662692#8662691) explains conditions in which a cell tower height may be increased without Verizon or a co-locator returning to the Planning Board. Site plan and special permit approvals are not needed if the tower height is increased by less than 15% (20.1 ft. for a 134-foot tower) or adds only a few antennas or a microwave dish. Please keep this in mind as you are evaluating Verizon's request for a height variance. 1 Lori Kofoid From:Susan H. Brock <brock@clarityconnect.com> Sent:Monday, December 16, 2024 11:29 AM To:Lori Kofoid; Marty Moseley Subject:FW: URGENT UPDATE: William Johnson conflict of interest!!! Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged **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 Bill Johnson’s response should go in the ZBA packets (along with the resident’s two prior emails on the topic). Just checking to make sure the packet is updated with these messages. Susan Susan H. Brock, Attorney at Law 12 Pheasant Way Ithaca, NY 14850 tel.: 607-277-3995 fax: 607-277-8042 brock@clarityconnect.com ******************************************************************** This electronic transmission contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the person(s) named. Any use, distribution, copying or disclosure by any other person is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone at (607) 277-3995 (collect) or send an electronic mail message to brock@clarityconnect.com. In addition, please delete all copies of this message from your computer. ******************************************************************** From: William P Johnson [mailto:bill@williampjohnson.com] Sent: Friday, December 13, 2024 12:14 PM To: 'CJ Randall' <cjrandall@townithacany.gov>; 'Susan Brock' <brock@clarityconnect.com> Cc: 'Marty Moseley' <MMoseley@townithacany.gov> Subject: RE: URGENT UPDATE: William Johnson conflict of interest!!! CJ, I hope all involved with carefully consider that a professional recommendation from other professionals, arguably an adversary, on LinkedIn or any other publicly accessible platform does not constitute a conflict of interest. True conflicts of interest, rather than mere inuendo and disagreement with inconvenient opinions, involve an unmanaged and compromised objectivity that facilitate inappropriate actions. As one of many possible sources of information on the subject, the Defense Acquisition University, DAU, provides training on identification of conflicts of interest to DoD personnel involved with financial responsibilities within the 2 agency. DAU frames the issue with three categories taken from the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) in FAR Part 3 (Improper Business Practices and Personal Conflicts of Interest). The categories are (i) Unequal access to information; (ii) Impaired objectivity; (iii) Biased ground rules. Unequal access to information. The information supplied by Verizon Wireless is sent to the town, and that information is posted to the town’s web site. There is no access we have to other information. That information is interpreted in light of engineering principles as to it shows and whether Verizon Wireless’ statements are accurate with respect to that information. Our reports are intended to vet that information. Impaired objectivity. The materials provided by Verizon Wireless were reviewed and explained in light of the engineering principles regarding wireless communication facilities. Just because a professional agrees with another professional’s opinion does not constitute a conflict of interest. Especially in the context of engineering review, if the conclusions do not match the facts then it is not difficult to point out error using sound analysis. Beyond the facts, it may surprise the lay person that engineering is not a “True or False” proposition. Engineering involves significant trade-offs between conflicting goals of operational efficiency, reliability, and cost of deployment. Engineers can disagree on the use of the facts in light of those and other objectives. Professional agreement does not mean there is a conflict of interest. Naturally, in the present case, the town boards are free to accept or reject any of the statements in our reports or our public testimony when taken in context. We stand by those statements nonetheless in light of our knowledge and experience with wireless communication facilities and the issues surrounding deployment in the last several decades. Biased ground rules. Our work does not involve establishment of ground rules – those are developed by the town’s zoning laws and procedures, published, and applied by the appointed boards under advice from their legal counsel. I hope those concerned will scrutinize my reports that show a different picture than selectively framed in the Babjak email. For example, until Attorney Brock clarified the “preferred frequency” meaning, if taken at face value our conclusion would have been on the face cause to deny the permits. Hardly what one would expect would happen in an actual conflict of interest. There are other examples as well. Verizon made statements to the effect that an area cannot be serviced by shorter towers or small-cells. I volunteered a contrary opinion to the planning board that, indeed, an area can be serviced in such a way but that there are technical and operational engineering limitations under present technology and regulatory constraints. I explained in some detail that the total equipment inventory for a multi-band cell site cannot be installed in a package that will fit the size required for a small-cell deployment. Small cells will not have the backup power capability of a macro site. Small-cells have limited RF coverage capability. Infrastructure connecting the small-cells on utility poles are subject to disruption by trees falling through lines, road accidents that take out utility poles, ice damage on the lines, and a host of other possibilities. Yes, small-cells can be used but there are compromises that may also have legal implications. I offer my humble opinion that it was actually not necessary for me to annunciate the information at the public hearings that it is indeed possible to use small-cells and shorter macro sites to provide RF coverage and capacity and, doing so, was contrary to Verizon Wireless’ goal to deploy a single-site solution. Again, not what one would expect if an actual conflict of interest existed These are just some examples. Ultimately, the final decision given the competing goals within the present application are under the final authority of the planning board and ZBA. In summary, I am trying to help the town staff and boards vet the technical information provided by Verizon Wireless to facilitate planning board and ZBA decisions regarding their permits and variance applications. While the materials can stand alone to speak to the engineering issues, the complexity of interpretations and jargon often elude very smart people who do not immediately understand the engineering issues. If engineering findings in our reports or public testimony are perceived to be inaccurate or misleading, we would welcome the opportunity to discuss them – especially in light of the recent email arguing a conflict of interest exists. Naturally an accusation of duplicitous actions is professionally offensive. The fact that people in the telecom industry know me and choose to voluntarily recommend me based on character, knowledge, and professional background is not a conflict of interest. It is an honor to be so recognized by my professional adversaries, who are also professional 3 whom I generally respect. It is also telling that an arguably professional adversary would risk their own professional reputation with a recommendation to an unqualified and duplicitous connection. Thank you for your time. Respectfully, Bill William P Johnson Independent Radio-frequency Engineering Consultant and Professor Emeritus | Rochester Institute of Technology PO Box 20263, Rochester, NY 14602-0263 Voice/Text: (585) 201-8744 Email: Bill@WilliamPJohnson.com Do not send any confidential information by any means without making prior arrangements. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The preceding e-mail message and attachments contain information that is confidential and may be protected by the attorney/client or other applicable privileges. The information is intended to be conveyed only to the intended recipient(s) of the message. If you believe that you are not an intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender immediately by reply to this email. Unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this message by other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. From: CJ Randall <cjrandall@townithacany.gov> Sent: Friday, December 13, 2024 9:19 AM To: Susan Brock <brock@clarityconnect.com>; William P Johnson <bill@williampjohnson.com> Cc: Marty Moseley <MMoseley@townithacany.gov> Subject: Fw: URGENT UPDATE: William Johnson conflict of interest!!! FYI From: Bob Babjak <bobbybabjak@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2024 10:01 PM To: Codes <codes@townithacany.gov>; Town Of Ithaca Planning <planning@townithacany.gov>; Town Of Ithaca Clerks Department <clerks@townithacany.gov> Cc: CJ Randall <cjrandall@townithacany.gov>; Chris Balestra <CBalestra@townithacany.gov>; Marty Moseley <MMoseley@townithacany.gov>; Rich Depaolo <rdepaolo@townithacany.gov>; Rod Howe <RHowe@townithacany.gov> Subject: URGENT UPDATE: William Johnson conflict of interest!!! Dear Town Staff and Zoning Members, I need to make a correction to the email I sent yesterday regarding the bias of the Town's "independent" consultant, William Johnson. I unfortunately included a link to the wrong LinkedIn page; it was a similar- looking, but completely different, man named William Johnson who also worked in the telecom industry. I apologize for this error. 4 Here is the correct LinkedIn page, and I'm sorry to say his alleged bias is actually much more disturbing than I thought. If you scroll down to the "Recommendations" section, you will see a glowing review from none other than the applicant's lead counsel, Jared Lusk! (I also included a screenshot of the page attached to this email). He actually closes with, "I recommend him to any municipality..." Oh, I bet he does. Especially to municipalities where he currently has a pending case! This is unacceptable! How does no one from the Town know about their previous relationship? Why did Mr. Johnson not recuse himself from this case? This is an obvious conflict of interest. How can he maintain the basic appearance of independence when the applicant's lawyer is singing his praises on LinkedIn!?! As someone who recently moved to the area and has an outsider’s perspective on local governance, I must say that I’m appalled by what I’ve witnessed. From Fred Wilcox’s patronizing attitude and obvious favoritism toward the applicant to his strong-arm tactics employed on the Planning Board, along with the lack of notice given to nearby residents about this project, the refusal to allow public comments on the day of the vote, and the Planning Board’s inability or unwillingness to require the applicant to provide evidence—not just the opinion of their engineer, but actual data-supported propagation maps as they did for the alternate sites—on the effectiveness of small cells to address the coverage gap, it all raises serious concerns. And now, the independent consultant appears to be in bed with the applicant’s attorney! With all due respect, it looks like a clown show! I am formally requesting that William Johnson be relieved as the independent consultant and replaced with someone who has no prior connection to the applicant's attorney, Jared Lusk; and the Planning Board reopen its evaluation of the 111 Wiedmaier Ct. site plan and demand the applicant produce in-kind RF propagation analysis for multiple small cells deployed on existing utility poles along 79, Burns, and Coddington as they have for alternative tower sites. Once that evidence has been presented to the Board and reviewed by a new and truly independent consultant, then the Board can have a legitimate re-vote on the site plan. I, along the rest of the Town of Ithaca, eagerly await your response to the serious issues brought up in this email. We have put our trust in you to be stewards of this sacred land. Do not let us down. On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 11:49 AM Bob Babjak <bobbybabjak@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Town Staff and Zoning Board members, 5 I live at 106 Wiedmaier Ct, the house closest to the massively intrusive proposed "Sunny View" PWSF. I have several grave concerns about this project, from the actual existence of a "significant gap" in coverage (for which there is no legal definition or universally accepted determination) to the alarming way it has been handled by Fred Wilcox and the Planning Board. The issue I want to address with this letter, though, is the "independent" RF consultant hired by the Town to evaluate new cell tower applications, William Johnson. In researching Mr. Johnson, I heard from those familiar with his work that he is biased toward the telecom industry (a glance at his LinkedIn page shows that he is fairly embedded within it), but I wanted to give him a chance. Unfortunately, even with the limited technical knowledge I have, it is obvious to me that he is biased in favor of Verizon. I imagine that some of you have also picked up on that. Here are a few examples that I believe call his objectivity into question:  Johnson's initial report contained a number of extraneous and irrelevant one-sided opinions on the specific matter at hand of evaluating Verizon's proposed cell tower. This report was so egregious that the Town lawyer, Susan Brock, requested he resubmit his report after removing all those items (as outlined in an email to Mr. Johnson from Chris Balestra on 10/3/24). One of these topics was his opinion denying any harm cell radiation causes humans, a viewpoint the telecoms have been pushing to save their industry, but clearly outside his purview (and proven wrong by thousands of studies). I know health concerns are not legally allowed to be discussed when considering PWSFs, but denying the very existence of adverse health effects connected to RF radiation exposure is like calling climate change a hoax! At best it's ignorant, at worst it demonstrates a willingness to obscure the facts for the benefit of telecom corporations like Verizon. Either way, it's a bad look for a supposed expert.  In the discussion regarding the new proposed tower, Johnson could have made it clear that the vast majority of voice calls use low band, and these voice calls are the only thing required by law for Ithaca to consider (as set forth by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals: "the ability of wireless telephones to make and receive voice calls to and from landlines that are connected to the national telephone network"). He did not do so, and in fact did the opposite by highlighting in his revised 10/21 preliminary report that Verizon has no mid-band coverage in the gap areas and emphasizing that mid-band is "90% of their usable licensed bandwidth that they can provide to their subscribers; the other 10% is low band....90% of the bandwidth that Verizon has available is not even on the map in this particular gap area....Without something in this gap area, we're going to be dealing with that outdoor marginal kind of coverage that Mr Lusk described in a lot of the target area, and not have the other 90% of the bandwidth for high-speed data and other types of services." All of this is totally irrelevant to the Town's consideration. Fortunately, Susan Brock again reminded everyone, "We're talking about voice calls only, nothing about other things." But, this clearly indicates a biased view in favor of the industry and more misdirection.  In another instance of misdirection/distraction, Johnson goes into a long diatribe about other scenarios in which small cells are often used (all true), but he stops short of saying that they are also used to patch a gap in coverage - the very situation the Board is considering.  In both his written materials and verbal comments, Johnson repeatedly made it clear that small cells are "technically" a feasible alternative to a monopole cell tower (a core question in deciding 6 whether or not they could be the least intrusive means to fill the gap and render an applicant's claim of Effective Prohibition null in the case of denial). In his 10/21 revised preliminary report, Johnson even writes, "Other approaches can include use of multiple shorter support structures, co-location on existing shorter structures, distributed antenna systems, and small-cell installations where visual impact is critical." He then follows up these statements with caveats that they might be less effective, or might require them to submit more applications, or could fail in the case of a catastrophic weather event toppling utility poles (again, not the Town's issue). Toward the end of the Zoning Board meeting, after one of his convoluted explanations, a Board member (incorrectly) surmised that the consultant concluded that small cells would not be technically feasible, and Johnson did not correct him. His silence was curious and again seems to support the idea that he favors Verizon getting the pole they want. I was happy to see that Susan Brock has called this out a few times, and I hope his bias is so obvious that The Board, or at least some of its more discerning/knowledgeable members, have to acknowledge it. However, my concern is that the various Boards and staff are making decisions based on a (in my opinion) misplaced trust that the "independent" consultant is a neutral party. I urge the Town to find a more neutral consultant in the future. The bottom line is this: At the 10/1/24 Planning Board meeting, the Board requested more information on whether the "gap in coverage (can) be achieved with several microcells on telephone poles." In return, they only received a statement from Verizon engineer, Wasif Sharif, stating issues such as terrain, foliage, and coverage area as their reasons why small cells would "fail to achieve the site objectives." Notice how he didn't say they would fail to fill the coverage gap. In fact, throughout this whole process, Verizon has never stated that a small cell strategy would "fail to fill the coverage gap." They only ever use language like "fail to achieve the site objectives," but the issue at hand is not the objectives of their proposed site. As per Town Code 270-219.R(4)., the purpose of the proposed PWSF is to address "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." So while Verizon's objectives may be to utilize the mid-range band frequencies that occupy 90% of their licensed bandwidth, and create a space they can rent out to other carriers in the future (and small cells would not meet those objectives), the Zoning Board's objective is to discern whether the LEAST INTRUSIVE MEANS TO ADDRESS A GAP IN COVERAGE is a monopole that exceeds the allowable height limit by over 100 feet. Verizon has provided copious graphs and charts of colorful propagation plots for towers of various sizes at various locations, but they have steadfastly refused to do the same for co-located small cells strategically placed along the areas with the highest concentration of dropped calls. Verizon needs to be pressed on this matter, as it is THE key point in the entire review process. If small cells can fill the coverage gap, then they would be the least intrusive means to remedy the problem, thus negating the need for a giant monopole and nullifying grounds for an Effective Prohibition declaration. 7 If the Town's "independent" consultant is simply accepting Verizon's evidence-free justification for not using small cells, then he is grossly shirking his duty. Why do we have Verizon provide hard data to support their claims on dropped calls, communication failures, and the coverage propagation of multiple sized towers at multiple sites but then accept their unsupported opinion about the efficacy of small cells? Especially in light of Mr. Johnson's constant flip-flopping on the matter, the Board needs to request, no, demand the same level of data-supported evidence for the coverage of small cells that Verizon provided for everything else. Thank you for your attention to this important matter. Bob Babjak 106 Wiedmaier Ct. 1 Lori Kofoid From:Daniel Seib <danielcseib@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, December 16, 2024 12:59 PM To:Codes Subject:Verizon tower at 111 Wiedmaier Ct Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged **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 Dear Zoning Board Members, I am writing in regards to the public meeting planned to address Verizon's appeal to the Zoning Board for their requested height variance for their cell phone tower. I have written many of these letters at this point, so I'm sure you get the idea of my, and many of my neighbors', objections to this project. This tower will be an eyesore, and no amount of landscaping will hide it, it will lower property values of surrounding homes, and this tower is not the least intrusive means of getting this cell coverage. I appreciate the Zoning Boards' questions to the Verizon lawyer in the last public meeting and I am heartened that your members asked for additional information from Verizon. I hope they provide that information, and I hope that the Board not only carefully evaluates what Verizon provides, but also ask for more information. There is no rush on this project, and any sense of false urgency on Verizon's part is most likely a ploy to rush this process. I hope ultimately that this project looks for an alternative site, as the proposed Wiedmaier Court site would be an eyesore which will dramatically affect the character of the neighborhood. It is my understanding that parcels to the north of Slaterville Road are available, and at higher elevations, but Verizon doesn't want those. Parcels on the north side of Slaterville Road would have less of an impact on the landscape. Smaller towers or towers on existing telephone poles would also be a better alternative. Verizon doesn't seem to want those, possibly because they have intentions of renting space on their giant pole they want to force onto the Wiedmaier Ct. parcel. If they are allowed to build there, they will most likely raise the pole height, with no need for consultation with local agencies, and definitely without input from us residents of the area. It sounds like there are many other alternatives to this massive tower that Verizon is pushing, but they don't want to do them because it doesn't maximize their profits. But we live here, and we are the ones who will be left with the ruin to our landscape while they make money off us. Please don't let this happen. We are not opposed to have this cell coverage, but we shouldn't have to sacrifice the beauty of our town and our neighborhood because of Verizon's strong arm tactics. Please use our laws for the benefit of the people of Ithaca, and not for corporate profits. Thanks you, Daniel Seib and family (and neighbors) 1581 Slaterville Road 1 Lori Kofoid From:CJ Randall <cjrandall@townithacany.gov> Sent:Monday, December 16, 2024 3:06 PM To:Marty Moseley; Codes Cc:Susan Brock Subject:Fw: URGENT UPDATE: William Johnson conflict of interest!!! FYI From: Bob Babjak <bobbybabjak@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 16, 2024 3:01 PM To: CJ Randall <cjrandall@townithacany.gov> Cc: Town Of Ithaca Planning <planning@townithacany.gov>; Town Of Ithaca Clerks Department <clerks@townithacany.gov> Subject: Re: URGENT UPDATE: William Johnson conflict of interest!!! Hello C.J., I was hoping to get a response from someone on the Town staff in regards to my email concerning the perceived bias of independent consultant William Johnson. There are grave concerns from many in the community about his slippery analysis; i.e. vacillating on the feasibility of small cells and whether a "significant gap" in coverage actually exists, and his ties to Verizon lead counsel Jared Lusk. I'm sure I don't need to tell you that in 2024, perception is reality. Especially in politics. The confidence and trust of the American people in our government is at its lowest point since the Pentagon Papers were released. Local government is one of the last institutions where citizens feel like their voices can be heard. If a large collection of residents believe that the Town has ceded independent review of building applications to the applicants themselves, then corrective measures need to be taken immediately. I am not alone here. I know there are many other people who feel the same way as me, several of whom have probably written to you as well. All we want is to have faith that the application process is conducted fairly, and that sense of faith is lacking right now. C.J., does the Town plan on reviewing William Johnson's continuing involvement in the 111 Wiedmaier Ct. tower proposal process? Will the repeated requests for Verizon to submit actual proof, not just the opinion of their engineer, but actual data regarding the efficacy of small cells housed on existing utility poles within the coverage zone be granted and pursued? Since the Zoning Board is pushing a decision on this back to the Jan. 28th meeting, you have ample time to address these issues. I appreciate all the hard work that the various Boards and Town staff have to do. Thank you for taking the time to hear my concerns, which echo the concerns of every neighbor and concerned citizen of Ithaca with whom I have discussed this matter. I'll see you at the Zoning Board meeting tonight. Thank you, Bob Babjak 2 On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 1:21 PM CJ Randall <cjrandall@townithacany.gov> wrote: Hi Bob, I received your voicemail — thanks for your inquiry. How can I be of assistance? C.J. C.J. Randall, LEED AP ND Director of Planning Town of Ithaca 215 N Tioga St Ithaca, NY 14850-4357 607-273-1721 x120 cjrandall@townithacany.gov The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. From: Bob Babjak <bobbybabjak@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2024 10:01 PM To: Codes <codes@townithacany.gov>; Town Of Ithaca Planning <planning@townithacany.gov>; Town Of Ithaca Clerks Department <clerks@townithacany.gov> Cc: CJ Randall <cjrandall@townithacany.gov>; Chris Balestra <CBalestra@townithacany.gov>; Marty Moseley <MMoseley@townithacany.gov>; Rich Depaolo <rdepaolo@townithacany.gov>; Rod Howe <RHowe@townithacany.gov> Subject: URGENT UPDATE: William Johnson conflict of interest!!! Dear Town Staff and Zoning Members, I need to make a correction to the email I sent yesterday regarding the bias of the Town's "independent" consultant, William Johnson. I unfortunately included a link to the wrong LinkedIn page; it was a similar- looking, but completely different, man named William Johnson who also worked in the telecom industry. I apologize for this error. Here is the correct LinkedIn page, and I'm sorry to say his alleged bias is actually much more disturbing than I thought. If you scroll down to the "Recommendations" section, you will see a glowing review from none other than the applicant's lead counsel, Jared Lusk! (I also included a screenshot of the page attached to this email). He actually closes with, "I recommend him to any municipality..." Oh, I bet he does. Especially to municipalities where he currently has a pending case! This is unacceptable! How does no one from the Town know about their previous relationship? Why did Mr. Johnson not recuse himself from this case? This is an obvious conflict of interest. How can he maintain the basic appearance of independence when the applicant's lawyer is singing his praises on LinkedIn!?! As someone who recently moved to the area and has an outsider’s perspective on local governance, I must say that I’m appalled by what I’ve witnessed. From Fred Wilcox’s patronizing attitude and obvious favoritism toward the applicant to his strong-arm tactics employed on the Planning Board, along with the lack of notice given to nearby residents about this project, the refusal to allow public comments on the day of the vote, and the Planning Board’s inability or unwillingness to require the applicant to provide evidence—not just the opinion of their engineer, but actual data-supported 3 propagation maps as they did for the alternate sites—on the effectiveness of small cells to address the coverage gap, it all raises serious concerns. And now, the independent consultant appears to be in bed with the applicant’s attorney! With all due respect, it looks like a clown show! I am formally requesting that William Johnson be relieved as the independent consultant and replaced with someone who has no prior connection to the applicant's attorney, Jared Lusk; and the Planning Board reopen its evaluation of the 111 Wiedmaier Ct. site plan and demand the applicant produce in-kind RF propagation analysis for multiple small cells deployed on existing utility poles along 79, Burns, and Coddington as they have for alternative tower sites. Once that evidence has been presented to the Board and reviewed by a new and truly independent consultant, then the Board can have a legitimate re-vote on the site plan. I, along the rest of the Town of Ithaca, eagerly await your response to the serious issues brought up in this email. We have put our trust in you to be stewards of this sacred land. Do not let us down. The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 11:49 AM Bob Babjak <bobbybabjak@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Town Staff and Zoning Board members, I live at 106 Wiedmaier Ct, the house closest to the massively intrusive proposed "Sunny View" PWSF. I have several grave concerns about this project, from the actual existence of a "significant gap" in coverage (for which there is no legal definition or universally accepted determination) to the alarming way it has been handled by Fred Wilcox and the Planning Board. The issue I want to address with this letter, though, is the "independent" RF consultant hired by the Town to evaluate new cell tower applications, William Johnson. In researching Mr. Johnson, I heard from those familiar with his work that he is biased toward the telecom industry (a glance at his LinkedIn page shows that he is fairly embedded within it), but I wanted to give him a chance. Unfortunately, even with the limited technical knowledge I have, it is obvious to me that he is biased in favor of Verizon. I imagine that some of you have also picked up on that. Here are a few examples that I believe call his objectivity into question:  Johnson's initial report contained a number of extraneous and irrelevant one-sided opinions on the specific matter at hand of evaluating Verizon's proposed cell tower. This report was so egregious that the Town lawyer, Susan Brock, requested he resubmit his report after removing all those items (as outlined in an email to Mr. Johnson from Chris Balestra on 10/3/24). One of these topics was his opinion denying any harm cell radiation causes humans, a viewpoint the 4 telecoms have been pushing to save their industry, but clearly outside his purview (and proven wrong by thousands of studies). I know health concerns are not legally allowed to be discussed when considering PWSFs, but denying the very existence of adverse health effects connected to RF radiation exposure is like calling climate change a hoax! At best it's ignorant, at worst it demonstrates a willingness to obscure the facts for the benefit of telecom corporations like Verizon. Either way, it's a bad look for a supposed expert.  In the discussion regarding the new proposed tower, Johnson could have made it clear that the vast majority of voice calls use low band, and these voice calls are the only thing required by law for Ithaca to consider (as set forth by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals: "the ability of wireless telephones to make and receive voice calls to and from landlines that are connected to the national telephone network"). He did not do so, and in fact did the opposite by highlighting in his revised 10/21 preliminary report that Verizon has no mid-band coverage in the gap areas and emphasizing that mid-band is "90% of their usable licensed bandwidth that they can provide to their subscribers; the other 10% is low band....90% of the bandwidth that Verizon has available is not even on the map in this particular gap area....Without something in this gap area, we're going to be dealing with that outdoor marginal kind of coverage that Mr Lusk described in a lot of the target area, and not have the other 90% of the bandwidth for high-speed data and other types of services." All of this is totally irrelevant to the Town's consideration. Fortunately, Susan Brock again reminded everyone, "We're talking about voice calls only, nothing about other things." But, this clearly indicates a biased view in favor of the industry and more misdirection.  In another instance of misdirection/distraction, Johnson goes into a long diatribe about other scenarios in which small cells are often used (all true), but he stops short of saying that they are also used to patch a gap in coverage - the very situation the Board is considering.  In both his written materials and verbal comments, Johnson repeatedly made it clear that small cells are "technically" a feasible alternative to a monopole cell tower (a core question in deciding whether or not they could be the least intrusive means to fill the gap and render an applicant's claim of Effective Prohibition null in the case of denial). In his 10/21 revised preliminary report, Johnson even writes, "Other approaches can include use of multiple shorter support structures, co-location on existing shorter structures, distributed antenna systems, and small-cell installations where visual impact is critical." He then follows up these statements with caveats that they might be less effective, or might require them to submit more applications, or could fail in the case of a catastrophic weather event toppling utility poles (again, not the Town's issue). Toward the end of the Zoning Board meeting, after one of his convoluted explanations, a Board member (incorrectly) surmised that the consultant concluded that small cells would not be technically feasible, and Johnson did not correct him. His silence was curious and again seems to support the idea that he favors Verizon getting the pole they want. I was happy to see that Susan Brock has called this out a few times, and I hope his bias is so obvious that The Board, or at least some of its more discerning/knowledgeable members, have to acknowledge it. However, my concern is that the various Boards and staff are making decisions based on a (in my opinion) misplaced trust that the "independent" consultant is a neutral party. I urge the Town to find a more neutral consultant in the future. The bottom line is this: At the 10/1/24 Planning Board meeting, the Board requested more information on whether the "gap in coverage (can) be achieved with several microcells on telephone poles." In return, they only received a statement from Verizon engineer, Wasif Sharif, stating issues such as terrain, foliage, and coverage area as their reasons why small cells would "fail to achieve the site objectives." Notice how he didn't say they would fail to fill the coverage gap. In fact, throughout this 5 whole process, Verizon has never stated that a small cell strategy would "fail to fill the coverage gap." They only ever use language like "fail to achieve the site objectives," but the issue at hand is not the objectives of their proposed site. As per Town Code 270-219.R(4)., the purpose of the proposed PWSF is to address "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." So while Verizon's objectives may be to utilize the mid-range band frequencies that occupy 90% of their licensed bandwidth, and create a space they can rent out to other carriers in the future (and small cells would not meet those objectives), the Zoning Board's objective is to discern whether the LEAST INTRUSIVE MEANS TO ADDRESS A GAP IN COVERAGE is a monopole that exceeds the allowable height limit by over 100 feet. Verizon has provided copious graphs and charts of colorful propagation plots for towers of various sizes at various locations, but they have steadfastly refused to do the same for co-located small cells strategically placed along the areas with the highest concentration of dropped calls. Verizon needs to be pressed on this matter, as it is THE key point in the entire review process. If small cells can fill the coverage gap, then they would be the least intrusive means to remedy the problem, thus negating the need for a giant monopole and nullifying grounds for an Effective Prohibition declaration. If the Town's "independent" consultant is simply accepting Verizon's evidence-free justification for not using small cells, then he is grossly shirking his duty. Why do we have Verizon provide hard data to support their claims on dropped calls, communication failures, and the coverage propagation of multiple sized towers at multiple sites but then accept their unsupported opinion about the efficacy of small cells? Especially in light of Mr. Johnson's constant flip-flopping on the matter, the Board needs to request, no, demand the same level of data-supported evidence for the coverage of small cells that Verizon provided for everything else. Thank you for your attention to this important matter. Bob Babjak 106 Wiedmaier Ct. 1 Lori Kofoid From:Marie/Andrew Molnar <marieandrew93@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, December 17, 2024 11:59 AM To:Codes; Town Of Ithaca Planning; Town Of Ithaca Clerks Department; Chris Balestra; Marty Moseley; CJ Randall Cc:Rich Depaolo; Rod Howe Subject:Re: URGENT UPDATE: William Johnson conflict of interest!!! Attachments:Comi - Richard updated 6.2021.doc We received this letter and are glad to see that someone else is on top of this. We have been shocked to witness the way that the RF consultant William Johnson, while perhaps avoiding untruths, has seemed to show bias toward Verizon throughout the cell tower review process with the Town Boards. Whether including extraneous biased information, changing his statements, or his meandering indirect responses to questions, he certainly does not seem to be an advocate for the implementation of the town codes. We are not at all surprised to see his connection to Verizon's lawyer Jared Lusk. We are concerned because it seems the Town staff and boards are relying so heavily on this person's opinions. We urge the Town to replace him. In our own quest to understand the technical possibilities here, we have spoken with other independent consultants, and been told that small antennas would be a less intrusive means of filling this gap in service. Through this process we have come across a truly independent consultant, Richard Comi, who has an engineering degree from West Point, an MBA from Syracuse University, and over thirty years of experience with the telecommunications industry. His consultancy, the Center for Municipal Solutions (telecomsol.com), works full-time with towns on wireless issues. They are currently working with several town Boards in NY. If you want to educate yourself further on the industry's tactics in local communities (including the misleading use of propagation maps), there is a wealth of information on their website. We respectfully ask that he, or someone like him, replace William Johnson and become the Town's consultant for any future needs. Thank you for your attention to this timely and important matter. Marie and Andrew Molnar Ithacans for Responsible Technology On Thu, Dec 12, 2024 at 9:01 PM Bob Babjak <bobbybabjak@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Town Staff and Zoning Members, I need to make a correction to the email I sent yesterday regarding the bias of the Town's "independent" consultant, William Johnson. I unfortunately included a link to the wrong LinkedIn page; it was a similar- looking, but completely different, man named William Johnson who also worked in the telecom industry. I apologize for this error. Here is the correct LinkedIn page, and I'm sorry to say his alleged bias is actually much more disturbing than I thought. If you scroll down to the "Recommendations" section, you will see a glowing review from none other than the applicant's lead counsel, Jared Lusk! (I also included a screenshot of the page attached to this email). He actually closes with, "I recommend him to any municipality..." Oh, I bet he does. Especially to municipalities where he currently has a pending case! 2 This is unacceptable! How does no one from the Town know about their previous relationship? Why did Mr. Johnson not recuse himself from this case? This is an obvious conflict of interest. How can he maintain the basic appearance of independence when the applicant's lawyer is singing his praises on LinkedIn!?! As someone who recently moved to the area and has an outsider’s perspective on local governance, I must say that I’m appalled by what I’ve witnessed. From Fred Wilcox’s patronizing attitude and obvious favoritism toward the applicant to his strong-arm tactics employed on the Planning Board, along with the lack of notice given to nearby residents about this project, the refusal to allow public comments on the day of the vote, and the Planning Board’s inability or unwillingness to require the applicant to provide evidence—not just the opinion of their engineer, but actual data-supported propagation maps as they did for the alternate sites—on the effectiveness of small cells to address the coverage gap, it all raises serious concerns. And now, the independent consultant appears to be in bed with the applicant’s attorney! With all due respect, it looks like a clown show! I am formally requesting that William Johnson be relieved as the independent consultant and replaced with someone who has no prior connection to the applicant's attorney, Jared Lusk; and the Planning Board reopen its evaluation of the 111 Wiedmaier Ct. site plan and demand the applicant produce in-kind RF propagation analysis for multiple small cells deployed on existing utility poles along 79, Burns, and Coddington as they have for alternative tower sites. Once that evidence has been presented to the Board and reviewed by a new and truly independent consultant, then the Board can have a legitimate re-vote on the site plan. I, along the rest of the Town of Ithaca, eagerly await your response to the serious issues brought up in this email. We have put our trust in you to be stewards of this sacred land. Do not let us down. On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 11:49 AM Bob Babjak <bobbybabjak@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Town Staff and Zoning Board members, I live at 106 Wiedmaier Ct, the house closest to the massively intrusive proposed "Sunny View" PWSF. I have several grave concerns about this project, from the actual existence of a "significant gap" in coverage (for which there is no legal definition or universally accepted determination) to the alarming way it has been handled by Fred Wilcox and the Planning Board. The issue I want to address with this letter, though, is the "independent" RF consultant hired by the Town to evaluate new cell tower applications, William Johnson. In researching Mr. Johnson, I heard from those familiar with his work that he is biased toward the telecom industry (a glance at his LinkedIn page shows that he is fairly embedded within it), but I wanted 3 to give him a chance. Unfortunately, even with the limited technical knowledge I have, it is obvious to me that he is biased in favor of Verizon. I imagine that some of you have also picked up on that. Here are a few examples that I believe call his objectivity into question:  Johnson's initial report contained a number of extraneous and irrelevant one-sided opinions on the specific matter at hand of evaluating Verizon's proposed cell tower. This report was so egregious that the Town lawyer, Susan Brock, requested he resubmit his report after removing all those items (as outlined in an email to Mr. Johnson from Chris Balestra on 10/3/24). One of these topics was his opinion denying any harm cell radiation causes humans, a viewpoint the telecoms have been pushing to save their industry, but clearly outside his purview (and proven wrong by thousands of studies). I know health concerns are not legally allowed to be discussed when considering PWSFs, but denying the very existence of adverse health effects connected to RF radiation exposure is like calling climate change a hoax! At best it's ignorant, at worst it demonstrates a willingness to obscure the facts for the benefit of telecom corporations like Verizon. Either way, it's a bad look for a supposed expert.  In the discussion regarding the new proposed tower, Johnson could have made it clear that the vast majority of voice calls use low band, and these voice calls are the only thing required by law for Ithaca to consider (as set forth by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals: "the ability of wireless telephones to make and receive voice calls to and from landlines that are connected to the national telephone network"). He did not do so, and in fact did the opposite by highlighting in his revised 10/21 preliminary report that Verizon has no mid-band coverage in the gap areas and emphasizing that mid-band is "90% of their usable licensed bandwidth that they can provide to their subscribers; the other 10% is low band....90% of the bandwidth that Verizon has available is not even on the map in this particular gap area....Without something in this gap area, we're going to be dealing with that outdoor marginal kind of coverage that Mr Lusk described in a lot of the target area, and not have the other 90% of the bandwidth for high-speed data and other types of services." All of this is totally irrelevant to the Town's consideration. Fortunately, Susan Brock again reminded everyone, "We're talking about voice calls only, nothing about other things." But, this clearly indicates a biased view in favor of the industry and more misdirection.  In another instance of misdirection/distraction, Johnson goes into a long diatribe about other scenarios in which small cells are often used (all true), but he stops short of saying that they are also used to patch a gap in coverage - the very situation the Board is considering.  In both his written materials and verbal comments, Johnson repeatedly made it clear that small cells are "technically" a feasible alternative to a monopole cell tower (a core question in deciding whether or not they could be the least intrusive means to fill the gap and render an applicant's claim of Effective Prohibition null in the case of denial). In his 10/21 revised preliminary report, Johnson even writes, "Other approaches can include use of multiple shorter support structures, co-location on existing shorter structures, distributed antenna systems, and small-cell installations where visual impact is critical." He then follows up these statements with caveats that they might be less effective, or might require them to submit more applications, or could fail in the case of a catastrophic weather event toppling utility poles (again, not the Town's issue). Toward the end of the Zoning Board meeting, after one of his convoluted explanations, a Board member (incorrectly) surmised that the consultant concluded 4 that small cells would not be technically feasible, and Johnson did not correct him. His silence was curious and again seems to support the idea that he favors Verizon getting the pole they want. I was happy to see that Susan Brock has called this out a few times, and I hope his bias is so obvious that The Board, or at least some of its more discerning/knowledgeable members, have to acknowledge it. However, my concern is that the various Boards and staff are making decisions based on a (in my opinion) misplaced trust that the "independent" consultant is a neutral party. I urge the Town to find a more neutral consultant in the future. The bottom line is this: At the 10/1/24 Planning Board meeting, the Board requested more information on whether the "gap in coverage (can) be achieved with several microcells on telephone poles." In return, they only received a statement from Verizon engineer, Wasif Sharif, stating issues such as terrain, foliage, and coverage area as their reasons why small cells would "fail to achieve the site objectives." Notice how he didn't say they would fail to fill the coverage gap. In fact, throughout this whole process, Verizon has never stated that a small cell strategy would "fail to fill the coverage gap." They only ever use language like "fail to achieve the site objectives," but the issue at hand is not the objectives of their proposed site. As per Town Code 270-219.R(4)., the purpose of the proposed PWSF is to address "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." So while Verizon's objectives may be to utilize the mid-range band frequencies that occupy 90% of their licensed bandwidth, and create a space they can rent out to other carriers in the future (and small cells would not meet those objectives), the Zoning Board's objective is to discern whether the LEAST INTRUSIVE MEANS TO ADDRESS A GAP IN COVERAGE is a monopole that exceeds the allowable height limit by over 100 feet. Verizon has provided copious graphs and charts of colorful propagation plots for towers of various sizes at various locations, but they have steadfastly refused to do the same for co-located small cells strategically placed along the areas with the highest concentration of dropped calls. Verizon needs to be pressed on this matter, as it is THE key point in the entire review process. If small cells can fill the coverage gap, then they would be the least intrusive means to remedy the problem, thus negating the need for a giant monopole and nullifying grounds for an Effective Prohibition declaration. If the Town's "independent" consultant is simply accepting Verizon's evidence-free justification for not using small cells, then he is grossly shirking his duty. Why do we have Verizon provide hard data to support their claims on dropped calls, communication failures, and the coverage propagation of multiple sized towers at multiple sites but then accept their unsupported opinion about the efficacy of small cells? Especially in light of Mr. Johnson's constant flip-flopping on the matter, the Board needs to request, no, demand the same level of data-supported evidence for the coverage of small cells that Verizon provided for everything else. Thank you for your attention to this important matter. 5 Bob Babjak 106 Wiedmaier Ct. RICHARD ANGELO COMI 70 Cambridge Road Glenmont, New York 12077 (518)439-3079 SUMMARY OF RELATED SKILLS AND QUALIFICATIONS Systems Excellent understanding, from a practical use and technical perspective, of telecommunications systems including hardware, line systems and data/voice system enhancements. Recognized for ability to analyze system needs, determine appropriate technical and organizational enhancements and implement to achieve results. Practical, hands-on experience in on-line management of systems including switches, interfaces and other equipment requiring attention to detail, responsiveness and accountability for in-filed operations. Experienced in troubleshooting; strong skills in managing networks and complex system/line configurations. Management/Administration Significant senior level management experience with bottom-line accountability for sales, marketing, finance, profitability, operations and distribution. Skilled in business development; initiated new business reaching sales level of $3 million in 18 months and profitability in nine months. Excellent record of accomplishment in managing cost reduction programs while concurrently improving service to the users. Able to manage multiple organizational units and priorities with efficiency and results. Experienced in supervising craft, management and support personnel. Fiscally accountable… managed with accountability operating budgets in excess of $17 million. Skilled in budget preparation, analysis and subsequent management to profit and cost standards. Skilled in personnel/human resource development including training, career planning and organizational development. Specific focus on determining training and development needs and implementing targeted programs to meet needs. EXPERIENCE REVIEW COMI TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES/ THE CENTER FOR MUNICIPAL SOLUTIONS Glenmont, New York 1995-Present Owner/Founder Utilizing his extensive industry background, he established a municipal consulting and master agent organization. With his in depth knowledge of cellular, PCS and other wireless industries, he provides leadership and organizational skills to a nationwide group on independent municipal consultants. As a zealous advocate of local government, he is virtually unique in the wireless consulting arena, as he exclusively serves local governments. He has worked with over a hundred communities on Wireless Ordinances, Siting issues, and municipal leases. He has prevented numerous communities from making drastic mistakes, some of which would have been virtually irreversible. In addition, his ability to deal with operators as a true equal has resulted in gains for municipalities that they never expected. His knowledge goes well beyond the mere technology and operations of a company, and includes the legal and procedural requirements associated with telephony, cellular and PCS applications and permitting. …continued… RICHARD ANGELO COMI Page two GFCC (GLENS FALLS COMMUNICATION CORP.) Glens Falls, New York 1993-1995 President, Owner Responsible for all aspects of established business including financial, management, sales and operations. Purchased business as 100% owner; developed staff of 16 including management, technical and clerical support; negotiated large customer contracts, purchase equipment to include new DSC600 and new PC LAN billing system. CELLULAR ONE OF UPSTATE NEW YORK Delmar, New York 1990-1993 Vice President-Chief Operating Officer Retained to organize, launch and manage this start-up cellular phone service organization. Established cellular system in five months. Brought to level of profitability in first nine months… exceeded sales objective by 42% in year one… negotiated major contracts with vendors, suppliers and joint venture partners resulting in rapid growth, profitability and overall market share. Developed distribution base (dealer) and directed sales force management. Recruited and directed executive management staff with accountability for finance, sales, marketing, dealer services, customer service and technical operations. Directed business operations employing 20 and generating $3 million in annual revenues. Organized administrative, finance, customer service and operational units with bottom-line responsibility for budgeting and control. NEW YORK TELEPHONE COMPANY Syracuse and Albany, New York 1971-1989 During tenure, served as Director, Network Operations, Maintenance-Northeast Director of Operations, Network Services Administration-Northeast and Central Operations Supervisor-Upstate New York Traffic Superintendent- Syracuse Dial Service Supervisor-Syracuse In most recent management capacity, assumed responsibility for operations, maintenance and general management of system involving 95 switches, 100K special services (private line, data, voice, 1.5 service and DDS) and various switching technologies. Administratively responsible for staff of 365 and budget resource allocation of over $17 million. In previous capacity as Director of Operations, Network Services Administration, managed a 2 million subscriber network, 225 employees and budget over $8 million. Recognized for accomplishments in planning and implementing central office consolidations, reducing labor and operations costs and concurrently improving service levels. Contributed to technical enhancement of systems, networks and service levels. EDUCATIONAL/SPECIALIZED TRAINING Masters in Business Administration SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY, 1977 Bachelor of Science UNITED STATES MILITARY ACAMEMY, WEST POINT, 1967 MILITARY UNITED STATES ARMY, 1967-1971 Captain; Honorable Discharge; Vietnam Era Veteran *Received Bronze Medal for Meritorious Service and Army Commendation for Achievement RICHARD A. COMI My name is Richard A. Comi. I am owner of Comi Telecommunication Services and co-founder of the Center for Municipal Solutions (“CMS”), which provides services exclusively to local government, relative to regulation of the siting, placement, construction, and modification of wireless telecommunications facilities. I hold a Bachelor of Science in engineering from the United States Military Academy at West Point; and a Masters of Business Administration from Syracuse University. I have over thirty-two years of experience in the telecommunications industry. During my career in the telecommunications industry, I have attended hundreds of hours of training on network design and operation of telecommunication systems. Moreover, as a Chief Operating Officer, I had complete responsibility for the design, construction, marketing, and operation of one of the largest Cellular RSA’s in the country. I have been asked, as an industry expert, to conduct seminars at numerous conferences for municipal organizations on the regulation of the siting, placement, construction, and modification of wireless telecommunications facilities. Some of these organizations include the National Association of Small Towns; the New York State Association of Towns; The Florida Municipal League; The New Mexico League of Cities; the New Mexico Association of Counties; and numerous other municipal counties and groups. By request I have also conducted seminars on these subjects for scores of individual local governments. I have drafted and designed wireless siting ordinances that are now in effect in hundreds of communities, and have further reviewed hundreds of other wireless ordinances. I have reviewed thousands of wireless siting applications, including inspecting the construction of the site when appropriate. The “siting process” used by CMS, including preparation of ordinance and review of applications and site construction, when permitted, are endorsed “services” of the West Virginia Municipal League. Expert Witness Experience: Court Testimony: Nextel v City of New Rochelle; NY, Federal District Court Manhattan New York; November 2001: Provided expert testimony on proof of need, site value, call and drive testing and Ordinance preparation Court Testimony: American Tower v. City of Huntsville, Alabama, United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama Northeastern Division, June 2005; Provided expert testimony on proof of need, RF emissions, structural, aesthetics, and nearby property value. Affidavit Testimony: Nextel v City of Mount Vernon, NY, U.S. District Court of Southern New York; November 2003: Provided affidavit on proof of need, call and drive testing. Affidavit Testimony: American Tower v. City of Huntsville, Alabama, United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama Northeastern Division, March 2004: Provided affidavit on proof of need, RF emissions, structural, aesthetics, and nearby property value. Affidavit Testimony: New Cingular Wireless v City of Rye, NY, United States District Court Southern District of New York, January 2006: Provided affidavit on proof of need, RF emissions, structural, aesthetics, and nearby property value Publications: Towers and Wireless Facilities . . . 1 Million More - Are You Prepared to Deal with the Situation? Co-authored for PSATS (The Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors); 2002 TOWERS AND WIRELESS FACILITIES . . . THEIR IMPACT AND HOW TO DEAL WITH IT (Co-authored originally for the CMS web site, but subsequently picked up and widely distributed in the Internet); 2003 TOWER AND WIRELESS ORDINANCES – Co-authored for The Missouri Municipal Review; 2008 1 Lori Kofoid From:Marie/Andrew Molnar <marieandrew93@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, December 17, 2024 7:47 PM To:Chris Balestra Cc:CJ Randall; Town Of Ithaca Clerks Department; Town Of Ithaca Planning; Codes; Rod Howe; Marty Moseley; Rich Depaolo Subject:Re: URGENT UPDATE: William Johnson conflict of interest!!! Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged Chris, We were a bit confused in the Planning Board meeting tonight when you stated that Bob Babjek had NOT sent his email regarding concerns with William Johnson to the Planning Board. When we look at his original note, the email address of planning@townithacany.gov is included. Is that not the Planning Board email? Furthermore, we also sent a note to the Planning Board earlier this morning, with a copy of his note in the chain under ours (also below). It seems this was also not forwarded to the Planning Board, nor did you reference that in the meeting when a Board member asked for his email.Could you clarify what is going on? Also, could you please confirm that this note in its entirety, and the previous two, have been sent to all the Planning Board members? Thank you. Marie and Andrew 2 On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 10:58 AM Marie/Andrew Molnar <marieandrew93@gmail.com> wrote: We received this letter and are glad to see that someone else is on top of this. We have been shocked to witness the way that the RF consultant William Johnson, while perhaps avoiding untruths, has seemed to show bias toward Verizon throughout the cell tower review process with the Town Boards. Whether including extraneous biased information, changing his statements, or his meandering indirect responses to questions, he certainly does not seem to be an advocate for the implementation of the town codes. We are not at all surprised to see his connection to Verizon's lawyer Jared Lusk. We are concerned because it seems the Town staff and boards are relying so heavily on this person's opinions. We urge the Town to replace him. In our own quest to understand the technical possibilities here, we have spoken with other independent consultants, and been told that small antennas would be a less intrusive means of filling this gap in service. Through this process we have come across a truly independent consultant, Richard Comi, who has an engineering degree from West Point, an MBA from Syracuse University, and over thirty years of experience with the telecommunications industry. His consultancy, the Center for Municipal Solutions (telecomsol.com), works full-time with towns on wireless issues. They are currently working with several town Boards in NY. If you want to educate yourself further on the industry's tactics in local communities (including the misleading use of propagation maps), there is a wealth of information on their website. We respectfully ask that he, or someone like him, replace William Johnson and become the Town's consultant for any future needs. Thank you for your attention to this timely and important matter. Marie and Andrew Molnar Ithacans for Responsible Technology On Thu, Dec 12, 2024 at 9:01 PM Bob Babjak <bobbybabjak@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Town Staff and Zoning Members, I need to make a correction to the email I sent yesterday regarding the bias of the Town's "independent" consultant, William Johnson. I unfortunately included a link to the wrong LinkedIn page; it was a similar-looking, but completely different, man named William Johnson who also worked in the telecom industry. I apologize for this error. Here is the correct LinkedIn page, and I'm sorry to say his alleged bias is actually much more disturbing than I thought. If you scroll down to the "Recommendations" section, you will see a glowing review from none other than the applicant's lead counsel, Jared Lusk! (I also included a screenshot of the 3 page attached to this email). He actually closes with, "I recommend him to any municipality..." Oh, I bet he does. Especially to municipalities where he currently has a pending case! This is unacceptable! How does no one from the Town know about their previous relationship? Why did Mr. Johnson not recuse himself from this case? This is an obvious conflict of interest. How can he maintain the basic appearance of independence when the applicant's lawyer is singing his praises on LinkedIn!?! As someone who recently moved to the area and has an outsider’s perspective on local governance, I must say that I’m appalled by what I’ve witnessed. From Fred Wilcox’s patronizing attitude and obvious favoritism toward the applicant to his strong-arm tactics employed on the Planning Board, along with the lack of notice given to nearby residents about this project, the refusal to allow public comments on the day of the vote, and the Planning Board’s inability or unwillingness to require the applicant to provide evidence—not just the opinion of their engineer, but actual data-supported propagation maps as they did for the alternate sites—on the effectiveness of small cells to address the coverage gap, it all raises serious concerns. And now, the independent consultant appears to be in bed with the applicant’s attorney! With all due respect, it looks like a clown show! I am formally requesting that William Johnson be relieved as the independent consultant and replaced with someone who has no prior connection to the applicant's attorney, Jared Lusk; and the Planning Board reopen its evaluation of the 111 Wiedmaier Ct. site plan and demand the applicant produce in-kind RF propagation analysis for multiple small cells deployed on existing utility poles along 79, Burns, and Coddington as they have for alternative tower sites. Once that evidence has been presented to the Board and reviewed by a new and truly independent consultant, then the Board can have a legitimate re-vote on the site plan. I, along the rest of the Town of Ithaca, eagerly await your response to the serious issues brought up in this email. We have put our trust in you to be stewards of this sacred land. Do not let us down. On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 11:49 AM Bob Babjak <bobbybabjak@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Town Staff and Zoning Board members, I live at 106 Wiedmaier Ct, the house closest to the massively intrusive proposed "Sunny View" PWSF. I have several grave concerns about this project, from the actual existence of a "significant gap" in coverage (for which there is no legal definition or universally accepted determination) to the alarming way it has been handled by Fred Wilcox and the Planning Board. The issue I want to address with this 4 letter, though, is the "independent" RF consultant hired by the Town to evaluate new cell tower applications, William Johnson. In researching Mr. Johnson, I heard from those familiar with his work that he is biased toward the telecom industry (a glance at his LinkedIn page shows that he is fairly embedded within it), but I wanted to give him a chance. Unfortunately, even with the limited technical knowledge I have, it is obvious to me that he is biased in favor of Verizon. I imagine that some of you have also picked up on that. Here are a few examples that I believe call his objectivity into question:  Johnson's initial report contained a number of extraneous and irrelevant one-sided opinions on the specific matter at hand of evaluating Verizon's proposed cell tower. This report was so egregious that the Town lawyer, Susan Brock, requested he resubmit his report after removing all those items (as outlined in an email to Mr. Johnson from Chris Balestra on 10/3/24). One of these topics was his opinion denying any harm cell radiation causes humans, a viewpoint the telecoms have been pushing to save their industry, but clearly outside his purview (and proven wrong by thousands of studies). I know health concerns are not legally allowed to be discussed when considering PWSFs, but denying the very existence of adverse health effects connected to RF radiation exposure is like calling climate change a hoax! At best it's ignorant, at worst it demonstrates a willingness to obscure the facts for the benefit of telecom corporations like Verizon. Either way, it's a bad look for a supposed expert.  In the discussion regarding the new proposed tower, Johnson could have made it clear that the vast majority of voice calls use low band, and these voice calls are the only thing required by law for Ithaca to consider (as set forth by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals: "the ability of wireless telephones to make and receive voice calls to and from landlines that are connected to the national telephone network"). He did not do so, and in fact did the opposite by highlighting in his revised 10/21 preliminary report that Verizon has no mid-band coverage in the gap areas and emphasizing that mid-band is "90% of their usable licensed bandwidth that they can provide to their subscribers; the other 10% is low band....90% of the bandwidth that Verizon has available is not even on the map in this particular gap area....Without something in this gap area, we're going to be dealing with that outdoor marginal kind of coverage that Mr Lusk described in a lot of the target area, and not have the other 90% of the bandwidth for high-speed data and other types of services." All of this is totally irrelevant to the Town's consideration. Fortunately, Susan Brock again reminded everyone, "We're talking about voice calls only, nothing about other things." But, this clearly indicates a biased view in favor of the industry and more misdirection.  In another instance of misdirection/distraction, Johnson goes into a long diatribe about other scenarios in which small cells are often used (all true), but he stops short of saying that they are also used to patch a gap in coverage - the very situation the Board is considering.  In both his written materials and verbal comments, Johnson repeatedly made it clear that small cells are "technically" a feasible alternative to a monopole cell tower (a core question in deciding whether or not they could be the least intrusive means to fill the gap and render an applicant's claim of Effective Prohibition null in the case of denial). In his 10/21 revised preliminary report, Johnson even writes, "Other approaches can include use of multiple shorter 5 support structures, co-location on existing shorter structures, distributed antenna systems, and small-cell installations where visual impact is critical." He then follows up these statements with caveats that they might be less effective, or might require them to submit more applications, or could fail in the case of a catastrophic weather event toppling utility poles (again, not the Town's issue). Toward the end of the Zoning Board meeting, after one of his convoluted explanations, a Board member (incorrectly) surmised that the consultant concluded that small cells would not be technically feasible, and Johnson did not correct him. His silence was curious and again seems to support the idea that he favors Verizon getting the pole they want. I was happy to see that Susan Brock has called this out a few times, and I hope his bias is so obvious that The Board, or at least some of its more discerning/knowledgeable members, have to acknowledge it. However, my concern is that the various Boards and staff are making decisions based on a (in my opinion) misplaced trust that the "independent" consultant is a neutral party. I urge the Town to find a more neutral consultant in the future. The bottom line is this: At the 10/1/24 Planning Board meeting, the Board requested more information on whether the "gap in coverage (can) be achieved with several microcells on telephone poles." In return, they only received a statement from Verizon engineer, Wasif Sharif, stating issues such as terrain, foliage, and coverage area as their reasons why small cells would "fail to achieve the site objectives." Notice how he didn't say they would fail to fill the coverage gap. In fact, throughout this whole process, Verizon has never stated that a small cell strategy would "fail to fill the coverage gap." They only ever use language like "fail to achieve the site objectives," but the issue at hand is not the objectives of their proposed site. As per Town Code 270-219.R(4)., the purpose of the proposed PWSF is to address "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." So while Verizon's objectives may be to utilize the mid-range band frequencies that occupy 90% of their licensed bandwidth, and create a space they can rent out to other carriers in the future (and small cells would not meet those objectives), the Zoning Board's objective is to discern whether the LEAST INTRUSIVE MEANS TO ADDRESS A GAP IN COVERAGE is a monopole that exceeds the allowable height limit by over 100 feet. Verizon has provided copious graphs and charts of colorful propagation plots for towers of various sizes at various locations, but they have steadfastly refused to do the same for co-located small cells strategically placed along the areas with the highest concentration of dropped calls. Verizon needs to be pressed on this matter, as it is THE key point in the entire review process. If small cells can fill the coverage gap, then they would be the least intrusive means to remedy the problem, thus negating the need for a giant monopole and nullifying grounds for an Effective Prohibition declaration. If the Town's "independent" consultant is simply accepting Verizon's evidence-free justification for not using small cells, then he is grossly shirking his duty. Why do we have Verizon provide hard data to support their claims on dropped calls, communication failures, and the coverage propagation of 6 multiple sized towers at multiple sites but then accept their unsupported opinion about the efficacy of small cells? Especially in light of Mr. Johnson's constant flip-flopping on the matter, the Board needs to request, no, demand the same level of data-supported evidence for the coverage of small cells that Verizon provided for everything else. Thank you for your attention to this important matter. Bob Babjak 106 Wiedmaier Ct. 1 Lori Kofoid From:Marie/Andrew Molnar <marieandrew93@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, December 18, 2024 12:21 PM To:CJ Randall Cc:Codes; Rod Howe; Marty Moseley; Rich Depaolo; Chris Balestra; Town Of Ithaca Clerks Department Subject:Re: URGENT UPDATE: William Johnson conflict of interest!!! Attachments:wjohnsonlinkedin.png; image.png; image.png; Outlook-ekpn2x32.jpg Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged Thank you, CJ. This is the first time we have heard this. In the past, we were told by staff that just including that email address would ensure it was delivered to the Planning Board members (same for the Zoning Board email and Zoning Board members). But, now that we hear differently, we will be sure that we address notes as such. So, to be totally clear, are you saying that any time emails are directly addressed to a Board (e.g. Dear Zoning Board members), they will always be forwarded on to all the members of that Board? Also, given this confusion, could you please verify if the following emails of ours were sent on to all the Board members? 1. 11/25 email with the subject "Request to Reverse the Vote on Verizon's Wiedmeier Ct cell tower" (sent to both the Planning and Zoning Board members) 2. 12/3 email with the subject "A timely note for the Zoning Board" (sent to just the Zoning Board members) 3. 12/6 email with the subject "The important larger context" (sent from Andrew's email andrewmolnar11@gmail just to the Zoning Board members) 4. 12/17 email with the subject "Re: URGENT UPDATE: William Johnson conflict of interest!!! " (sent to both the Planning and Zoning Board members) Thank you for this clarification, Marie and Andrew On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 7:00 AM CJ Randall <cjrandall@townithacany.gov> wrote: Hi Andrew, Thanks for your inquiry; planning@townithacany.gov is not the Town of Ithaca Planning Board's direct email address but is for any correspondence directed to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department. As noted during last night's Planning Board meeting, the two respective email messages (received 12/11/2024 at 11:50 am and 12/12/2024 at 10:01 pm, respectively) were addressed 'Dear Town staff and Zoning Board members' and thus were delivered as addressed. This said, we regularly forward correspondence addressed to Planning Board, and we are happy to forward the attached correspondence as well. C.J. C.J. Randall, LEED AP ND Director of Planning Town of Ithaca 215 N Tioga St Ithaca, NY 14850-4357 607-273-1721 x120 cjrandall@townithacany.gov 2 The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. From: Marie/Andrew Molnar <marieandrew93@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2024 7:46 PM To: Chris Balestra <CBalestra@townithacany.gov> Cc: CJ Randall <cjrandall@townithacany.gov>; Town Of Ithaca Clerks Department <clerks@townithacany.gov>; Town Of Ithaca Planning <planning@townithacany.gov>; Codes <codes@townithacany.gov>; Rod Howe <RHowe@townithacany.gov>; Marty Moseley <MMoseley@townithacany.gov>; Rich Depaolo <rdepaolo@townithacany.gov> Subject: Re: URGENT UPDATE: William Johnson conflict of interest!!! Chris, We were a bit confused in the Planning Board meeting tonight when you stated that Bob Babjek had NOT sent his email regarding concerns with William Johnson to the Planning Board. When we look at his original note, the email address of planning@townithacany.gov is included. Is that not the Planning Board email? Furthermore, we also sent a note to the Planning Board earlier this morning, with a copy of his note in the chain under ours (also below). It seems this was also not forwarded to the Planning Board, nor did you reference that in the meeting when a Board member asked for his email.Could you clarify what is going on? Also, could you please confirm that this note in its entirety, and the previous two, have been sent to all the Planning Board members? Thank you. Marie and Andrew The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. 3 On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 10:58 AM Marie/Andrew Molnar <marieandrew93@gmail.com> wrote: We received this letter and are glad to see that someone else is on top of this. We have been shocked to witness the way that the RF consultant William Johnson, while perhaps avoiding untruths, has seemed to show bias toward Verizon throughout the cell tower review process with the Town Boards. Whether including extraneous biased information, changing his statements, or his meandering indirect responses to questions, he certainly does not seem to be an advocate for the implementation of the town codes. We are not at all surprised to see his connection to Verizon's lawyer Jared Lusk. We are concerned because it seems the Town staff and boards are relying so heavily on this person's opinions. We urge the Town to replace him. In our own quest to understand the technical possibilities here, we have spoken with other independent consultants, and been told that small antennas would be a less intrusive means of filling this gap in service. Through this process we have come across a truly independent consultant, Richard Comi, who has an engineering degree from West Point, an MBA from Syracuse University, and over thirty years of experience with the telecommunications industry. His consultancy, the Center for Municipal Solutions (telecomsol.com), works full-time with towns on wireless issues. They are currently working with several town Boards in NY. If you want to educate yourself further on the industry's tactics in local communities (including the misleading use of propagation maps), there is a wealth of information on their website. We respectfully ask that he, or someone like him, replace William Johnson and become the Town's consultant for any future needs. Thank you for your attention to this timely and important matter. Marie and Andrew Molnar Ithacans for Responsible Technology On Thu, Dec 12, 2024 at 9:01 PM Bob Babjak <bobbybabjak@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Town Staff and Zoning Members, I need to make a correction to the email I sent yesterday regarding the bias of the Town's "independent" consultant, William Johnson. I unfortunately included a link to the wrong LinkedIn page; it was a similar-looking, but completely different, man named William Johnson who also worked in the telecom industry. I apologize for this error. Here is the correct LinkedIn page, and I'm sorry to say his alleged bias is actually much more disturbing than I thought. If you scroll down to the "Recommendations" section, you will see a glowing review from none other than the applicant's lead counsel, Jared Lusk! (I also included a screenshot of the page attached to this email). He actually closes with, "I recommend him to any municipality..." Oh, I bet he does. Especially to municipalities where he currently has a pending case! This is unacceptable! How does no one from the Town know about their previous relationship? Why did Mr. Johnson not recuse himself from this case? This is an obvious conflict of interest. How can he maintain the basic appearance of independence when the applicant's lawyer is singing his praises on LinkedIn!?! As someone who recently moved to the area and has an outsider’s perspective on local governance, I must say that I’m appalled by what I’ve witnessed. From Fred Wilcox’s patronizing attitude and obvious favoritism toward the applicant to his strong-arm tactics employed on the Planning Board, along with the lack of notice given to nearby residents about this project, the refusal to allow public comments on the day of the vote, and the Planning Board’s inability or unwillingness to require the applicant to provide evidence—not just the opinion of their engineer, but actual data-supported propagation maps as they did for the alternate sites—on the effectiveness of small cells to address the coverage gap, it all raises serious concerns. And now, the independent consultant appears to be in bed with the applicant’s attorney! With all due respect, it looks like a clown show! I am formally requesting that William Johnson be relieved as the independent consultant and replaced with someone who has no prior connection to the applicant's attorney, Jared Lusk; and the Planning Board reopen its evaluation of the 111 Wiedmaier Ct. site plan and demand the applicant produce in-kind RF propagation analysis for multiple small cells deployed on existing utility poles along 79, Burns, and Coddington as they have for alternative tower sites. Once 4 that evidence has been presented to the Board and reviewed by a new and truly independent consultant, then the Board can have a legitimate re-vote on the site plan. I, along the rest of the Town of Ithaca, eagerly await your response to the serious issues brought up in this email. We have put our trust in you to be stewards of this sacred land. Do not let us down. The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 11:49 AM Bob Babjak <bobbybabjak@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Town Staff and Zoning Board members, I live at 106 Wiedmaier Ct, the house closest to the massively intrusive proposed "Sunny View" PWSF. I have several grave concerns about this project, from the actual existence of a "significant gap" in coverage (for which there is no legal definition or universally accepted determination) to the alarming way it has been handled by Fred Wilcox and the Planning Board. The issue I want to address with this letter, though, is the "independent" RF consultant hired by the Town to evaluate new cell tower applications, William Johnson. In researching Mr. Johnson, I heard from those familiar with his work that he is biased toward the telecom industry (a glance at his LinkedIn page shows that he is fairly embedded within it), but I wanted to give him a chance. Unfortunately, even with the limited technical knowledge I have, it is obvious to me that he is biased in favor of Verizon. I imagine that some of you have also picked up on that. Here are a few examples that I believe call his objectivity into question:  Johnson's initial report contained a number of extraneous and irrelevant one-sided opinions on the specific matter at hand of evaluating Verizon's proposed cell tower. This report was so egregious that the Town lawyer, Susan Brock, requested he resubmit his report after removing all those items (as outlined in an email to Mr. Johnson from Chris Balestra on 10/3/24). One of these topics was his opinion denying any harm cell radiation causes humans, a viewpoint the telecoms have been pushing to save their industry, but clearly outside his purview (and proven wrong by thousands of studies). I know health concerns are not legally allowed to be discussed when considering PWSFs, but denying the very existence of adverse health effects connected to RF radiation exposure is like calling climate change a hoax! At best it's ignorant, at worst it demonstrates a willingness to obscure the facts for the benefit of telecom corporations like Verizon. Either way, it's a bad look for a supposed expert.  In the discussion regarding the new proposed tower, Johnson could have made it clear that the vast majority of voice calls use low band, and these voice calls are the only thing required by law for Ithaca to consider (as set forth by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals: "the ability of wireless telephones to make and receive voice calls to and from landlines that are connected to the national telephone network"). He did not do so, and in fact did the opposite by highlighting in his revised 10/21 preliminary report that Verizon has no mid-band coverage in the gap areas and emphasizing that mid-band is "90% of their usable licensed bandwidth that they can provide to their subscribers; the other 10% is low band....90% of the bandwidth that Verizon has available is not even on the map in this particular gap area....Without something in this gap area, we're going to be dealing with that outdoor marginal kind of coverage that Mr Lusk described in a lot of the target area, and not have the other 90% of the bandwidth for high-speed data and other types of services." All of this is totally irrelevant to the Town's consideration. Fortunately, Susan Brock again reminded everyone, "We're 5 talking about voice calls only, nothing about other things." But, this clearly indicates a biased view in favor of the industry and more misdirection.  In another instance of misdirection/distraction, Johnson goes into a long diatribe about other scenarios in which small cells are often used (all true), but he stops short of saying that they are also used to patch a gap in coverage - the very situation the Board is considering.  In both his written materials and verbal comments, Johnson repeatedly made it clear that small cells are "technically" a feasible alternative to a monopole cell tower (a core question in deciding whether or not they could be the least intrusive means to fill the gap and render an applicant's claim of Effective Prohibition null in the case of denial). In his 10/21 revised preliminary report, Johnson even writes, "Other approaches can include use of multiple shorter support structures, co-location on existing shorter structures, distributed antenna systems, and small-cell installations where visual impact is critical." He then follows up these statements with caveats that they might be less effective, or might require them to submit more applications, or could fail in the case of a catastrophic weather event toppling utility poles (again, not the Town's issue). Toward the end of the Zoning Board meeting, after one of his convoluted explanations, a Board member (incorrectly) surmised that the consultant concluded that small cells would not be technically feasible, and Johnson did not correct him. His silence was curious and again seems to support the idea that he favors Verizon getting the pole they want. I was happy to see that Susan Brock has called this out a few times, and I hope his bias is so obvious that The Board, or at least some of its more discerning/knowledgeable members, have to acknowledge it. However, my concern is that the various Boards and staff are making decisions based on a (in my opinion) misplaced trust that the "independent" consultant is a neutral party. I urge the Town to find a more neutral consultant in the future. The bottom line is this: At the 10/1/24 Planning Board meeting, the Board requested more information on whether the "gap in coverage (can) be achieved with several microcells on telephone poles." In return, they only received a statement from Verizon engineer, Wasif Sharif, stating issues such as terrain, foliage, and coverage area as their reasons why small cells would "fail to achieve the site objectives." Notice how he didn't say they would fail to fill the coverage gap. In fact, throughout this whole process, Verizon has never stated that a small cell strategy would "fail to fill the coverage gap." They only ever use language like "fail to achieve the site objectives," but the issue at hand is not the objectives of their proposed site. As per Town Code 270-219.R(4)., the purpose of the proposed PWSF is to address "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." So while Verizon's objectives may be to utilize the mid-range band frequencies that occupy 90% of their licensed bandwidth, and create a space they can rent out to other carriers in the future (and small cells would not meet those objectives), the Zoning Board's objective is to discern whether the LEAST INTRUSIVE MEANS TO ADDRESS A GAP IN COVERAGE is a monopole that exceeds the allowable height limit by over 100 feet. Verizon has provided copious graphs and charts of colorful propagation plots for towers of various sizes at various locations, but they have steadfastly refused to do the same for co-located small cells strategically placed along the areas with the highest concentration of dropped calls. Verizon needs to be pressed on this matter, as it is THE key point in the entire review process. If small cells can fill the coverage gap, then they would be the least intrusive means to remedy the problem, thus negating the need for a giant monopole and nullifying grounds for an Effective Prohibition declaration. If the Town's "independent" consultant is simply accepting Verizon's evidence-free justification for not using small cells, then he is grossly shirking his duty. Why do we have Verizon provide hard data to support their claims on dropped calls, communication failures, and the coverage propagation of multiple sized towers at multiple sites but then accept their unsupported opinion about the efficacy of small cells? Especially in light of Mr. Johnson's constant flip-flopping on the matter, the Board needs to request, no, demand the same level of data-supported evidence for the coverage of small cells that Verizon provided for everything else. Thank you for your attention to this important matter. Bob Babjak 106 Wiedmaier Ct. 6 On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 7:00 AM CJ Randall <cjrandall@townithacany.gov> wrote: Hi Andrew, Thanks for your inquiry; planning@townithacany.gov is not the Town of Ithaca Planning Board's direct email address but is for any correspondence directed to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department. As noted during last night's Planning Board meeting, the two respective email messages (received 12/11/2024 at 11:50 am and 12/12/2024 at 10:01 pm, respectively) were addressed 'Dear Town staff and Zoning Board members' and thus were delivered as addressed. This said, we regularly forward correspondence addressed to Planning Board, and we are happy to forward the attached correspondence as well. C.J. C.J. Randall, LEED AP ND Director of Planning Town of Ithaca 215 N Tioga St Ithaca, NY 14850-4357 607-273-1721 x120 cjrandall@townithacany.gov The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. From: Marie/Andrew Molnar <marieandrew93@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2024 7:46 PM To: Chris Balestra <CBalestra@townithacany.gov> Cc: CJ Randall <cjrandall@townithacany.gov>; Town Of Ithaca Clerks Department <clerks@townithacany.gov>; Town Of Ithaca Planning <planning@townithacany.gov>; Codes <codes@townithacany.gov>; Rod Howe <RHowe@townithacany.gov>; Marty Moseley <MMoseley@townithacany.gov>; Rich Depaolo <rdepaolo@townithacany.gov> Subject: Re: URGENT UPDATE: William Johnson conflict of interest!!! Chris, We were a bit confused in the Planning Board meeting tonight when you stated that Bob Babjek had NOT sent his email regarding concerns with William Johnson to the Planning Board. When we look at his original note, the email address of planning@townithacany.gov is included. Is that not the Planning Board email? Furthermore, we also sent a note to the Planning Board earlier this morning, with a copy of his note in the chain under ours (also below). It seems this was also not forwarded to the Planning Board, nor did you reference that in the meeting when a Board member asked for his email.Could you clarify what is going on? Also, could you please confirm that this note in its entirety, and the previous two, have been sent to all the Planning Board members? Thank you. 7 Marie and Andrew The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 10:58 AM Marie/Andrew Molnar <marieandrew93@gmail.com> wrote: We received this letter and are glad to see that someone else is on top of this. We have been shocked to witness the way that the RF consultant William Johnson, while perhaps avoiding untruths, has seemed to show bias toward Verizon throughout the cell tower review process with the Town Boards. Whether including extraneous biased information, changing his statements, or his meandering indirect responses to questions, he certainly does not seem to be an advocate for the implementation of the town codes. We are not at all surprised to see his connection to Verizon's lawyer Jared Lusk. We are concerned because it seems the Town staff and boards are relying so heavily on this person's opinions. We urge the Town to replace him. In our own quest to understand the technical possibilities here, we have spoken with other independent consultants, and been told that small antennas would be a less intrusive means of filling this gap in service. Through this process we have come across a truly independent consultant, Richard Comi, who has an engineering degree from West Point, an MBA from Syracuse University, and over thirty years of experience with the telecommunications industry. His consultancy, the Center for Municipal Solutions (telecomsol.com), works full-time with towns on wireless issues. They are currently working with several town Boards in NY. If you want to educate yourself further on the industry's tactics in local communities (including the misleading use of propagation maps), there is a wealth of information on their website. We respectfully ask that he, or someone like him, replace William Johnson and become the Town's consultant for any future needs. Thank you for your attention to this timely and important matter. Marie and Andrew Molnar Ithacans for Responsible Technology On Thu, Dec 12, 2024 at 9:01 PM Bob Babjak <bobbybabjak@gmail.com> wrote: 8 Dear Town Staff and Zoning Members, I need to make a correction to the email I sent yesterday regarding the bias of the Town's "independent" consultant, William Johnson. I unfortunately included a link to the wrong LinkedIn page; it was a similar-looking, but completely different, man named William Johnson who also worked in the telecom industry. I apologize for this error. Here is the correct LinkedIn page, and I'm sorry to say his alleged bias is actually much more disturbing than I thought. If you scroll down to the "Recommendations" section, you will see a glowing review from none other than the applicant's lead counsel, Jared Lusk! (I also included a screenshot of the page attached to this email). He actually closes with, "I recommend him to any municipality..." Oh, I bet he does. Especially to municipalities where he currently has a pending case! This is unacceptable! How does no one from the Town know about their previous relationship? Why did Mr. Johnson not recuse himself from this case? This is an obvious conflict of interest. How can he maintain the basic appearance of independence when the applicant's lawyer is singing his praises on LinkedIn!?! As someone who recently moved to the area and has an outsider’s perspective on local governance, I must say that I’m appalled by what I’ve witnessed. From Fred Wilcox’s patronizing attitude and obvious favoritism toward the applicant to his strong-arm tactics employed on the Planning Board, along with the lack of notice given to nearby residents about this project, the refusal to allow public comments on the day of the vote, and the Planning Board’s inability or unwillingness to require the applicant to provide evidence—not just the opinion of their engineer, but actual data-supported propagation maps as they did for the alternate sites—on the effectiveness of small cells to address the coverage gap, it all raises serious concerns. And now, the independent consultant appears to be in bed with the applicant’s attorney! With all due respect, it looks like a clown show! I am formally requesting that William Johnson be relieved as the independent consultant and replaced with someone who has no prior connection to the applicant's attorney, Jared Lusk; and the Planning Board reopen its evaluation of the 111 Wiedmaier Ct. site plan and demand the applicant produce in-kind RF propagation analysis for multiple small cells deployed on existing utility poles along 79, Burns, and Coddington as they have for alternative tower sites. Once that evidence has been presented to the Board and reviewed by a new and truly independent consultant, then the Board can have a legitimate re-vote on the site plan. I, along the rest of the Town of Ithaca, eagerly await your response to the serious issues brought up in this email. We have put our trust in you to be stewards of this sacred land. Do not let us down. The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 11:49 AM Bob Babjak <bobbybabjak@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Town Staff and Zoning Board members, I live at 106 Wiedmaier Ct, the house closest to the massively intrusive proposed "Sunny View" PWSF. I have several grave concerns about this project, from the actual existence of a "significant gap" in coverage (for which there is no legal definition or universally accepted determination) to the alarming way it has been handled by Fred Wilcox and the Planning Board. The issue I want to address with this letter, though, is the "independent" RF consultant hired by the 9 Town to evaluate new cell tower applications, William Johnson. In researching Mr. Johnson, I heard from those familiar with his work that he is biased toward the telecom industry (a glance at his LinkedIn page shows that he is fairly embedded within it), but I wanted to give him a chance. Unfortunately, even with the limited technical knowledge I have, it is obvious to me that he is biased in favor of Verizon. I imagine that some of you have also picked up on that. Here are a few examples that I believe call his objectivity into question:  Johnson's initial report contained a number of extraneous and irrelevant one-sided opinions on the specific matter at hand of evaluating Verizon's proposed cell tower. This report was so egregious that the Town lawyer, Susan Brock, requested he resubmit his report after removing all those items (as outlined in an email to Mr. Johnson from Chris Balestra on 10/3/24). One of these topics was his opinion denying any harm cell radiation causes humans, a viewpoint the telecoms have been pushing to save their industry, but clearly outside his purview (and proven wrong by thousands of studies). I know health concerns are not legally allowed to be discussed when considering PWSFs, but denying the very existence of adverse health effects connected to RF radiation exposure is like calling climate change a hoax! At best it's ignorant, at worst it demonstrates a willingness to obscure the facts for the benefit of telecom corporations like Verizon. Either way, it's a bad look for a supposed expert.  In the discussion regarding the new proposed tower, Johnson could have made it clear that the vast majority of voice calls use low band, and these voice calls are the only thing required by law for Ithaca to consider (as set forth by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals: "the ability of wireless telephones to make and receive voice calls to and from landlines that are connected to the national telephone network"). He did not do so, and in fact did the opposite by highlighting in his revised 10/21 preliminary report that Verizon has no mid-band coverage in the gap areas and emphasizing that mid-band is "90% of their usable licensed bandwidth that they can provide to their subscribers; the other 10% is low band....90% of the bandwidth that Verizon has available is not even on the map in this particular gap area....Without something in this gap area, we're going to be dealing with that outdoor marginal kind of coverage that Mr Lusk described in a lot of the target area, and not have the other 90% of the bandwidth for high-speed data and other types of services." All of this is totally irrelevant to the Town's consideration. Fortunately, Susan Brock again reminded everyone, "We're talking about voice calls only, nothing about other things." But, this clearly indicates a biased view in favor of the industry and more misdirection.  In another instance of misdirection/distraction, Johnson goes into a long diatribe about other scenarios in which small cells are often used (all true), but he stops short of saying that they are also used to patch a gap in coverage - the very situation the Board is considering.  In both his written materials and verbal comments, Johnson repeatedly made it clear that small cells are "technically" a feasible alternative to a monopole cell tower (a core question in deciding whether or not they could be the least intrusive means to fill the gap and render an applicant's claim of Effective Prohibition null in the case of denial). In his 10/21 revised preliminary report, Johnson even writes, "Other approaches can include use of multiple shorter support structures, co-location on existing shorter structures, distributed antenna systems, and small-cell installations where visual impact is critical." He then follows up these statements with caveats that they might be less effective, or might require them to submit more applications, or could fail in the case of a catastrophic weather event toppling utility poles (again, not the Town's issue). Toward the end of the Zoning Board meeting, after one of his convoluted explanations, a Board member (incorrectly) surmised that the consultant concluded that small cells would not be technically feasible, and Johnson did not correct him. His silence was curious and again seems to support the idea that he favors Verizon getting the pole they want. I was happy to see that Susan Brock has called this out a few times, and I hope his bias is so obvious that The Board, or at least some of its more discerning/knowledgeable members, have to acknowledge it. However, my concern is that the various Boards and staff are making decisions based on a (in my opinion) misplaced trust that the "independent" consultant is a neutral party. I urge the Town to find a more neutral consultant in the future. The bottom line is this: At the 10/1/24 Planning Board meeting, the Board requested more information on whether the "gap in coverage (can) be achieved with several microcells on telephone poles." In return, they only received a statement from Verizon engineer, Wasif Sharif, stating issues such as terrain, foliage, and coverage area as their reasons why small cells would "fail to achieve the site objectives." Notice how he didn't say they would fail to fill the coverage gap. In fact, throughout this whole process, Verizon has never stated that a small cell strategy would "fail to fill the coverage gap." They only ever use language like "fail to achieve the site objectives," but the issue at hand is not the objectives of their proposed site. 10 As per Town Code 270-219.R(4)., the purpose of the proposed PWSF is to address "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." So while Verizon's objectives may be to utilize the mid-range band frequencies that occupy 90% of their licensed bandwidth, and create a space they can rent out to other carriers in the future (and small cells would not meet those objectives), the Zoning Board's objective is to discern whether the LEAST INTRUSIVE MEANS TO ADDRESS A GAP IN COVERAGE is a monopole that exceeds the allowable height limit by over 100 feet. Verizon has provided copious graphs and charts of colorful propagation plots for towers of various sizes at various locations, but they have steadfastly refused to do the same for co-located small cells strategically placed along the areas with the highest concentration of dropped calls. Verizon needs to be pressed on this matter, as it is THE key point in the entire review process. If small cells can fill the coverage gap, then they would be the least intrusive means to remedy the problem, thus negating the need for a giant monopole and nullifying grounds for an Effective Prohibition declaration. If the Town's "independent" consultant is simply accepting Verizon's evidence-free justification for not using small cells, then he is grossly shirking his duty. Why do we have Verizon provide hard data to support their claims on dropped calls, communication failures, and the coverage propagation of multiple sized towers at multiple sites but then accept their unsupported opinion about the efficacy of small cells? Especially in light of Mr. Johnson's constant flip-flopping on the matter, the Board needs to request, no, demand the same level of data-supported evidence for the coverage of small cells that Verizon provided for everything else. Thank you for your attention to this important matter. Bob Babjak 106 Wiedmaier Ct. 1 Lori Kofoid From:Jeff Zorn <jrz3@cornell.edu> Sent:Wednesday, December 18, 2024 12:34 PM To:Marie/Andrew Molnar; CJ Randall Cc:Codes; Rod Howe; Marty Moseley; Rich Depaolo; Chris Balestra; Town Of Ithaca Clerks Department Subject:RE: URGENT UPDATE: William Johnson conflict of interest!!! **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 Hmm, I am now wondering if the email I sent to planning@townithacany.gov from my gmail account, jrzorn001@gmail.com, made it to the planning board at all. planning@townithacany.gov acknowledged receipt of the email, but I’ve no clue now whether the right people got it. From: Marie/Andrew Molnar <marieandrew93@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2024 12:21 PM To: CJ Randall <cjrandall@townithacany.gov> Cc: Codes <codes@townithacany.gov>; Rod Howe <RHowe@townithacany.gov>; Marty Moseley <MMoseley@townithacany.gov>; Rich Depaolo <rdepaolo@townithacany.gov>; Chris Balestra <CBalestra@townithacany.gov>; Town Of Ithaca Clerks Department <clerks@townithacany.gov> Subject: Re: URGENT UPDATE: William Johnson conflict of interest!!! Thank you, CJ. This is the first time we have heard this. In the past, we were told by staff that just including that email address would ensure it was delivered to the Planning Board members (same for the Zoning Board email and Zoning Board members). But, now that we hear differently, we will be sure that we address notes as such. So, to be totally clear, are you saying that any time emails are directly addressed to a Board (e.g. Dear Zoning Board members), they will always be forwarded on to all the members of that Board? Also, given this confusion, could you please verify if the following emails of ours were sent on to all the Board members? 1. 11/25 email with the subject "Request to Reverse the Vote on Verizon's Wiedmeier Ct cell tower" (sent to both the Planning and Zoning Board members) 2. 12/3 email with the subject "A timely note for the Zoning Board" (sent to just the Zoning Board members) 3. 12/6 email with the subject "The important larger context" (sent from Andrew's email andrewmolnar11@gmail just to the Zoning Board members) 4. 12/17 email with the subject "Re: URGENT UPDATE: William Johnson conflict of interest!!! " (sent to both the Planning and Zoning Board members) Thank you for this clarification, Marie and Andrew On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 7:00 AM CJ Randall <cjrandall@townithacany.gov> wrote: Hi Andrew, 2 Thanks for your inquiry; planning@townithacany.gov is not the Town of Ithaca Planning Board's direct email address but is for any correspondence directed to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department. As noted during last night's Planning Board meeting, the two respective email messages (received 12/11/2024 at 11:50 am and 12/12/2024 at 10:01 pm, respectively) were addressed 'Dear Town staff and Zoning Board members' and thus were delivered as addressed. This said, we regularly forward correspondence addressed to Planning Board, and we are happy to forward the attached correspondence as well. C.J. C.J. Randall, LEED AP ND Director of Planning Town of Ithaca 215 N Tioga St Ithaca, NY 14850-4357 607-273-1721 x120 cjrandall@townithacany.gov The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. From: Marie/Andrew Molnar <marieandrew93@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2024 7:46 PM To: Chris Balestra <CBalestra@townithacany.gov> Cc: CJ Randall <cjrandall@townithacany.gov>; Town Of Ithaca Clerks Department <clerks@townithacany.gov>; Town Of Ithaca Planning <planning@townithacany.gov>; Codes <codes@townithacany.gov>; Rod Howe <RHowe@townithacany.gov>; Marty Moseley <MMoseley@townithacany.gov>; Rich Depaolo <rdepaolo@townithacany.gov> Subject: Re: URGENT UPDATE: William Johnson conflict of interest!!! Chris, We were a bit confused in the Planning Board meeting tonight when you stated that Bob Babjek had NOT sent his email regarding concerns with William Johnson to the Planning Board. When we look at his original note, the email address of planning@townithacany.gov is included. Is that not the Planning Board email? Furthermore, we also sent a note to the Planning Board earlier this morning, with a copy of his note in the chain under ours (also below). It seems this was also not forwarded to the Planning Board, nor did you reference that in the meeting when a Board member asked for his email.Could you clarify what is going on? Also, could you please confirm that this note in its entirety, and the previous two, have been sent to all the Planning Board members? Thank you. Marie and Andrew 3 The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 10:58 AM Marie/Andrew Molnar <marieandrew93@gmail.com> wrote: We received this letter and are glad to see that someone else is on top of this. We have been shocked to witness the way that the RF consultant William Johnson, while perhaps avoiding untruths, has seemed to show bias toward Verizon throughout the cell tower review process with the Town Boards. Whether including extraneous biased information, changing his statements, or his meandering indirect responses to questions, he certainly does not seem to be an advocate for the implementation of the town codes. We are not at all surprised to see his connection to Verizon's lawyer Jared Lusk. We are concerned because it seems the Town staff and boards are relying so heavily on this person's opinions. We urge the Town to replace him. In our own quest to understand the technical possibilities here, we have spoken with other independent consultants, and been told that small antennas would be a less intrusive means of filling this gap in service. Through this process we have come across a truly independent consultant, Richard Comi, who has an engineering degree from West Point, an MBA from Syracuse University, and over thirty years of experience with the telecommunications industry. His consultancy, the Center for Municipal Solutions (telecomsol.com), works full-time with towns on wireless issues. They are currently working with several town Boards in NY. If you want to educate yourself further on the industry's tactics in local communities (including the misleading use of propagation maps), there is a wealth of information on their website. We respectfully ask that he, or someone like him, replace William Johnson and become the Town's consultant for any future needs. Thank you for your attention to this timely and important matter. Marie and Andrew Molnar Ithacans for Responsible Technology On Thu, Dec 12, 2024 at 9:01 PM Bob Babjak <bobbybabjak@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Town Staff and Zoning Members, 4 I need to make a correction to the email I sent yesterday regarding the bias of the Town's "independent" consultant, William Johnson. I unfortunately included a link to the wrong LinkedIn page; it was a similar-looking, but completely different, man named William Johnson who also worked in the telecom industry. I apologize for this error. Here is the correct LinkedIn page, and I'm sorry to say his alleged bias is actually much more disturbing than I thought. If you scroll down to the "Recommendations" section, you will see a glowing review from none other than the applicant's lead counsel, Jared Lusk! (I also included a screenshot of the page attached to this email). He actually closes with, "I recommend him to any municipality..." Oh, I bet he does. Especially to municipalities where he currently has a pending case! This is unacceptable! How does no one from the Town know about their previous relationship? Why did Mr. Johnson not recuse himself from this case? This is an obvious conflict of interest. How can he maintain the basic appearance of independence when the applicant's lawyer is singing his praises on LinkedIn!?! As someone who recently moved to the area and has an outsider’s perspective on local governance, I must say that I’m appalled by what I’ve witnessed. From Fred Wilcox’s patronizing attitude and obvious favoritism toward the applicant to his strong-arm tactics employed on the Planning Board, along with the lack of notice given to nearby residents about this project, the refusal to allow public comments on the day of the vote, and the Planning Board’s inability or unwillingness to require the applicant to provide evidence—not just the opinion of their engineer, but actual data-supported propagation maps as they did for the alternate sites—on the effectiveness of small cells to address the coverage gap, it all raises serious concerns. And now, the independent consultant appears to be in bed with the applicant’s attorney! With all due respect, it looks like a clown show! I am formally requesting that William Johnson be relieved as the independent consultant and replaced with someone who has no prior connection to the applicant's attorney, Jared Lusk; and the Planning Board reopen its evaluation of the 111 Wiedmaier Ct. site plan and demand the applicant produce in-kind RF propagation analysis for multiple small cells deployed on existing utility poles along 79, Burns, and Coddington as they have for alternative tower sites. Once that evidence has been presented to the Board and reviewed by a new and truly independent consultant, then the Board can have a legitimate re-vote on the site plan. I, along the rest of the Town of Ithaca, eagerly await your response to the serious issues brought up in this email. We have put our trust in you to be stewards of this sacred land. Do not let us down. The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 11:49 AM Bob Babjak <bobbybabjak@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Town Staff and Zoning Board members, I live at 106 Wiedmaier Ct, the house closest to the massively intrusive proposed "Sunny View" PWSF. I have several grave concerns about this project, from the actual existence of a "significant gap" in coverage (for which there is no legal definition or universally accepted determination) to the alarming way it has been handled by Fred Wilcox and the Planning Board. The issue I want to address with this letter, though, is the "independent" RF consultant hired by the Town to evaluate new cell tower applications, William Johnson. 5 In researching Mr. Johnson, I heard from those familiar with his work that he is biased toward the telecom industry (a glance at his LinkedIn page shows that he is fairly embedded within it), but I wanted to give him a chance. Unfortunately, even with the limited technical knowledge I have, it is obvious to me that he is biased in favor of Verizon. I imagine that some of you have also picked up on that. Here are a few examples that I believe call his objectivity into question:  Johnson's initial report contained a number of extraneous and irrelevant one-sided opinions on the specific matter at hand of evaluating Verizon's proposed cell tower. This report was so egregious that the Town lawyer, Susan Brock, requested he resubmit his report after removing all those items (as outlined in an email to Mr. Johnson from Chris Balestra on 10/3/24). One of these topics was his opinion denying any harm cell radiation causes humans, a viewpoint the telecoms have been pushing to save their industry, but clearly outside his purview (and proven wrong by thousands of studies). I know health concerns are not legally allowed to be discussed when considering PWSFs, but denying the very existence of adverse health effects connected to RF radiation exposure is like calling climate change a hoax! At best it's ignorant, at worst it demonstrates a willingness to obscure the facts for the benefit of telecom corporations like Verizon. Either way, it's a bad look for a supposed expert.  In the discussion regarding the new proposed tower, Johnson could have made it clear that the vast majority of voice calls use low band, and these voice calls are the only thing required by law for Ithaca to consider (as set forth by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals: "the ability of wireless telephones to make and receive voice calls to and from landlines that are connected to the national telephone network"). He did not do so, and in fact did the opposite by highlighting in his revised 10/21 preliminary report that Verizon has no mid-band coverage in the gap areas and emphasizing that mid-band is "90% of their usable licensed bandwidth that they can provide to their subscribers; the other 10% is low band....90% of the bandwidth that Verizon has available is not even on the map in this particular gap area....Without something in this gap area, we're going to be dealing with that outdoor marginal kind of coverage that Mr Lusk described in a lot of the target area, and not have the other 90% of the bandwidth for high-speed data and other types of services." All of this is totally irrelevant to the Town's consideration. Fortunately, Susan Brock again reminded everyone, "We're talking about voice calls only, nothing about other things." But, this clearly indicates a biased view in favor of the industry and more misdirection.  In another instance of misdirection/distraction, Johnson goes into a long diatribe about other scenarios in which small cells are often used (all true), but he stops short of saying that they are also used to patch a gap in coverage - the very situation the Board is considering.  In both his written materials and verbal comments, Johnson repeatedly made it clear that small cells are "technically" a feasible alternative to a monopole cell tower (a core question in deciding whether or not they could be the least intrusive means to fill the gap and render an applicant's claim of Effective Prohibition null in the case of denial). In his 10/21 revised preliminary report, Johnson even writes, "Other approaches can include use of multiple shorter support structures, co-location on existing shorter structures, distributed antenna systems, and small-cell installations where visual impact is critical." He then follows up these statements with caveats that they might be less effective, or might require them to submit more applications, or could fail in the case of a catastrophic weather event toppling utility poles (again, not the Town's issue). Toward the end of the Zoning Board meeting, after one of his convoluted explanations, a Board member (incorrectly) surmised that the consultant concluded that small cells would not be technically feasible, and Johnson did not correct him. His silence was curious and again seems to support the idea that he favors Verizon getting the pole they want. I was happy to see that Susan Brock has called this out a few times, and I hope his bias is so obvious that The Board, or at least some of its more discerning/knowledgeable members, have to acknowledge it. However, my concern is that the various Boards and staff are making decisions based on a (in my opinion) misplaced trust that the "independent" consultant is a neutral party. I urge the Town to find a more neutral consultant in the future. The bottom line is this: At the 10/1/24 Planning Board meeting, the Board requested more information on whether the "gap in coverage (can) be achieved with several microcells on telephone poles." In return, they only received a statement from Verizon engineer, Wasif Sharif, stating issues such as terrain, foliage, and coverage area as their reasons why small cells would "fail to achieve the site objectives." Notice how he didn't say they would fail to fill the coverage gap. In fact, throughout this whole process, Verizon has never stated that a small cell strategy would "fail to fill the coverage gap." They only ever use language like "fail to achieve the site objectives," but the issue at hand is not the objectives of their proposed site. As per Town Code 270-219.R(4)., the purpose of the proposed PWSF is to address "a significant gap in the applicant's personal wireless services (the ability of wireless telephones to make and receive voice calls to and from 6 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." So while Verizon's objectives may be to utilize the mid-range band frequencies that occupy 90% of their licensed bandwidth, and create a space they can rent out to other carriers in the future (and small cells would not meet those objectives), the Zoning Board's objective is to discern whether the LEAST INTRUSIVE MEANS TO ADDRESS A GAP IN COVERAGE is a monopole that exceeds the allowable height limit by over 100 feet. Verizon has provided copious graphs and charts of colorful propagation plots for towers of various sizes at various locations, but they have steadfastly refused to do the same for co-located small cells strategically placed along the areas with the highest concentration of dropped calls. Verizon needs to be pressed on this matter, as it is THE key point in the entire review process. If small cells can fill the coverage gap, then they would be the least intrusive means to remedy the problem, thus negating the need for a giant monopole and nullifying grounds for an Effective Prohibition declaration. If the Town's "independent" consultant is simply accepting Verizon's evidence-free justification for not using small cells, then he is grossly shirking his duty. Why do we have Verizon provide hard data to support their claims on dropped calls, communication failures, and the coverage propagation of multiple sized towers at multiple sites but then accept their unsupported opinion about the efficacy of small cells? Especially in light of Mr. Johnson's constant flip-flopping on the matter, the Board needs to request, no, demand the same level of data-supported evidence for the coverage of small cells that Verizon provided for everything else. Thank you for your attention to this important matter. Bob Babjak 106 Wiedmaier Ct. On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 7:00 AM CJ Randall <cjrandall@townithacany.gov> wrote: Hi Andrew, Thanks for your inquiry; planning@townithacany.gov is not the Town of Ithaca Planning Board's direct email address but is for any correspondence directed to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department. As noted during last night's Planning Board meeting, the two respective email messages (received 12/11/2024 at 11:50 am and 12/12/2024 at 10:01 pm, respectively) were addressed 'Dear Town staff and Zoning Board members' and thus were delivered as addressed. This said, we regularly forward correspondence addressed to Planning Board, and we are happy to forward the attached correspondence as well. C.J. C.J. Randall, LEED AP ND Director of Planning Town of Ithaca 215 N Tioga St Ithaca, NY 14850-4357 607-273-1721 x120 cjrandall@townithacany.gov 7 The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. From: Marie/Andrew Molnar <marieandrew93@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2024 7:46 PM To: Chris Balestra <CBalestra@townithacany.gov> Cc: CJ Randall <cjrandall@townithacany.gov>; Town Of Ithaca Clerks Department <clerks@townithacany.gov>; Town Of Ithaca Planning <planning@townithacany.gov>; Codes <codes@townithacany.gov>; Rod Howe <RHowe@townithacany.gov>; Marty Moseley <MMoseley@townithacany.gov>; Rich Depaolo <rdepaolo@townithacany.gov> Subject: Re: URGENT UPDATE: William Johnson conflict of interest!!! Chris, We were a bit confused in the Planning Board meeting tonight when you stated that Bob Babjek had NOT sent his email regarding concerns with William Johnson to the Planning Board. When we look at his original note, the email address of planning@townithacany.gov is included. Is that not the Planning Board email? Furthermore, we also sent a note to the Planning Board earlier this morning, with a copy of his note in the chain under ours (also below). It seems this was also not forwarded to the Planning Board, nor did you reference that in the meeting when a Board member asked for his email.Could you clarify what is going on? Also, could you please confirm that this note in its entirety, and the previous two, have been sent to all the Planning Board members? Thank you. Marie and Andrew The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. 8 On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 10:58 AM Marie/Andrew Molnar <marieandrew93@gmail.com> wrote: We received this letter and are glad to see that someone else is on top of this. We have been shocked to witness the way that the RF consultant William Johnson, while perhaps avoiding untruths, has seemed to show bias toward Verizon throughout the cell tower review process with the Town Boards. Whether including extraneous biased information, changing his statements, or his meandering indirect responses to questions, he certainly does not seem to be an advocate for the implementation of the town codes. We are not at all surprised to see his connection to Verizon's lawyer Jared Lusk. We are concerned because it seems the Town staff and boards are relying so heavily on this person's opinions. We urge the Town to replace him. In our own quest to understand the technical possibilities here, we have spoken with other independent consultants, and been told that small antennas would be a less intrusive means of filling this gap in service. Through this process we have come across a truly independent consultant, Richard Comi, who has an engineering degree from West Point, an MBA from Syracuse University, and over thirty years of experience with the telecommunications industry. His consultancy, the Center for Municipal Solutions (telecomsol.com), works full-time with towns on wireless issues. They are currently working with several town Boards in NY. If you want to educate yourself further on the industry's tactics in local communities (including the misleading use of propagation maps), there is a wealth of information on their website. We respectfully ask that he, or someone like him, replace William Johnson and become the Town's consultant for any future needs. Thank you for your attention to this timely and important matter. Marie and Andrew Molnar Ithacans for Responsible Technology On Thu, Dec 12, 2024 at 9:01 PM Bob Babjak <bobbybabjak@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Town Staff and Zoning Members, I need to make a correction to the email I sent yesterday regarding the bias of the Town's "independent" consultant, William Johnson. I unfortunately included a link to the wrong LinkedIn page; it was a similar-looking, but completely different, man named William Johnson who also worked in the telecom industry. I apologize for this error. Here is the correct LinkedIn page, and I'm sorry to say his alleged bias is actually much more disturbing than I thought. If you scroll down to the "Recommendations" section, you will see a glowing review from none other than the applicant's lead counsel, Jared Lusk! (I also included a screenshot of the page attached to this email). He actually closes with, "I recommend him to any municipality..." Oh, I bet he does. Especially to municipalities where he currently has a pending case! This is unacceptable! How does no one from the Town know about their previous relationship? Why did Mr. Johnson not recuse himself from this case? This is an obvious conflict of interest. How can he maintain the basic appearance of independence when the applicant's lawyer is singing his praises on LinkedIn!?! As someone who recently moved to the area and has an outsider’s perspective on local governance, I must say that I’m appalled by what I’ve witnessed. From Fred Wilcox’s patronizing attitude and obvious favoritism toward the applicant to his strong-arm tactics employed on the Planning Board, along with the lack of notice given to nearby residents about this project, the refusal to allow public comments on the day of the vote, and the Planning Board’s inability or unwillingness to require the applicant to provide evidence—not just the opinion of their engineer, but actual data-supported propagation maps as they did for the alternate sites—on the effectiveness of small cells to address the coverage gap, it all raises serious concerns. And now, the independent consultant appears to be in bed with the applicant’s attorney! With all due respect, it looks like a clown show! I am formally requesting that William Johnson be relieved as the independent consultant and replaced with someone who has no prior connection to the applicant's attorney, Jared Lusk; and the Planning Board reopen its evaluation of the 111 Wiedmaier Ct. site plan and demand the applicant produce in-kind RF propagation analysis for multiple small cells deployed on existing utility poles along 79, Burns, and Coddington as they have for alternative tower sites. Once 9 that evidence has been presented to the Board and reviewed by a new and truly independent consultant, then the Board can have a legitimate re-vote on the site plan. I, along the rest of the Town of Ithaca, eagerly await your response to the serious issues brought up in this email. We have put our trust in you to be stewards of this sacred land. Do not let us down. The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 11:49 AM Bob Babjak <bobbybabjak@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Town Staff and Zoning Board members, I live at 106 Wiedmaier Ct, the house closest to the massively intrusive proposed "Sunny View" PWSF. I have several grave concerns about this project, from the actual existence of a "significant gap" in coverage (for which there is no legal definition or universally accepted determination) to the alarming way it has been handled by Fred Wilcox and the Planning Board. The issue I want to address with this letter, though, is the "independent" RF consultant hired by the Town to evaluate new cell tower applications, William Johnson. In researching Mr. Johnson, I heard from those familiar with his work that he is biased toward the telecom industry (a glance at his LinkedIn page shows that he is fairly embedded within it), but I wanted to give him a chance. Unfortunately, even with the limited technical knowledge I have, it is obvious to me that he is biased in favor of Verizon. I imagine that some of you have also picked up on that. Here are a few examples that I believe call his objectivity into question:  Johnson's initial report contained a number of extraneous and irrelevant one-sided opinions on the specific matter at hand of evaluating Verizon's proposed cell tower. This report was so egregious that the Town lawyer, Susan Brock, requested he resubmit his report after removing all those items (as outlined in an email to Mr. Johnson from Chris Balestra on 10/3/24). One of these topics was his opinion denying any harm cell radiation causes humans, a viewpoint the telecoms have been pushing to save their industry, but clearly outside his purview (and proven wrong by thousands of studies). I know health concerns are not legally allowed to be discussed when considering PWSFs, but denying the very existence of adverse health effects connected to RF radiation exposure is like calling climate change a hoax! At best it's ignorant, at worst it demonstrates a willingness to obscure the facts for the benefit of telecom corporations like Verizon. Either way, it's a bad look for a supposed expert.  In the discussion regarding the new proposed tower, Johnson could have made it clear that the vast majority of voice calls use low band, and these voice calls are the only thing required by law for Ithaca to consider (as set forth by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals: "the ability of wireless telephones to make and receive voice calls to and from landlines that are connected to the national telephone network"). He did not do so, and in fact did the opposite by highlighting in his revised 10/21 preliminary report that Verizon has no mid-band coverage in the gap areas and emphasizing that mid-band is "90% of their usable licensed bandwidth that they can provide to their subscribers; the other 10% is low band....90% of the bandwidth that Verizon has available is not even on the map in this particular gap area....Without something in this gap area, we're going to be dealing with that outdoor marginal kind of coverage that Mr Lusk described in a lot of the target area, and not have the other 90% of the bandwidth for high-speed data and other types of services." All of this is totally irrelevant to the Town's consideration. Fortunately, Susan Brock again reminded everyone, "We're 10 talking about voice calls only, nothing about other things." But, this clearly indicates a biased view in favor of the industry and more misdirection.  In another instance of misdirection/distraction, Johnson goes into a long diatribe about other scenarios in which small cells are often used (all true), but he stops short of saying that they are also used to patch a gap in coverage - the very situation the Board is considering.  In both his written materials and verbal comments, Johnson repeatedly made it clear that small cells are "technically" a feasible alternative to a monopole cell tower (a core question in deciding whether or not they could be the least intrusive means to fill the gap and render an applicant's claim of Effective Prohibition null in the case of denial). In his 10/21 revised preliminary report, Johnson even writes, "Other approaches can include use of multiple shorter support structures, co-location on existing shorter structures, distributed antenna systems, and small-cell installations where visual impact is critical." He then follows up these statements with caveats that they might be less effective, or might require them to submit more applications, or could fail in the case of a catastrophic weather event toppling utility poles (again, not the Town's issue). Toward the end of the Zoning Board meeting, after one of his convoluted explanations, a Board member (incorrectly) surmised that the consultant concluded that small cells would not be technically feasible, and Johnson did not correct him. His silence was curious and again seems to support the idea that he favors Verizon getting the pole they want. I was happy to see that Susan Brock has called this out a few times, and I hope his bias is so obvious that The Board, or at least some of its more discerning/knowledgeable members, have to acknowledge it. However, my concern is that the various Boards and staff are making decisions based on a (in my opinion) misplaced trust that the "independent" consultant is a neutral party. I urge the Town to find a more neutral consultant in the future. The bottom line is this: At the 10/1/24 Planning Board meeting, the Board requested more information on whether the "gap in coverage (can) be achieved with several microcells on telephone poles." In return, they only received a statement from Verizon engineer, Wasif Sharif, stating issues such as terrain, foliage, and coverage area as their reasons why small cells would "fail to achieve the site objectives." Notice how he didn't say they would fail to fill the coverage gap. In fact, throughout this whole process, Verizon has never stated that a small cell strategy would "fail to fill the coverage gap." They only ever use language like "fail to achieve the site objectives," but the issue at hand is not the objectives of their proposed site. As per Town Code 270-219.R(4)., the purpose of the proposed PWSF is to address "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." So while Verizon's objectives may be to utilize the mid-range band frequencies that occupy 90% of their licensed bandwidth, and create a space they can rent out to other carriers in the future (and small cells would not meet those objectives), the Zoning Board's objective is to discern whether the LEAST INTRUSIVE MEANS TO ADDRESS A GAP IN COVERAGE is a monopole that exceeds the allowable height limit by over 100 feet. Verizon has provided copious graphs and charts of colorful propagation plots for towers of various sizes at various locations, but they have steadfastly refused to do the same for co-located small cells strategically placed along the areas with the highest concentration of dropped calls. Verizon needs to be pressed on this matter, as it is THE key point in the entire review process. If small cells can fill the coverage gap, then they would be the least intrusive means to remedy the problem, thus negating the need for a giant monopole and nullifying grounds for an Effective Prohibition declaration. If the Town's "independent" consultant is simply accepting Verizon's evidence-free justification for not using small cells, then he is grossly shirking his duty. Why do we have Verizon provide hard data to support their claims on dropped calls, communication failures, and the coverage propagation of multiple sized towers at multiple sites but then accept their unsupported opinion about the efficacy of small cells? Especially in light of Mr. Johnson's constant flip-flopping on the matter, the Board needs to request, no, demand the same level of data-supported evidence for the coverage of small cells that Verizon provided for everything else. Thank you for your attention to this important matter. Bob Babjak 106 Wiedmaier Ct. 11 1 Lori Kofoid From:Jeff Zorn <jrz3@cornell.edu> Sent:Wednesday, December 18, 2024 2:00 PM To:CJ Randall; Marie/Andrew Molnar Cc:Codes; Rod Howe; Marty Moseley; Rich Depaolo; Chris Balestra; Town Of Ithaca Clerks Department Subject:RE: URGENT UPDATE: William Johnson conflict of interest!!! Great. Good to know it made it in. Thanks. From: CJ Randall <cjrandall@townithacany.gov> Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2024 1:54 PM To: Jeff Zorn <jrz3@cornell.edu>; Marie/Andrew Molnar <marieandrew93@gmail.com> Cc: Codes <codes@townithacany.gov>; Rod Howe <RHowe@townithacany.gov>; Marty Moseley <MMoseley@townithacany.gov>; Rich Depaolo <rdepaolo@townithacany.gov>; Chris Balestra <CBalestra@townithacany.gov>; Town Of Ithaca Clerks Department <clerks@townithacany.gov> Subject: Re: URGENT UPDATE: William Johnson conflict of interest!!! Hi Jeff, Yes, your comment received 12/16/2024 at 11:17 am was addressed to the Planning Board and delivered as such; the record associated with the 12/17/2024 Planning Board meeting is linked here: https://lfweb.tompkins-co.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=291205&dbid=9&repo=TownOfIthaca C.J. C.J. Randall, LEED AP ND Director of Planning Town of Ithaca 215 N Tioga St Ithaca, NY 14850-4357 607-273-1721 x120 cjrandall@townithacany.gov From: Jeff Zorn <jrz3@cornell.edu> Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2024 12:34 PM To: Marie/Andrew Molnar <marieandrew93@gmail.com>; CJ Randall <cjrandall@townithacany.gov> Cc: Codes <codes@townithacany.gov>; Rod Howe <RHowe@townithacany.gov>; Marty Moseley <MMoseley@townithacany.gov>; Rich Depaolo <rdepaolo@townithacany.gov>; Chris Balestra <CBalestra@townithacany.gov>; Town Of Ithaca Clerks Department <clerks@townithacany.gov> Subject: RE: URGENT UPDATE: William Johnson conflict of interest!!! 2 **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 Hmm, I am now wondering if the email I sent to planning@townithacany.gov from my gmail account, jrzorn001@gmail.com, made it to the planning board at all. planning@townithacany.gov acknowledged receipt of the email, but I’ve no clue now whether the right people got it. From: Marie/Andrew Molnar <marieandrew93@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2024 12:21 PM To: CJ Randall <cjrandall@townithacany.gov> Cc: Codes <codes@townithacany.gov>; Rod Howe <RHowe@townithacany.gov>; Marty Moseley <MMoseley@townithacany.gov>; Rich Depaolo <rdepaolo@townithacany.gov>; Chris Balestra <CBalestra@townithacany.gov>; Town Of Ithaca Clerks Department <clerks@townithacany.gov> Subject: Re: URGENT UPDATE: William Johnson conflict of interest!!! Thank you, CJ. This is the first time we have heard this. In the past, we were told by staff that just including that email address would ensure it was delivered to the Planning Board members (same for the Zoning Board email and Zoning Board members). But, now that we hear differently, we will be sure that we address notes as such. So, to be totally clear, are you saying that any time emails are directly addressed to a Board (e.g. Dear Zoning Board members), they will always be forwarded on to all the members of that Board? Also, given this confusion, could you please verify if the following emails of ours were sent on to all the Board members? 1. 11/25 email with the subject "Request to Reverse the Vote on Verizon's Wiedmeier Ct cell tower" (sent to both the Planning and Zoning Board members) 2. 12/3 email with the subject "A timely note for the Zoning Board" (sent to just the Zoning Board members) 3. 12/6 email with the subject "The important larger context" (sent from Andrew's email andrewmolnar11@gmail just to the Zoning Board members) 4. 12/17 email with the subject "Re: URGENT UPDATE: William Johnson conflict of interest!!! " (sent to both the Planning and Zoning Board members) Thank you for this clarification, Marie and Andrew On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 7:00 AM CJ Randall <cjrandall@townithacany.gov> wrote: 3 Hi Andrew, Thanks for your inquiry; planning@townithacany.gov is not the Town of Ithaca Planning Board's direct email address but is for any correspondence directed to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department. As noted during last night's Planning Board meeting, the two respective email messages (received 12/11/2024 at 11:50 am and 12/12/2024 at 10:01 pm, respectively) were addressed 'Dear Town staff and Zoning Board members' and thus were delivered as addressed. This said, we regularly forward correspondence addressed to Planning Board, and we are happy to forward the attached correspondence as well. C.J. C.J. Randall, LEED AP ND Director of Planning Town of Ithaca 215 N Tioga St Ithaca, NY 14850-4357 607-273-1721 x120 cjrandall@townithacany.gov The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. From: Marie/Andrew Molnar <marieandrew93@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2024 7:46 PM To: Chris Balestra <CBalestra@townithacany.gov> Cc: CJ Randall <cjrandall@townithacany.gov>; Town Of Ithaca Clerks Department <clerks@townithacany.gov>; Town Of Ithaca Planning <planning@townithacany.gov>; Codes <codes@townithacany.gov>; Rod Howe <RHowe@townithacany.gov>; Marty Moseley <MMoseley@townithacany.gov>; Rich Depaolo <rdepaolo@townithacany.gov> Subject: Re: URGENT UPDATE: William Johnson conflict of interest!!! 4 Chris, We were a bit confused in the Planning Board meeting tonight when you stated that Bob Babjek had NOT sent his email regarding concerns with William Johnson to the Planning Board. When we look at his original note, the email address of planning@townithacany.gov is included. Is that not the Planning Board email? Furthermore, we also sent a note to the Planning Board earlier this morning, with a copy of his note in the chain under ours (also below). It seems this was also not forwarded to the Planning Board, nor did you reference that in the meeting when a Board member asked for his email.Could you clarify what is going on? Also, could you please confirm that this note in its entirety, and the previous two, have been sent to all the Planning Board members? Thank you. Marie and Andrew The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. 5 On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 10:58 AM Marie/Andrew Molnar <marieandrew93@gmail.com> wrote: We received this letter and are glad to see that someone else is on top of this. We have been shocked to witness the way that the RF consultant William Johnson, while perhaps avoiding untruths, has seemed to show bias toward Verizon throughout the cell tower review process with the Town Boards. Whether including extraneous biased information, changing his statements, or his meandering indirect responses to questions, he certainly does not seem to be an advocate for the implementation of the town codes. We are not at all surprised to see his connection to Verizon's lawyer Jared Lusk. We are concerned because it seems the Town staff and boards are relying so heavily on this person's opinions. We urge the Town to replace him. In our own quest to understand the technical possibilities here, we have spoken with other independent consultants, and been told that small antennas would be a less intrusive means of filling this gap in service. Through this process we have come across a truly independent consultant, Richard Comi, who has an engineering degree from West Point, an MBA from Syracuse University, and over thirty years of experience with the telecommunications industry. His consultancy, the Center for Municipal Solutions (telecomsol.com), works full-time with towns on wireless issues. They are currently working with several town Boards in NY. If you want to educate yourself further on the industry's tactics in local communities (including the misleading use of propagation maps), there is a wealth of information on their website. We respectfully ask that he, or someone like him, replace William Johnson and become the Town's consultant for any future needs. Thank you for your attention to this timely and important matter. Marie and Andrew Molnar Ithacans for Responsible Technology On Thu, Dec 12, 2024 at 9:01 PM Bob Babjak <bobbybabjak@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Town Staff and Zoning Members, I need to make a correction to the email I sent yesterday regarding the bias of the Town's "independent" consultant, William Johnson. I unfortunately included a link to the wrong LinkedIn page; it was a similar-looking, but completely different, man named William Johnson who also worked in the telecom industry. I apologize for this error. Here is the correct LinkedIn page, and I'm sorry to say his alleged bias is actually much more disturbing than I thought. If you scroll down to the "Recommendations" section, you will see a glowing review from none other than the applicant's lead counsel, Jared Lusk! (I also included a screenshot of the page attached to this email). He actually closes with, "I recommend him to any municipality..." Oh, I bet he does. Especially to municipalities where he currently has a pending case! 6 This is unacceptable! How does no one from the Town know about their previous relationship? Why did Mr. Johnson not recuse himself from this case? This is an obvious conflict of interest. How can he maintain the basic appearance of independence when the applicant's lawyer is singing his praises on LinkedIn!?! As someone who recently moved to the area and has an outsider’s perspective on local governance, I must say that I’m appalled by what I’ve witnessed. From Fred Wilcox’s patronizing attitude and obvious favoritism toward the applicant to his strong-arm tactics employed on the Planning Board, along with the lack of notice given to nearby residents about this project, the refusal to allow public comments on the day of the vote, and the Planning Board’s inability or unwillingness to require the applicant to provide evidence—not just the opinion of their engineer, but actual data-supported propagation maps as they did for the alternate sites—on the effectiveness of small cells to address the coverage gap, it all raises serious concerns. And now, the independent consultant appears to be in bed with the applicant’s attorney! With all due respect, it looks like a clown show! I am formally requesting that William Johnson be relieved as the independent consultant and replaced with someone who has no prior connection to the applicant's attorney, Jared Lusk; and the Planning Board reopen its evaluation of the 111 Wiedmaier Ct. site plan and demand the applicant produce in-kind RF propagation analysis for multiple small cells deployed on existing utility poles along 79, Burns, and Coddington as they have for alternative tower sites. Once that evidence has been presented to the Board and reviewed by a new and truly independent consultant, then the Board can have a legitimate re-vote on the site plan. I, along the rest of the Town of Ithaca, eagerly await your response to the serious issues brought up in this email. We have put our trust in you to be stewards of this sacred land. Do not let us down. The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 11:49 AM Bob Babjak <bobbybabjak@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Town Staff and Zoning Board members, 7 I live at 106 Wiedmaier Ct, the house closest to the massively intrusive proposed "Sunny View" PWSF. I have several grave concerns about this project, from the actual existence of a "significant gap" in coverage (for which there is no legal definition or universally accepted determination) to the alarming way it has been handled by Fred Wilcox and the Planning Board. The issue I want to address with this letter, though, is the "independent" RF consultant hired by the Town to evaluate new cell tower applications, William Johnson. In researching Mr. Johnson, I heard from those familiar with his work that he is biased toward the telecom industry (a glance at his LinkedIn page shows that he is fairly embedded within it), but I wanted to give him a chance. Unfortunately, even with the limited technical knowledge I have, it is obvious to me that he is biased in favor of Verizon. I imagine that some of you have also picked up on that. Here are a few examples that I believe call his objectivity into question:  Johnson's initial report contained a number of extraneous and irrelevant one-sided opinions on the specific matter at hand of evaluating Verizon's proposed cell tower. This report was so egregious that the Town lawyer, Susan Brock, requested he resubmit his report after removing all those items (as outlined in an email to Mr. Johnson from Chris Balestra on 10/3/24). One of these topics was his opinion denying any harm cell radiation causes humans, a viewpoint the telecoms have been pushing to save their industry, but clearly outside his purview (and proven wrong by thousands of studies). I know health concerns are not legally allowed to be discussed when considering PWSFs, but denying the very existence of adverse health effects connected to RF radiation exposure is like calling climate change a hoax! At best it's ignorant, at worst it demonstrates a willingness to obscure the facts for the benefit of telecom corporations like Verizon. Either way, it's a bad look for a supposed expert.  In the discussion regarding the new proposed tower, Johnson could have made it clear that the vast majority of voice calls use low band, and these voice calls are the only thing required by law for Ithaca to consider (as set forth by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals: "the ability of wireless telephones to make and receive voice calls to and from landlines that are connected to the national telephone network"). He did not do so, and in fact did the opposite by highlighting in his revised 10/21 preliminary report that Verizon has no mid-band coverage in the gap areas and emphasizing that mid-band is "90% of their usable licensed bandwidth that they can provide to their subscribers; the other 10% is low band....90% of the bandwidth that Verizon has available is not even on the map in this particular gap area....Without something in this gap area, we're going to be dealing with that outdoor marginal kind of coverage that Mr Lusk described in a lot of the target area, and not have the other 90% of the bandwidth for high-speed data and other types of services." All of this is totally irrelevant to the Town's consideration. Fortunately, Susan Brock again reminded everyone, "We're talking about voice calls only, nothing about other things." But, this clearly indicates a biased view in favor of the industry and more misdirection.  In another instance of misdirection/distraction, Johnson goes into a long diatribe about other scenarios in which small cells are often used (all true), but he stops short of saying that they are also used to patch a gap in coverage - the very situation the Board is considering.  In both his written materials and verbal comments, Johnson repeatedly made it clear that small cells are "technically" a feasible alternative to a monopole cell tower (a core question in deciding whether or not they could be the least intrusive means to fill the gap and render an applicant's claim of Effective Prohibition null in the case of denial). In his 10/21 revised preliminary report, Johnson even writes, "Other approaches can include use of multiple shorter support structures, co-location on existing shorter structures, distributed antenna systems, and small-cell installations where visual impact is critical." He then follows up these statements with caveats that they might be less effective, or might require them to submit more applications, or could fail in the case of a catastrophic weather event toppling utility poles (again, not the Town's issue). Toward the end of the Zoning Board meeting, after one of his convoluted explanations, a Board member (incorrectly) surmised that the consultant concluded that small cells would not be technically feasible, and Johnson did not correct him. His silence was curious and again seems to support the idea that he favors Verizon getting the pole they want. I was happy to see that Susan Brock has called this out a few times, and I hope his bias is so obvious that The Board, or at least some of its more discerning/knowledgeable members, have to acknowledge it. However, my concern is that the various Boards and staff are making decisions based on a (in my opinion) misplaced trust that the "independent" consultant is a neutral party. I urge the Town to find a more neutral consultant in the future. 8 The bottom line is this: At the 10/1/24 Planning Board meeting, the Board requested more information on whether the "gap in coverage (can) be achieved with several microcells on telephone poles." In return, they only received a statement from Verizon engineer, Wasif Sharif, stating issues such as terrain, foliage, and coverage area as their reasons why small cells would "fail to achieve the site objectives." Notice how he didn't say they would fail to fill the coverage gap. In fact, throughout this whole process, Verizon has never stated that a small cell strategy would "fail to fill the coverage gap." They only ever use language like "fail to achieve the site objectives," but the issue at hand is not the objectives of their proposed site. As per Town Code 270-219.R(4)., the purpose of the proposed PWSF is to address "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." So while Verizon's objectives may be to utilize the mid-range band frequencies that occupy 90% of their licensed bandwidth, and create a space they can rent out to other carriers in the future (and small cells would not meet those objectives), the Zoning Board's objective is to discern whether the LEAST INTRUSIVE MEANS TO ADDRESS A GAP IN COVERAGE is a monopole that exceeds the allowable height limit by over 100 feet. Verizon has provided copious graphs and charts of colorful propagation plots for towers of various sizes at various locations, but they have steadfastly refused to do the same for co-located small cells strategically placed along the areas with the highest concentration of dropped calls. Verizon needs to be pressed on this matter, as it is THE key point in the entire review process. If small cells can fill the coverage gap, then they would be the least intrusive means to remedy the problem, thus negating the need for a giant monopole and nullifying grounds for an Effective Prohibition declaration. If the Town's "independent" consultant is simply accepting Verizon's evidence-free justification for not using small cells, then he is grossly shirking his duty. Why do we have Verizon provide hard data to support their claims on dropped calls, communication failures, and the coverage propagation of multiple sized towers at multiple sites but then accept their unsupported opinion about the efficacy of small cells? Especially in light of Mr. Johnson's constant flip-flopping on the matter, the Board needs to request, no, demand the same level of data-supported evidence for the coverage of small cells that Verizon provided for everything else. Thank you for your attention to this important matter. Bob Babjak 106 Wiedmaier Ct. 9 On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 7:00 AM CJ Randall <cjrandall@townithacany.gov> wrote: Hi Andrew, Thanks for your inquiry; planning@townithacany.gov is not the Town of Ithaca Planning Board's direct email address but is for any correspondence directed to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department. As noted during last night's Planning Board meeting, the two respective email messages (received 12/11/2024 at 11:50 am and 12/12/2024 at 10:01 pm, respectively) were addressed 'Dear Town staff and Zoning Board members' and thus were delivered as addressed. This said, we regularly forward correspondence addressed to Planning Board, and we are happy to forward the attached correspondence as well. C.J. C.J. Randall, LEED AP ND Director of Planning Town of Ithaca 215 N Tioga St Ithaca, NY 14850-4357 607-273-1721 x120 cjrandall@townithacany.gov The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. 10 From: Marie/Andrew Molnar <marieandrew93@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2024 7:46 PM To: Chris Balestra <CBalestra@townithacany.gov> Cc: CJ Randall <cjrandall@townithacany.gov>; Town Of Ithaca Clerks Department <clerks@townithacany.gov>; Town Of Ithaca Planning <planning@townithacany.gov>; Codes <codes@townithacany.gov>; Rod Howe <RHowe@townithacany.gov>; Marty Moseley <MMoseley@townithacany.gov>; Rich Depaolo <rdepaolo@townithacany.gov> Subject: Re: URGENT UPDATE: William Johnson conflict of interest!!! Chris, We were a bit confused in the Planning Board meeting tonight when you stated that Bob Babjek had NOT sent his email regarding concerns with William Johnson to the Planning Board. When we look at his original note, the email address of planning@townithacany.gov is included. Is that not the Planning Board email? Furthermore, we also sent a note to the Planning Board earlier this morning, with a copy of his note in the chain under ours (also below). It seems this was also not forwarded to the Planning Board, nor did you reference that in the meeting when a Board member asked for his email.Could you clarify what is going on? Also, could you please confirm that this note in its entirety, and the previous two, have been sent to all the Planning Board members? Thank you. Marie and Andrew The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. 11 The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 10:58 AM Marie/Andrew Molnar <marieandrew93@gmail.com> wrote: We received this letter and are glad to see that someone else is on top of this. We have been shocked to witness the way that the RF consultant William Johnson, while perhaps avoiding untruths, has seemed to show bias toward Verizon throughout the cell tower review process with the Town Boards. Whether including extraneous biased information, changing his statements, or his meandering indirect responses to questions, he certainly does not seem to be an advocate for the implementation of the town codes. We are not at all surprised to see his connection to Verizon's lawyer Jared Lusk. We are concerned because it seems the Town staff and boards are relying so heavily on this person's opinions. We urge the Town to replace him. In our own quest to understand the technical possibilities here, we have spoken with other independent consultants, and been told that small antennas would be a less intrusive means of filling this gap in service. Through this process we have come across a truly independent consultant, Richard Comi, who has an engineering degree from West Point, an MBA from Syracuse University, and over thirty years of experience with the telecommunications industry. His consultancy, the Center for Municipal Solutions (telecomsol.com), works full-time with towns on wireless issues. They are currently working with several town Boards in NY. If you want to educate yourself further on the industry's tactics in local communities (including the misleading use of propagation maps), there is a wealth of information on their website. We respectfully ask that he, or someone like him, replace William Johnson and become the Town's consultant for any future needs. Thank you for your attention to this timely and important matter. Marie and Andrew Molnar Ithacans for Responsible Technology On Thu, Dec 12, 2024 at 9:01 PM Bob Babjak <bobbybabjak@gmail.com> wrote: 12 Dear Town Staff and Zoning Members, I need to make a correction to the email I sent yesterday regarding the bias of the Town's "independent" consultant, William Johnson. I unfortunately included a link to the wrong LinkedIn page; it was a similar-looking, but completely different, man named William Johnson who also worked in the telecom industry. I apologize for this error. Here is the correct LinkedIn page, and I'm sorry to say his alleged bias is actually much more disturbing than I thought. If you scroll down to the "Recommendations" section, you will see a glowing review from none other than the applicant's lead counsel, Jared Lusk! (I also included a screenshot of the page attached to this email). He actually closes with, "I recommend him to any municipality..." Oh, I bet he does. Especially to municipalities where he currently has a pending case! This is unacceptable! How does no one from the Town know about their previous relationship? Why did Mr. Johnson not recuse himself from this case? This is an obvious conflict of interest. How can he maintain the basic appearance of independence when the applicant's lawyer is singing his praises on LinkedIn!?! As someone who recently moved to the area and has an outsider’s perspective on local governance, I must say that I’m appalled by what I’ve witnessed. From Fred Wilcox’s patronizing attitude and obvious favoritism toward the applicant to his strong-arm tactics employed on the Planning Board, along with the lack of notice given to nearby residents about this project, the refusal to allow public comments on the day of the vote, and the Planning Board’s inability or unwillingness to require the applicant to provide evidence—not just the opinion of their engineer, but actual data-supported propagation maps as they did for the alternate sites—on the effectiveness of small cells to address the coverage gap, it all raises serious concerns. And now, the independent consultant appears to be in bed with the applicant’s attorney! With all due respect, it looks like a clown show! I am formally requesting that William Johnson be relieved as the independent consultant and replaced with someone who has no prior connection to the applicant's attorney, Jared Lusk; and the Planning Board reopen its evaluation of the 111 Wiedmaier Ct. site plan and demand the applicant produce in-kind RF propagation analysis for multiple small cells deployed on existing utility poles along 79, Burns, and Coddington as they have for alternative tower sites. Once that evidence has been presented to the Board and reviewed by a new and truly independent consultant, then the Board can have a legitimate re-vote on the site plan. I, along the rest of the Town of Ithaca, eagerly await your response to the serious issues brought up in this email. We have put our trust in you to be stewards of this sacred land. Do not let us down. 13 The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 11:49 AM Bob Babjak <bobbybabjak@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Town Staff and Zoning Board members, I live at 106 Wiedmaier Ct, the house closest to the massively intrusive proposed "Sunny View" PWSF. I have several grave concerns about this project, from the actual existence of a "significant gap" in coverage (for which there is no legal definition or universally accepted determination) to the alarming way it has been handled by Fred Wilcox and the Planning Board. The issue I want to address with this letter, though, is the "independent" RF consultant hired by the Town to evaluate new cell tower applications, William Johnson. In researching Mr. Johnson, I heard from those familiar with his work that he is biased toward the telecom industry (a glance at his LinkedIn page shows that he is fairly embedded within it), but I wanted to give him a chance. Unfortunately, even with the limited technical knowledge I have, it is obvious to me that he is biased in favor of Verizon. I imagine that some of you have also picked up on that. Here are a few examples that I believe call his objectivity into question:  Johnson's initial report contained a number of extraneous and irrelevant one-sided opinions on the specific matter at hand of evaluating Verizon's proposed cell tower. This report was so egregious that the Town lawyer, Susan Brock, requested he resubmit his report after removing all those items (as outlined in an email to Mr. Johnson from Chris Balestra on 10/3/24). One of these topics was his opinion denying any harm cell radiation causes humans, a viewpoint the telecoms have been pushing to save their industry, but clearly outside his purview (and proven wrong by thousands of studies). I know health concerns are not legally allowed to be discussed when considering PWSFs, but denying the very existence of adverse health effects connected to RF radiation exposure is like calling climate change a hoax! At best it's ignorant, at worst it demonstrates a willingness to obscure the facts for the benefit of telecom corporations like Verizon. Either way, it's a bad look for a supposed expert.  In the discussion regarding the new proposed tower, Johnson could have made it clear that the vast majority of voice calls use low band, and these voice calls are the only thing required by law for Ithaca to consider (as set forth by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals: "the ability of wireless telephones to make and receive voice calls to and from landlines that are connected to the national telephone network"). He did not do so, and in fact did the opposite by highlighting in his revised 10/21 preliminary report that Verizon has no mid-band coverage in the gap areas and emphasizing that mid-band is "90% of their usable licensed bandwidth that they can provide to their subscribers; the other 10% is low band....90% of the bandwidth that Verizon has available is not even on the map in this particular gap area....Without something in this gap area, we're going 14 to be dealing with that outdoor marginal kind of coverage that Mr Lusk described in a lot of the target area, and not have the other 90% of the bandwidth for high-speed data and other types of services." All of this is totally irrelevant to the Town's consideration. Fortunately, Susan Brock again reminded everyone, "We're talking about voice calls only, nothing about other things." But, this clearly indicates a biased view in favor of the industry and more misdirection.  In another instance of misdirection/distraction, Johnson goes into a long diatribe about other scenarios in which small cells are often used (all true), but he stops short of saying that they are also used to patch a gap in coverage - the very situation the Board is considering.  In both his written materials and verbal comments, Johnson repeatedly made it clear that small cells are "technically" a feasible alternative to a monopole cell tower (a core question in deciding whether or not they could be the least intrusive means to fill the gap and render an applicant's claim of Effective Prohibition null in the case of denial). In his 10/21 revised preliminary report, Johnson even writes, "Other approaches can include use of multiple shorter support structures, co-location on existing shorter structures, distributed antenna systems, and small-cell installations where visual impact is critical." He then follows up these statements with caveats that they might be less effective, or might require them to submit more applications, or could fail in the case of a catastrophic weather event toppling utility poles (again, not the Town's issue). Toward the end of the Zoning Board meeting, after one of his convoluted explanations, a Board member (incorrectly) surmised that the consultant concluded that small cells would not be technically feasible, and Johnson did not correct him. His silence was curious and again seems to support the idea that he favors Verizon getting the pole they want. I was happy to see that Susan Brock has called this out a few times, and I hope his bias is so obvious that The Board, or at least some of its more discerning/knowledgeable members, have to acknowledge it. However, my concern is that the various Boards and staff are making decisions based on a (in my opinion) misplaced trust that the "independent" consultant is a neutral party. I urge the Town to find a more neutral consultant in the future. The bottom line is this: At the 10/1/24 Planning Board meeting, the Board requested more information on whether the "gap in coverage (can) be achieved with several microcells on telephone poles." In return, they only received a statement from Verizon engineer, Wasif Sharif, stating issues such as terrain, foliage, and coverage area as their reasons why small cells would "fail to achieve the site objectives." Notice how he didn't say they would fail to fill the coverage gap. In fact, throughout this whole process, Verizon has never stated that a small cell strategy would "fail to fill the coverage gap." They only ever use language like "fail to achieve the site objectives," but the issue at hand is not the objectives of their proposed site. As per Town Code 270-219.R(4)., the purpose of the proposed PWSF is to address "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." So while Verizon's objectives may be to utilize the mid-range band frequencies that occupy 90% of their licensed bandwidth, and create a space they can rent out to other carriers in the future (and small cells would not meet those objectives), the Zoning Board's objective is to discern whether the LEAST INTRUSIVE MEANS TO ADDRESS A GAP IN COVERAGE is a monopole that exceeds the allowable height limit by over 100 feet. Verizon has provided copious graphs and charts of colorful propagation plots for towers of various sizes at various locations, but they have steadfastly refused to do the same for co-located small cells strategically placed along the areas with the highest concentration of dropped calls. Verizon needs to be pressed on this matter, as it is THE key point in the entire review process. If small cells can fill the coverage gap, then they would be the least intrusive means to remedy the problem, thus negating the need for a giant monopole and nullifying grounds for an Effective Prohibition declaration. 15 If the Town's "independent" consultant is simply accepting Verizon's evidence-free justification for not using small cells, then he is grossly shirking his duty. Why do we have Verizon provide hard data to support their claims on dropped calls, communication failures, and the coverage propagation of multiple sized towers at multiple sites but then accept their unsupported opinion about the efficacy of small cells? Especially in light of Mr. Johnson's constant flip-flopping on the matter, the Board needs to request, no, demand the same level of data-supported evidence for the coverage of small cells that Verizon provided for everything else. Thank you for your attention to this important matter. Bob Babjak 106 Wiedmaier Ct. 1 Lori Kofoid From:Jeff Zorn <jrz3@cornell.edu> Sent:Wednesday, December 18, 2024 2:00 PM To:CJ Randall; Marie/Andrew Molnar Cc:Codes; Rod Howe; Marty Moseley; Rich Depaolo; Chris Balestra; Town Of Ithaca Clerks Department Subject:RE: URGENT UPDATE: William Johnson conflict of interest!!! Great. Good to know it made it in. Thanks. From: CJ Randall <cjrandall@townithacany.gov> Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2024 1:54 PM To: Jeff Zorn <jrz3@cornell.edu>; Marie/Andrew Molnar <marieandrew93@gmail.com> Cc: Codes <codes@townithacany.gov>; Rod Howe <RHowe@townithacany.gov>; Marty Moseley <MMoseley@townithacany.gov>; Rich Depaolo <rdepaolo@townithacany.gov>; Chris Balestra <CBalestra@townithacany.gov>; Town Of Ithaca Clerks Department <clerks@townithacany.gov> Subject: Re: URGENT UPDATE: William Johnson conflict of interest!!! Hi Jeff, Yes, your comment received 12/16/2024 at 11:17 am was addressed to the Planning Board and delivered as such; the record associated with the 12/17/2024 Planning Board meeting is linked here: https://lfweb.tompkins-co.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=291205&dbid=9&repo=TownOfIthaca C.J. C.J. Randall, LEED AP ND Director of Planning Town of Ithaca 215 N Tioga St Ithaca, NY 14850-4357 607-273-1721 x120 cjrandall@townithacany.gov From: Jeff Zorn <jrz3@cornell.edu> Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2024 12:34 PM To: Marie/Andrew Molnar <marieandrew93@gmail.com>; CJ Randall <cjrandall@townithacany.gov> Cc: Codes <codes@townithacany.gov>; Rod Howe <RHowe@townithacany.gov>; Marty Moseley <MMoseley@townithacany.gov>; Rich Depaolo <rdepaolo@townithacany.gov>; Chris Balestra <CBalestra@townithacany.gov>; Town Of Ithaca Clerks Department <clerks@townithacany.gov> Subject: RE: URGENT UPDATE: William Johnson conflict of interest!!! 2 **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 Hmm, I am now wondering if the email I sent to planning@townithacany.gov from my gmail account, jrzorn001@gmail.com, made it to the planning board at all. planning@townithacany.gov acknowledged receipt of the email, but I’ve no clue now whether the right people got it. From: Marie/Andrew Molnar <marieandrew93@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2024 12:21 PM To: CJ Randall <cjrandall@townithacany.gov> Cc: Codes <codes@townithacany.gov>; Rod Howe <RHowe@townithacany.gov>; Marty Moseley <MMoseley@townithacany.gov>; Rich Depaolo <rdepaolo@townithacany.gov>; Chris Balestra <CBalestra@townithacany.gov>; Town Of Ithaca Clerks Department <clerks@townithacany.gov> Subject: Re: URGENT UPDATE: William Johnson conflict of interest!!! Thank you, CJ. This is the first time we have heard this. In the past, we were told by staff that just including that email address would ensure it was delivered to the Planning Board members (same for the Zoning Board email and Zoning Board members). But, now that we hear differently, we will be sure that we address notes as such. So, to be totally clear, are you saying that any time emails are directly addressed to a Board (e.g. Dear Zoning Board members), they will always be forwarded on to all the members of that Board? Also, given this confusion, could you please verify if the following emails of ours were sent on to all the Board members? 1. 11/25 email with the subject "Request to Reverse the Vote on Verizon's Wiedmeier Ct cell tower" (sent to both the Planning and Zoning Board members) 2. 12/3 email with the subject "A timely note for the Zoning Board" (sent to just the Zoning Board members) 3. 12/6 email with the subject "The important larger context" (sent from Andrew's email andrewmolnar11@gmail just to the Zoning Board members) 4. 12/17 email with the subject "Re: URGENT UPDATE: William Johnson conflict of interest!!! " (sent to both the Planning and Zoning Board members) Thank you for this clarification, Marie and Andrew On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 7:00 AM CJ Randall <cjrandall@townithacany.gov> wrote: 3 Hi Andrew, Thanks for your inquiry; planning@townithacany.gov is not the Town of Ithaca Planning Board's direct email address but is for any correspondence directed to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department. As noted during last night's Planning Board meeting, the two respective email messages (received 12/11/2024 at 11:50 am and 12/12/2024 at 10:01 pm, respectively) were addressed 'Dear Town staff and Zoning Board members' and thus were delivered as addressed. This said, we regularly forward correspondence addressed to Planning Board, and we are happy to forward the attached correspondence as well. C.J. C.J. Randall, LEED AP ND Director of Planning Town of Ithaca 215 N Tioga St Ithaca, NY 14850-4357 607-273-1721 x120 cjrandall@townithacany.gov The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. From: Marie/Andrew Molnar <marieandrew93@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2024 7:46 PM To: Chris Balestra <CBalestra@townithacany.gov> Cc: CJ Randall <cjrandall@townithacany.gov>; Town Of Ithaca Clerks Department <clerks@townithacany.gov>; Town Of Ithaca Planning <planning@townithacany.gov>; Codes <codes@townithacany.gov>; Rod Howe <RHowe@townithacany.gov>; Marty Moseley <MMoseley@townithacany.gov>; Rich Depaolo <rdepaolo@townithacany.gov> Subject: Re: URGENT UPDATE: William Johnson conflict of interest!!! 4 Chris, We were a bit confused in the Planning Board meeting tonight when you stated that Bob Babjek had NOT sent his email regarding concerns with William Johnson to the Planning Board. When we look at his original note, the email address of planning@townithacany.gov is included. Is that not the Planning Board email? Furthermore, we also sent a note to the Planning Board earlier this morning, with a copy of his note in the chain under ours (also below). It seems this was also not forwarded to the Planning Board, nor did you reference that in the meeting when a Board member asked for his email.Could you clarify what is going on? Also, could you please confirm that this note in its entirety, and the previous two, have been sent to all the Planning Board members? Thank you. Marie and Andrew The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. 5 On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 10:58 AM Marie/Andrew Molnar <marieandrew93@gmail.com> wrote: We received this letter and are glad to see that someone else is on top of this. We have been shocked to witness the way that the RF consultant William Johnson, while perhaps avoiding untruths, has seemed to show bias toward Verizon throughout the cell tower review process with the Town Boards. Whether including extraneous biased information, changing his statements, or his meandering indirect responses to questions, he certainly does not seem to be an advocate for the implementation of the town codes. We are not at all surprised to see his connection to Verizon's lawyer Jared Lusk. We are concerned because it seems the Town staff and boards are relying so heavily on this person's opinions. We urge the Town to replace him. In our own quest to understand the technical possibilities here, we have spoken with other independent consultants, and been told that small antennas would be a less intrusive means of filling this gap in service. Through this process we have come across a truly independent consultant, Richard Comi, who has an engineering degree from West Point, an MBA from Syracuse University, and over thirty years of experience with the telecommunications industry. His consultancy, the Center for Municipal Solutions (telecomsol.com), works full-time with towns on wireless issues. They are currently working with several town Boards in NY. If you want to educate yourself further on the industry's tactics in local communities (including the misleading use of propagation maps), there is a wealth of information on their website. We respectfully ask that he, or someone like him, replace William Johnson and become the Town's consultant for any future needs. Thank you for your attention to this timely and important matter. Marie and Andrew Molnar Ithacans for Responsible Technology On Thu, Dec 12, 2024 at 9:01 PM Bob Babjak <bobbybabjak@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Town Staff and Zoning Members, I need to make a correction to the email I sent yesterday regarding the bias of the Town's "independent" consultant, William Johnson. I unfortunately included a link to the wrong LinkedIn page; it was a similar-looking, but completely different, man named William Johnson who also worked in the telecom industry. I apologize for this error. Here is the correct LinkedIn page, and I'm sorry to say his alleged bias is actually much more disturbing than I thought. If you scroll down to the "Recommendations" section, you will see a glowing review from none other than the applicant's lead counsel, Jared Lusk! (I also included a screenshot of the page attached to this email). He actually closes with, "I recommend him to any municipality..." Oh, I bet he does. Especially to municipalities where he currently has a pending case! 6 This is unacceptable! How does no one from the Town know about their previous relationship? Why did Mr. Johnson not recuse himself from this case? This is an obvious conflict of interest. How can he maintain the basic appearance of independence when the applicant's lawyer is singing his praises on LinkedIn!?! As someone who recently moved to the area and has an outsider’s perspective on local governance, I must say that I’m appalled by what I’ve witnessed. From Fred Wilcox’s patronizing attitude and obvious favoritism toward the applicant to his strong-arm tactics employed on the Planning Board, along with the lack of notice given to nearby residents about this project, the refusal to allow public comments on the day of the vote, and the Planning Board’s inability or unwillingness to require the applicant to provide evidence—not just the opinion of their engineer, but actual data-supported propagation maps as they did for the alternate sites—on the effectiveness of small cells to address the coverage gap, it all raises serious concerns. And now, the independent consultant appears to be in bed with the applicant’s attorney! With all due respect, it looks like a clown show! I am formally requesting that William Johnson be relieved as the independent consultant and replaced with someone who has no prior connection to the applicant's attorney, Jared Lusk; and the Planning Board reopen its evaluation of the 111 Wiedmaier Ct. site plan and demand the applicant produce in-kind RF propagation analysis for multiple small cells deployed on existing utility poles along 79, Burns, and Coddington as they have for alternative tower sites. Once that evidence has been presented to the Board and reviewed by a new and truly independent consultant, then the Board can have a legitimate re-vote on the site plan. I, along the rest of the Town of Ithaca, eagerly await your response to the serious issues brought up in this email. We have put our trust in you to be stewards of this sacred land. Do not let us down. The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 11:49 AM Bob Babjak <bobbybabjak@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Town Staff and Zoning Board members, 7 I live at 106 Wiedmaier Ct, the house closest to the massively intrusive proposed "Sunny View" PWSF. I have several grave concerns about this project, from the actual existence of a "significant gap" in coverage (for which there is no legal definition or universally accepted determination) to the alarming way it has been handled by Fred Wilcox and the Planning Board. The issue I want to address with this letter, though, is the "independent" RF consultant hired by the Town to evaluate new cell tower applications, William Johnson. In researching Mr. Johnson, I heard from those familiar with his work that he is biased toward the telecom industry (a glance at his LinkedIn page shows that he is fairly embedded within it), but I wanted to give him a chance. Unfortunately, even with the limited technical knowledge I have, it is obvious to me that he is biased in favor of Verizon. I imagine that some of you have also picked up on that. Here are a few examples that I believe call his objectivity into question:  Johnson's initial report contained a number of extraneous and irrelevant one-sided opinions on the specific matter at hand of evaluating Verizon's proposed cell tower. This report was so egregious that the Town lawyer, Susan Brock, requested he resubmit his report after removing all those items (as outlined in an email to Mr. Johnson from Chris Balestra on 10/3/24). One of these topics was his opinion denying any harm cell radiation causes humans, a viewpoint the telecoms have been pushing to save their industry, but clearly outside his purview (and proven wrong by thousands of studies). I know health concerns are not legally allowed to be discussed when considering PWSFs, but denying the very existence of adverse health effects connected to RF radiation exposure is like calling climate change a hoax! At best it's ignorant, at worst it demonstrates a willingness to obscure the facts for the benefit of telecom corporations like Verizon. Either way, it's a bad look for a supposed expert.  In the discussion regarding the new proposed tower, Johnson could have made it clear that the vast majority of voice calls use low band, and these voice calls are the only thing required by law for Ithaca to consider (as set forth by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals: "the ability of wireless telephones to make and receive voice calls to and from landlines that are connected to the national telephone network"). He did not do so, and in fact did the opposite by highlighting in his revised 10/21 preliminary report that Verizon has no mid-band coverage in the gap areas and emphasizing that mid-band is "90% of their usable licensed bandwidth that they can provide to their subscribers; the other 10% is low band....90% of the bandwidth that Verizon has available is not even on the map in this particular gap area....Without something in this gap area, we're going to be dealing with that outdoor marginal kind of coverage that Mr Lusk described in a lot of the target area, and not have the other 90% of the bandwidth for high-speed data and other types of services." All of this is totally irrelevant to the Town's consideration. Fortunately, Susan Brock again reminded everyone, "We're talking about voice calls only, nothing about other things." But, this clearly indicates a biased view in favor of the industry and more misdirection.  In another instance of misdirection/distraction, Johnson goes into a long diatribe about other scenarios in which small cells are often used (all true), but he stops short of saying that they are also used to patch a gap in coverage - the very situation the Board is considering.  In both his written materials and verbal comments, Johnson repeatedly made it clear that small cells are "technically" a feasible alternative to a monopole cell tower (a core question in deciding whether or not they could be the least intrusive means to fill the gap and render an applicant's claim of Effective Prohibition null in the case of denial). In his 10/21 revised preliminary report, Johnson even writes, "Other approaches can include use of multiple shorter support structures, co-location on existing shorter structures, distributed antenna systems, and small-cell installations where visual impact is critical." He then follows up these statements with caveats that they might be less effective, or might require them to submit more applications, or could fail in the case of a catastrophic weather event toppling utility poles (again, not the Town's issue). Toward the end of the Zoning Board meeting, after one of his convoluted explanations, a Board member (incorrectly) surmised that the consultant concluded that small cells would not be technically feasible, and Johnson did not correct him. His silence was curious and again seems to support the idea that he favors Verizon getting the pole they want. I was happy to see that Susan Brock has called this out a few times, and I hope his bias is so obvious that The Board, or at least some of its more discerning/knowledgeable members, have to acknowledge it. However, my concern is that the various Boards and staff are making decisions based on a (in my opinion) misplaced trust that the "independent" consultant is a neutral party. I urge the Town to find a more neutral consultant in the future. 8 The bottom line is this: At the 10/1/24 Planning Board meeting, the Board requested more information on whether the "gap in coverage (can) be achieved with several microcells on telephone poles." In return, they only received a statement from Verizon engineer, Wasif Sharif, stating issues such as terrain, foliage, and coverage area as their reasons why small cells would "fail to achieve the site objectives." Notice how he didn't say they would fail to fill the coverage gap. In fact, throughout this whole process, Verizon has never stated that a small cell strategy would "fail to fill the coverage gap." They only ever use language like "fail to achieve the site objectives," but the issue at hand is not the objectives of their proposed site. As per Town Code 270-219.R(4)., the purpose of the proposed PWSF is to address "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." So while Verizon's objectives may be to utilize the mid-range band frequencies that occupy 90% of their licensed bandwidth, and create a space they can rent out to other carriers in the future (and small cells would not meet those objectives), the Zoning Board's objective is to discern whether the LEAST INTRUSIVE MEANS TO ADDRESS A GAP IN COVERAGE is a monopole that exceeds the allowable height limit by over 100 feet. Verizon has provided copious graphs and charts of colorful propagation plots for towers of various sizes at various locations, but they have steadfastly refused to do the same for co-located small cells strategically placed along the areas with the highest concentration of dropped calls. Verizon needs to be pressed on this matter, as it is THE key point in the entire review process. If small cells can fill the coverage gap, then they would be the least intrusive means to remedy the problem, thus negating the need for a giant monopole and nullifying grounds for an Effective Prohibition declaration. If the Town's "independent" consultant is simply accepting Verizon's evidence-free justification for not using small cells, then he is grossly shirking his duty. Why do we have Verizon provide hard data to support their claims on dropped calls, communication failures, and the coverage propagation of multiple sized towers at multiple sites but then accept their unsupported opinion about the efficacy of small cells? Especially in light of Mr. Johnson's constant flip-flopping on the matter, the Board needs to request, no, demand the same level of data-supported evidence for the coverage of small cells that Verizon provided for everything else. Thank you for your attention to this important matter. Bob Babjak 106 Wiedmaier Ct. 9 On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 7:00 AM CJ Randall <cjrandall@townithacany.gov> wrote: Hi Andrew, Thanks for your inquiry; planning@townithacany.gov is not the Town of Ithaca Planning Board's direct email address but is for any correspondence directed to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department. As noted during last night's Planning Board meeting, the two respective email messages (received 12/11/2024 at 11:50 am and 12/12/2024 at 10:01 pm, respectively) were addressed 'Dear Town staff and Zoning Board members' and thus were delivered as addressed. This said, we regularly forward correspondence addressed to Planning Board, and we are happy to forward the attached correspondence as well. C.J. C.J. Randall, LEED AP ND Director of Planning Town of Ithaca 215 N Tioga St Ithaca, NY 14850-4357 607-273-1721 x120 cjrandall@townithacany.gov The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. 10 From: Marie/Andrew Molnar <marieandrew93@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2024 7:46 PM To: Chris Balestra <CBalestra@townithacany.gov> Cc: CJ Randall <cjrandall@townithacany.gov>; Town Of Ithaca Clerks Department <clerks@townithacany.gov>; Town Of Ithaca Planning <planning@townithacany.gov>; Codes <codes@townithacany.gov>; Rod Howe <RHowe@townithacany.gov>; Marty Moseley <MMoseley@townithacany.gov>; Rich Depaolo <rdepaolo@townithacany.gov> Subject: Re: URGENT UPDATE: William Johnson conflict of interest!!! Chris, We were a bit confused in the Planning Board meeting tonight when you stated that Bob Babjek had NOT sent his email regarding concerns with William Johnson to the Planning Board. When we look at his original note, the email address of planning@townithacany.gov is included. Is that not the Planning Board email? Furthermore, we also sent a note to the Planning Board earlier this morning, with a copy of his note in the chain under ours (also below). It seems this was also not forwarded to the Planning Board, nor did you reference that in the meeting when a Board member asked for his email.Could you clarify what is going on? Also, could you please confirm that this note in its entirety, and the previous two, have been sent to all the Planning Board members? Thank you. Marie and Andrew The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. 11 The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 10:58 AM Marie/Andrew Molnar <marieandrew93@gmail.com> wrote: We received this letter and are glad to see that someone else is on top of this. We have been shocked to witness the way that the RF consultant William Johnson, while perhaps avoiding untruths, has seemed to show bias toward Verizon throughout the cell tower review process with the Town Boards. Whether including extraneous biased information, changing his statements, or his meandering indirect responses to questions, he certainly does not seem to be an advocate for the implementation of the town codes. We are not at all surprised to see his connection to Verizon's lawyer Jared Lusk. We are concerned because it seems the Town staff and boards are relying so heavily on this person's opinions. We urge the Town to replace him. In our own quest to understand the technical possibilities here, we have spoken with other independent consultants, and been told that small antennas would be a less intrusive means of filling this gap in service. Through this process we have come across a truly independent consultant, Richard Comi, who has an engineering degree from West Point, an MBA from Syracuse University, and over thirty years of experience with the telecommunications industry. His consultancy, the Center for Municipal Solutions (telecomsol.com), works full-time with towns on wireless issues. They are currently working with several town Boards in NY. If you want to educate yourself further on the industry's tactics in local communities (including the misleading use of propagation maps), there is a wealth of information on their website. We respectfully ask that he, or someone like him, replace William Johnson and become the Town's consultant for any future needs. Thank you for your attention to this timely and important matter. Marie and Andrew Molnar Ithacans for Responsible Technology On Thu, Dec 12, 2024 at 9:01 PM Bob Babjak <bobbybabjak@gmail.com> wrote: 12 Dear Town Staff and Zoning Members, I need to make a correction to the email I sent yesterday regarding the bias of the Town's "independent" consultant, William Johnson. I unfortunately included a link to the wrong LinkedIn page; it was a similar-looking, but completely different, man named William Johnson who also worked in the telecom industry. I apologize for this error. Here is the correct LinkedIn page, and I'm sorry to say his alleged bias is actually much more disturbing than I thought. If you scroll down to the "Recommendations" section, you will see a glowing review from none other than the applicant's lead counsel, Jared Lusk! (I also included a screenshot of the page attached to this email). He actually closes with, "I recommend him to any municipality..." Oh, I bet he does. Especially to municipalities where he currently has a pending case! This is unacceptable! How does no one from the Town know about their previous relationship? Why did Mr. Johnson not recuse himself from this case? This is an obvious conflict of interest. How can he maintain the basic appearance of independence when the applicant's lawyer is singing his praises on LinkedIn!?! As someone who recently moved to the area and has an outsider’s perspective on local governance, I must say that I’m appalled by what I’ve witnessed. From Fred Wilcox’s patronizing attitude and obvious favoritism toward the applicant to his strong-arm tactics employed on the Planning Board, along with the lack of notice given to nearby residents about this project, the refusal to allow public comments on the day of the vote, and the Planning Board’s inability or unwillingness to require the applicant to provide evidence—not just the opinion of their engineer, but actual data-supported propagation maps as they did for the alternate sites—on the effectiveness of small cells to address the coverage gap, it all raises serious concerns. And now, the independent consultant appears to be in bed with the applicant’s attorney! With all due respect, it looks like a clown show! I am formally requesting that William Johnson be relieved as the independent consultant and replaced with someone who has no prior connection to the applicant's attorney, Jared Lusk; and the Planning Board reopen its evaluation of the 111 Wiedmaier Ct. site plan and demand the applicant produce in-kind RF propagation analysis for multiple small cells deployed on existing utility poles along 79, Burns, and Coddington as they have for alternative tower sites. Once that evidence has been presented to the Board and reviewed by a new and truly independent consultant, then the Board can have a legitimate re-vote on the site plan. I, along the rest of the Town of Ithaca, eagerly await your response to the serious issues brought up in this email. We have put our trust in you to be stewards of this sacred land. Do not let us down. 13 The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 11:49 AM Bob Babjak <bobbybabjak@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Town Staff and Zoning Board members, I live at 106 Wiedmaier Ct, the house closest to the massively intrusive proposed "Sunny View" PWSF. I have several grave concerns about this project, from the actual existence of a "significant gap" in coverage (for which there is no legal definition or universally accepted determination) to the alarming way it has been handled by Fred Wilcox and the Planning Board. The issue I want to address with this letter, though, is the "independent" RF consultant hired by the Town to evaluate new cell tower applications, William Johnson. In researching Mr. Johnson, I heard from those familiar with his work that he is biased toward the telecom industry (a glance at his LinkedIn page shows that he is fairly embedded within it), but I wanted to give him a chance. Unfortunately, even with the limited technical knowledge I have, it is obvious to me that he is biased in favor of Verizon. I imagine that some of you have also picked up on that. Here are a few examples that I believe call his objectivity into question:  Johnson's initial report contained a number of extraneous and irrelevant one-sided opinions on the specific matter at hand of evaluating Verizon's proposed cell tower. This report was so egregious that the Town lawyer, Susan Brock, requested he resubmit his report after removing all those items (as outlined in an email to Mr. Johnson from Chris Balestra on 10/3/24). One of these topics was his opinion denying any harm cell radiation causes humans, a viewpoint the telecoms have been pushing to save their industry, but clearly outside his purview (and proven wrong by thousands of studies). I know health concerns are not legally allowed to be discussed when considering PWSFs, but denying the very existence of adverse health effects connected to RF radiation exposure is like calling climate change a hoax! At best it's ignorant, at worst it demonstrates a willingness to obscure the facts for the benefit of telecom corporations like Verizon. Either way, it's a bad look for a supposed expert.  In the discussion regarding the new proposed tower, Johnson could have made it clear that the vast majority of voice calls use low band, and these voice calls are the only thing required by law for Ithaca to consider (as set forth by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals: "the ability of wireless telephones to make and receive voice calls to and from landlines that are connected to the national telephone network"). He did not do so, and in fact did the opposite by highlighting in his revised 10/21 preliminary report that Verizon has no mid-band coverage in the gap areas and emphasizing that mid-band is "90% of their usable licensed bandwidth that they can provide to their subscribers; the other 10% is low band....90% of the bandwidth that Verizon has available is not even on the map in this particular gap area....Without something in this gap area, we're going 14 to be dealing with that outdoor marginal kind of coverage that Mr Lusk described in a lot of the target area, and not have the other 90% of the bandwidth for high-speed data and other types of services." All of this is totally irrelevant to the Town's consideration. Fortunately, Susan Brock again reminded everyone, "We're talking about voice calls only, nothing about other things." But, this clearly indicates a biased view in favor of the industry and more misdirection.  In another instance of misdirection/distraction, Johnson goes into a long diatribe about other scenarios in which small cells are often used (all true), but he stops short of saying that they are also used to patch a gap in coverage - the very situation the Board is considering.  In both his written materials and verbal comments, Johnson repeatedly made it clear that small cells are "technically" a feasible alternative to a monopole cell tower (a core question in deciding whether or not they could be the least intrusive means to fill the gap and render an applicant's claim of Effective Prohibition null in the case of denial). In his 10/21 revised preliminary report, Johnson even writes, "Other approaches can include use of multiple shorter support structures, co-location on existing shorter structures, distributed antenna systems, and small-cell installations where visual impact is critical." He then follows up these statements with caveats that they might be less effective, or might require them to submit more applications, or could fail in the case of a catastrophic weather event toppling utility poles (again, not the Town's issue). Toward the end of the Zoning Board meeting, after one of his convoluted explanations, a Board member (incorrectly) surmised that the consultant concluded that small cells would not be technically feasible, and Johnson did not correct him. His silence was curious and again seems to support the idea that he favors Verizon getting the pole they want. I was happy to see that Susan Brock has called this out a few times, and I hope his bias is so obvious that The Board, or at least some of its more discerning/knowledgeable members, have to acknowledge it. However, my concern is that the various Boards and staff are making decisions based on a (in my opinion) misplaced trust that the "independent" consultant is a neutral party. I urge the Town to find a more neutral consultant in the future. The bottom line is this: At the 10/1/24 Planning Board meeting, the Board requested more information on whether the "gap in coverage (can) be achieved with several microcells on telephone poles." In return, they only received a statement from Verizon engineer, Wasif Sharif, stating issues such as terrain, foliage, and coverage area as their reasons why small cells would "fail to achieve the site objectives." Notice how he didn't say they would fail to fill the coverage gap. In fact, throughout this whole process, Verizon has never stated that a small cell strategy would "fail to fill the coverage gap." They only ever use language like "fail to achieve the site objectives," but the issue at hand is not the objectives of their proposed site. As per Town Code 270-219.R(4)., the purpose of the proposed PWSF is to address "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." So while Verizon's objectives may be to utilize the mid-range band frequencies that occupy 90% of their licensed bandwidth, and create a space they can rent out to other carriers in the future (and small cells would not meet those objectives), the Zoning Board's objective is to discern whether the LEAST INTRUSIVE MEANS TO ADDRESS A GAP IN COVERAGE is a monopole that exceeds the allowable height limit by over 100 feet. Verizon has provided copious graphs and charts of colorful propagation plots for towers of various sizes at various locations, but they have steadfastly refused to do the same for co-located small cells strategically placed along the areas with the highest concentration of dropped calls. Verizon needs to be pressed on this matter, as it is THE key point in the entire review process. If small cells can fill the coverage gap, then they would be the least intrusive means to remedy the problem, thus negating the need for a giant monopole and nullifying grounds for an Effective Prohibition declaration. 15 If the Town's "independent" consultant is simply accepting Verizon's evidence-free justification for not using small cells, then he is grossly shirking his duty. Why do we have Verizon provide hard data to support their claims on dropped calls, communication failures, and the coverage propagation of multiple sized towers at multiple sites but then accept their unsupported opinion about the efficacy of small cells? Especially in light of Mr. Johnson's constant flip-flopping on the matter, the Board needs to request, no, demand the same level of data-supported evidence for the coverage of small cells that Verizon provided for everything else. Thank you for your attention to this important matter. Bob Babjak 106 Wiedmaier Ct. 1 Lori Kofoid From:Marie/Andrew Molnar <marieandrew93@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, December 18, 2024 3:51 PM To:CJ Randall; Marty Moseley Cc:Codes; Rod Howe; Rich Depaolo; Chris Balestra; Town Of Ithaca Clerks Department; Town Of Ithaca Planning Subject:Re: URGENT UPDATE: William Johnson conflict of interest!!! Attachments:Outlook-gvz50aff.jpg Thank you. We've spoken to both Abby and Lori to gain some more clarity, and it seems that the general rule is that emails are not sent right away to all members (with exceptions as decided by you, CJ), but rather bundled as a part of a packet for the next meeting. Did we understand that correctly? If so, what happens if there is a timely element to an email? For example, is there a way to notate that and have those emailed on to the members right away? Same question for you, Marty, since we know now there are two different processes for two departments (new information for us). Thank you. On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 1:13 PM CJ Randall <cjrandall@townithacany.gov> wrote: Hi Marie and Andrew, Correct — if correspondence is addressed to a particular board or committee, it is distributed to said board or committee members (i.e., Planning Board). Correspondence received as of 11/21/2024 is included in the Planning Board's current (that is, 12/17/2024) agenda packet, located here: https://lfweb.tompkins- co.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=291205&dbid=9&repo=TownOfIthaca; that packet is still being updated, as written comments submitted at the meeting or after posting of the official mailout packet and 24 hours after the meeting are filed permanently with the project folder along with any other comments received after the post meeting deadline (e.g., correspondence received from you last night at 7:46 pm). Recent past Planning Board meeting (2022-2024) agenda packets are located here: https://lfweb.tompkins- co.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=41815&dbid=9&repo=TownOfIthaca. Best, C.J. C.J. Randall, LEED AP ND Director of Planning Town of Ithaca 215 N Tioga St Ithaca, NY 14850-4357 607-273-1721 x120 cjrandall@townithacany.gov 2 The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. From: Marie/Andrew Molnar <marieandrew93@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2024 12:21 PM To: CJ Randall <cjrandall@townithacany.gov> Cc: Codes <codes@townithacany.gov>; Rod Howe <RHowe@townithacany.gov>; Marty Moseley <MMoseley@townithacany.gov>; Rich Depaolo <rdepaolo@townithacany.gov>; Chris Balestra <CBalestra@townithacany.gov>; Town Of Ithaca Clerks Department <clerks@townithacany.gov> Subject: Re: URGENT UPDATE: William Johnson conflict of interest!!! Thank you, CJ. This is the first time we have heard this. In the past, we were told by staff that just including that email address would ensure it was delivered to the Planning Board members (same for the Zoning Board email and Zoning Board members). But, now that we hear differently, we will be sure that we address notes as such. So, to be totally clear, are you saying that any time emails are directly addressed to a Board (e.g. Dear Zoning Board members), they will always be forwarded on to all the members of that Board? Also, given this confusion, could you please verify if the following emails of ours were sent on to all the Board members? 1. 11/25 email with the subject "Request to Reverse the Vote on Verizon's Wiedmeier Ct cell tower" (sent to both the Planning and Zoning Board members) 2. 12/3 email with the subject "A timely note for the Zoning Board" (sent to just the Zoning Board members) 3. 12/6 email with the subject "The important larger context" (sent from Andrew's email andrewmolnar11@gmail just to the Zoning Board members) 4. 12/17 email with the subject "Re: URGENT UPDATE: William Johnson conflict of interest!!! " (sent to both the Planning and Zoning Board members) Thank you for this clarification, Marie and Andrew On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 7:00 AM CJ Randall <cjrandall@townithacany.gov> wrote: Hi Andrew, Thanks for your inquiry; planning@townithacany.gov is not the Town of Ithaca Planning Board's direct email address but is for any correspondence directed to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department. As noted during last night's Planning Board meeting, the two respective email messages (received 12/11/2024 at 11:50 am and 12/12/2024 at 10:01 pm, respectively) were addressed 'Dear Town staff and Zoning Board members' and thus were delivered as addressed. This said, we regularly forward correspondence addressed to Planning Board, and we are happy to forward the attached correspondence as well. C.J. C.J. Randall, LEED AP ND Director of Planning Town of Ithaca 215 N Tioga St Ithaca, NY 14850-4357 607-273-1721 x120 cjrandall@townithacany.gov 3 From: Marie/Andrew Molnar <marieandrew93@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2024 7:46 PM To: Chris Balestra <CBalestra@townithacany.gov> Cc: CJ Randall <cjrandall@townithacany.gov>; Town Of Ithaca Clerks Department <clerks@townithacany.gov>; Town Of Ithaca Planning <planning@townithacany.gov>; Codes <codes@townithacany.gov>; Rod Howe <RHowe@townithacany.gov>; Marty Moseley <MMoseley@townithacany.gov>; Rich Depaolo <rdepaolo@townithacany.gov> Subject: Re: URGENT UPDATE: William Johnson conflict of interest!!! Chris, We were a bit confused in the Planning Board meeting tonight when you stated that Bob Babjek had NOT sent his email regarding concerns with William Johnson to the Planning Board. When we look at his original note, the email address of planning@townithacany.gov is included. Is that not the Planning Board email? Furthermore, we also sent a note to the Planning Board earlier this morning, with a copy of his note in the chain under ours (also below). It seems this was also not forwarded to the Planning Board, nor did you reference that in the meeting when a Board member asked for his email.Could you clarify what is going on? Also, could you please confirm that this note in its entirety, and the previous two, have been sent to all the Planning Board members? Thank you. Marie and Andrew On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 10:58 AM Marie/Andrew Molnar <marieandrew93@gmail.com> wrote: We received this letter and are glad to see that someone else is on top of this. We have been shocked to witness the way that the RF consultant William Johnson, while perhaps avoiding untruths, has seemed to show bias toward Verizon throughout the cell tower review process with the Town Boards. Whether including extraneous biased information, changing his statements, or his meandering indirect responses to questions, he certainly does not seem to be an advocate for the implementation of the town codes. We are not at all surprised to see his connection to Verizon's lawyer Jared Lusk. We are concerned because it seems the Town staff and boards are relying so heavily on this person's opinions. We urge the Town to replace him. In our own quest to understand the technical possibilities here, we have spoken with other independent consultants, and been told that small antennas would be a less intrusive means of filling this gap in service. Through this process we have come across a truly independent consultant, Richard Comi, who has an engineering degree from West Point, an MBA from Syracuse University, and over thirty years of experience with the telecommunications industry. His consultancy, the Center for Municipal Solutions (telecomsol.com), works full-time with towns on wireless issues. They are currently working with several town Boards in NY. If you want to educate yourself further on the industry's tactics in local communities (including the misleading use of propagation maps), there is a wealth of information on their website. We respectfully ask that he, or someone like him, replace William Johnson and become the Town's consultant for any future needs. Thank you for your attention to this timely and important matter. 4 Marie and Andrew Molnar Ithacans for Responsible Technology On Thu, Dec 12, 2024 at 9:01 PM Bob Babjak <bobbybabjak@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Town Staff and Zoning Members, I need to make a correction to the email I sent yesterday regarding the bias of the Town's "independent" consultant, William Johnson. I unfortunately included a link to the wrong LinkedIn page; it was a similar-looking, but completely different, man named William Johnson who also worked in the telecom industry. I apologize for this error. Here is the correct LinkedIn page, and I'm sorry to say his alleged bias is actually much more disturbing than I thought. If you scroll down to the "Recommendations" section, you will see a glowing review from none other than the applicant's lead counsel, Jared Lusk! (I also included a screenshot of the page attached to this email). He actually closes with, "I recommend him to any municipality..." Oh, I bet he does. Especially to municipalities where he currently has a pending case! This is unacceptable! How does no one from the Town know about their previous relationship? Why did Mr. Johnson not recuse himself from this case? This is an obvious conflict of interest. How can he maintain the basic appearance of independence when the applicant's lawyer is singing his praises on LinkedIn!?! As someone who recently moved to the area and has an outsider’s perspective on local governance, I must say that I’m appalled by what I’ve witnessed. From Fred Wilcox’s patronizing attitude and obvious favoritism toward the applicant to his strong-arm tactics employed on the Planning Board, along with the lack of notice given to nearby residents about this project, the refusal to allow public comments on the day of the vote, and the Planning Board’s inability or unwillingness to require the applicant to provide evidence—not just the opinion of their engineer, but actual data-supported propagation maps as they did for the alternate sites—on the effectiveness of small cells to address the coverage gap, it all raises serious concerns. And now, the independent consultant appears to be in bed with the applicant’s attorney! With all due respect, it looks like a clown show! I am formally requesting that William Johnson be relieved as the independent consultant and replaced with someone who has no prior connection to the applicant's attorney, Jared Lusk; and the Planning Board reopen its evaluation of the 111 Wiedmaier Ct. site plan and demand the applicant produce in-kind RF propagation analysis for multiple small cells deployed on existing utility poles along 79, Burns, and Coddington as they have for alternative tower sites. Once that evidence has been presented to the Board and reviewed by a new and truly independent consultant, then the Board can have a legitimate re-vote on the site plan. I, along the rest of the Town of Ithaca, eagerly await your response to the serious issues brought up in this email. We have put our trust in you to be stewards of this sacred land. Do not let us down. On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 11:49 AM Bob Babjak <bobbybabjak@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Town Staff and Zoning Board members, I live at 106 Wiedmaier Ct, the house closest to the massively intrusive proposed "Sunny View" PWSF. I have several grave concerns about this project, from the actual existence of a "significant gap" in coverage (for which there is no legal definition or universally accepted determination) to the alarming way it has been handled by Fred Wilcox and the Planning Board. The issue I want to address with this letter, though, is the "independent" RF consultant hired by the Town to evaluate new cell tower applications, William Johnson. In researching Mr. Johnson, I heard from those familiar with his work that he is biased toward the telecom industry (a glance at his LinkedIn page shows that he is fairly embedded within it), but I wanted to give him a chance. Unfortunately, even with the limited technical knowledge I have, it is obvious to me that he is biased in favor of Verizon. I imagine that some of you have also picked up on that. Here are a few examples that I believe call his objectivity into question: 5  Johnson's initial report contained a number of extraneous and irrelevant one-sided opinions on the specific matter at hand of evaluating Verizon's proposed cell tower. This report was so egregious that the Town lawyer, Susan Brock, requested he resubmit his report after removing all those items (as outlined in an email to Mr. Johnson from Chris Balestra on 10/3/24). One of these topics was his opinion denying any harm cell radiation causes humans, a viewpoint the telecoms have been pushing to save their industry, but clearly outside his purview (and proven wrong by thousands of studies). I know health concerns are not legally allowed to be discussed when considering PWSFs, but denying the very existence of adverse health effects connected to RF radiation exposure is like calling climate change a hoax! At best it's ignorant, at worst it demonstrates a willingness to obscure the facts for the benefit of telecom corporations like Verizon. Either way, it's a bad look for a supposed expert.  In the discussion regarding the new proposed tower, Johnson could have made it clear that the vast majority of voice calls use low band, and these voice calls are the only thing required by law for Ithaca to consider (as set forth by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals: "the ability of wireless telephones to make and receive voice calls to and from landlines that are connected to the national telephone network"). He did not do so, and in fact did the opposite by highlighting in his revised 10/21 preliminary report that Verizon has no mid-band coverage in the gap areas and emphasizing that mid-band is "90% of their usable licensed bandwidth that they can provide to their subscribers; the other 10% is low band....90% of the bandwidth that Verizon has available is not even on the map in this particular gap area....Without something in this gap area, we're going to be dealing with that outdoor marginal kind of coverage that Mr Lusk described in a lot of the target area, and not have the other 90% of the bandwidth for high-speed data and other types of services." All of this is totally irrelevant to the Town's consideration. Fortunately, Susan Brock again reminded everyone, "We're talking about voice calls only, nothing about other things." But, this clearly indicates a biased view in favor of the industry and more misdirection.  In another instance of misdirection/distraction, Johnson goes into a long diatribe about other scenarios in which small cells are often used (all true), but he stops short of saying that they are also used to patch a gap in coverage - the very situation the Board is considering.  In both his written materials and verbal comments, Johnson repeatedly made it clear that small cells are "technically" a feasible alternative to a monopole cell tower (a core question in deciding whether or not they could be the least intrusive means to fill the gap and render an applicant's claim of Effective Prohibition null in the case of denial). In his 10/21 revised preliminary report, Johnson even writes, "Other approaches can include use of multiple shorter support structures, co-location on existing shorter structures, distributed antenna systems, and small-cell installations where visual impact is critical." He then follows up these statements with caveats that they might be less effective, or might require them to submit more applications, or could fail in the case of a catastrophic weather event toppling utility poles (again, not the Town's issue). Toward the end of the Zoning Board meeting, after one of his convoluted explanations, a Board member (incorrectly) surmised that the consultant concluded that small cells would not be technically feasible, and Johnson did not correct him. His silence was curious and again seems to support the idea that he favors Verizon getting the pole they want. I was happy to see that Susan Brock has called this out a few times, and I hope his bias is so obvious that The Board, or at least some of its more discerning/knowledgeable members, have to acknowledge it. However, my concern is that the various Boards and staff are making decisions based on a (in my opinion) misplaced trust that the "independent" consultant is a neutral party. I urge the Town to find a more neutral consultant in the future. The bottom line is this: At the 10/1/24 Planning Board meeting, the Board requested more information on whether the "gap in coverage (can) be achieved with several microcells on telephone poles." In return, they only received a statement from Verizon engineer, Wasif Sharif, stating issues such as terrain, foliage, and coverage area as their reasons why small cells would "fail to achieve the site objectives." Notice how he didn't say they would fail to fill the coverage gap. In fact, throughout this whole process, Verizon has never stated that a small cell strategy would "fail to fill the coverage gap." They only ever use language like "fail to achieve the site objectives," but the issue at hand is not the objectives of their proposed site. As per Town Code 270-219.R(4)., the purpose of the proposed PWSF is to address "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." So while Verizon's objectives may be to utilize the mid-range band frequencies that occupy 90% of their licensed bandwidth, and create a space they can rent out to other carriers in the future (and small cells would not meet those 6 objectives), the Zoning Board's objective is to discern whether the LEAST INTRUSIVE MEANS TO ADDRESS A GAP IN COVERAGE is a monopole that exceeds the allowable height limit by over 100 feet. Verizon has provided copious graphs and charts of colorful propagation plots for towers of various sizes at various locations, but they have steadfastly refused to do the same for co-located small cells strategically placed along the areas with the highest concentration of dropped calls. Verizon needs to be pressed on this matter, as it is THE key point in the entire review process. If small cells can fill the coverage gap, then they would be the least intrusive means to remedy the problem, thus negating the need for a giant monopole and nullifying grounds for an Effective Prohibition declaration. If the Town's "independent" consultant is simply accepting Verizon's evidence-free justification for not using small cells, then he is grossly shirking his duty. Why do we have Verizon provide hard data to support their claims on dropped calls, communication failures, and the coverage propagation of multiple sized towers at multiple sites but then accept their unsupported opinion about the efficacy of small cells? Especially in light of Mr. Johnson's constant flip-flopping on the matter, the Board needs to request, no, demand the same level of data-supported evidence for the coverage of small cells that Verizon provided for everything else. Thank you for your attention to this important matter. Bob Babjak 106 Wiedmaier Ct. On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 7:00 AM CJ Randall <cjrandall@townithacany.gov> wrote: Hi Andrew, Thanks for your inquiry; planning@townithacany.gov is not the Town of Ithaca Planning Board's direct email address but is for any correspondence directed to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department. As noted during last night's Planning Board meeting, the two respective email messages (received 12/11/2024 at 11:50 am and 12/12/2024 at 10:01 pm, respectively) were addressed 'Dear Town staff and Zoning Board members' and thus were delivered as addressed. This said, we regularly forward correspondence addressed to Planning Board, and we are happy to forward the attached correspondence as well. C.J. C.J. Randall, LEED AP ND Director of Planning Town of Ithaca 215 N Tioga St Ithaca, NY 14850-4357 607-273-1721 x120 cjrandall@townithacany.gov From: Marie/Andrew Molnar <marieandrew93@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2024 7:46 PM To: Chris Balestra <CBalestra@townithacany.gov> Cc: CJ Randall <cjrandall@townithacany.gov>; Town Of Ithaca Clerks Department <clerks@townithacany.gov>; Town 7 Of Ithaca Planning <planning@townithacany.gov>; Codes <codes@townithacany.gov>; Rod Howe <RHowe@townithacany.gov>; Marty Moseley <MMoseley@townithacany.gov>; Rich Depaolo <rdepaolo@townithacany.gov> Subject: Re: URGENT UPDATE: William Johnson conflict of interest!!! Chris, We were a bit confused in the Planning Board meeting tonight when you stated that Bob Babjek had NOT sent his email regarding concerns with William Johnson to the Planning Board. When we look at his original note, the email address of planning@townithacany.gov is included. Is that not the Planning Board email? Furthermore, we also sent a note to the Planning Board earlier this morning, with a copy of his note in the chain under ours (also below). It seems this was also not forwarded to the Planning Board, nor did you reference that in the meeting when a Board member asked for his email.Could you clarify what is going on? Also, could you please confirm that this note in its entirety, and the previous two, have been sent to all the Planning Board members? Thank you. Marie and Andrew On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 10:58 AM Marie/Andrew Molnar <marieandrew93@gmail.com> wrote: We received this letter and are glad to see that someone else is on top of this. We have been shocked to witness the way that the RF consultant William Johnson, while perhaps avoiding untruths, has seemed to show bias toward Verizon throughout the cell tower review process with the Town Boards. Whether including extraneous biased information, changing his statements, or his meandering indirect responses to questions, he certainly does not seem to be an advocate for the implementation of the town codes. We are not at all surprised to see his connection to Verizon's lawyer Jared Lusk. We are concerned because it seems the Town staff and boards are relying so heavily on this person's opinions. We urge the Town to replace him. In our own quest to understand the technical possibilities here, we have spoken with other independent consultants, and been told that small antennas would be a less intrusive means of filling this gap in service. Through this process we have come across a truly independent consultant, Richard Comi, who has an engineering degree from West Point, an MBA from Syracuse University, and over thirty years of experience with the telecommunications industry. His consultancy, the Center for Municipal Solutions (telecomsol.com), works full-time with towns on wireless issues. They are currently working with several town Boards in NY. If you want to educate yourself further on the industry's tactics in local communities (including the misleading use of propagation maps), there is a wealth of information on their website. We respectfully ask that he, or someone like him, replace William Johnson and become the Town's consultant for any future needs. Thank you for your attention to this timely and important matter. Marie and Andrew Molnar Ithacans for Responsible Technology On Thu, Dec 12, 2024 at 9:01 PM Bob Babjak <bobbybabjak@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Town Staff and Zoning Members, 8 I need to make a correction to the email I sent yesterday regarding the bias of the Town's "independent" consultant, William Johnson. I unfortunately included a link to the wrong LinkedIn page; it was a similar-looking, but completely different, man named William Johnson who also worked in the telecom industry. I apologize for this error. Here is the correct LinkedIn page, and I'm sorry to say his alleged bias is actually much more disturbing than I thought. If you scroll down to the "Recommendations" section, you will see a glowing review from none other than the applicant's lead counsel, Jared Lusk! (I also included a screenshot of the page attached to this email). He actually closes with, "I recommend him to any municipality..." Oh, I bet he does. Especially to municipalities where he currently has a pending case! This is unacceptable! How does no one from the Town know about their previous relationship? Why did Mr. Johnson not recuse himself from this case? This is an obvious conflict of interest. How can he maintain the basic appearance of independence when the applicant's lawyer is singing his praises on LinkedIn!?! As someone who recently moved to the area and has an outsider’s perspective on local governance, I must say that I’m appalled by what I’ve witnessed. From Fred Wilcox’s patronizing attitude and obvious favoritism toward the applicant to his strong-arm tactics employed on the Planning Board, along with the lack of notice given to nearby residents about this project, the refusal to allow public comments on the day of the vote, and the Planning Board’s inability or unwillingness to require the applicant to provide evidence—not just the opinion of their engineer, but actual data-supported propagation maps as they did for the alternate sites—on the effectiveness of small cells to address the coverage gap, it all raises serious concerns. And now, the independent consultant appears to be in bed with the applicant’s attorney! With all due respect, it looks like a clown show! I am formally requesting that William Johnson be relieved as the independent consultant and replaced with someone who has no prior connection to the applicant's attorney, Jared Lusk; and the Planning Board reopen its evaluation of the 111 Wiedmaier Ct. site plan and demand the applicant produce in-kind RF propagation analysis for multiple small cells deployed on existing utility poles along 79, Burns, and Coddington as they have for alternative tower sites. Once that evidence has been presented to the Board and reviewed by a new and truly independent consultant, then the Board can have a legitimate re-vote on the site plan. I, along the rest of the Town of Ithaca, eagerly await your response to the serious issues brought up in this email. We have put our trust in you to be stewards of this sacred land. Do not let us down. On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 11:49 AM Bob Babjak <bobbybabjak@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Town Staff and Zoning Board members, I live at 106 Wiedmaier Ct, the house closest to the massively intrusive proposed "Sunny View" PWSF. I have several grave concerns about this project, from the actual existence of a "significant gap" in coverage (for which there is no legal definition or universally accepted determination) to the alarming way it has been handled by Fred Wilcox and the Planning Board. The issue I want to address with this letter, though, is the "independent" RF consultant hired by the Town to evaluate new cell tower applications, William Johnson. In researching Mr. Johnson, I heard from those familiar with his work that he is biased toward the telecom industry (a glance at his LinkedIn page shows that he is fairly embedded within it), but I wanted to give him a chance. Unfortunately, even with the limited technical knowledge I have, it is obvious to me that he is biased in favor of Verizon. I imagine that some of you have also picked up on that. Here are a few examples that I believe call his objectivity into question:  Johnson's initial report contained a number of extraneous and irrelevant one-sided opinions on the specific matter at hand of evaluating Verizon's proposed cell tower. This report was so egregious that the Town lawyer, Susan Brock, requested he resubmit his report after removing all those items (as outlined in an email to Mr. Johnson from Chris Balestra on 10/3/24). One of these topics was his opinion denying any harm cell radiation causes humans, a viewpoint the telecoms have been pushing to save their industry, but clearly outside his purview (and proven wrong by thousands of studies). I know health concerns are not 9 legally allowed to be discussed when considering PWSFs, but denying the very existence of adverse health effects connected to RF radiation exposure is like calling climate change a hoax! At best it's ignorant, at worst it demonstrates a willingness to obscure the facts for the benefit of telecom corporations like Verizon. Either way, it's a bad look for a supposed expert.  In the discussion regarding the new proposed tower, Johnson could have made it clear that the vast majority of voice calls use low band, and these voice calls are the only thing required by law for Ithaca to consider (as set forth by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals: "the ability of wireless telephones to make and receive voice calls to and from landlines that are connected to the national telephone network"). He did not do so, and in fact did the opposite by highlighting in his revised 10/21 preliminary report that Verizon has no mid-band coverage in the gap areas and emphasizing that mid-band is "90% of their usable licensed bandwidth that they can provide to their subscribers; the other 10% is low band....90% of the bandwidth that Verizon has available is not even on the map in this particular gap area....Without something in this gap area, we're going to be dealing with that outdoor marginal kind of coverage that Mr Lusk described in a lot of the target area, and not have the other 90% of the bandwidth for high-speed data and other types of services." All of this is totally irrelevant to the Town's consideration. Fortunately, Susan Brock again reminded everyone, "We're talking about voice calls only, nothing about other things." But, this clearly indicates a biased view in favor of the industry and more misdirection.  In another instance of misdirection/distraction, Johnson goes into a long diatribe about other scenarios in which small cells are often used (all true), but he stops short of saying that they are also used to patch a gap in coverage - the very situation the Board is considering.  In both his written materials and verbal comments, Johnson repeatedly made it clear that small cells are "technically" a feasible alternative to a monopole cell tower (a core question in deciding whether or not they could be the least intrusive means to fill the gap and render an applicant's claim of Effective Prohibition null in the case of denial). In his 10/21 revised preliminary report, Johnson even writes, "Other approaches can include use of multiple shorter support structures, co-location on existing shorter structures, distributed antenna systems, and small-cell installations where visual impact is critical." He then follows up these statements with caveats that they might be less effective, or might require them to submit more applications, or could fail in the case of a catastrophic weather event toppling utility poles (again, not the Town's issue). Toward the end of the Zoning Board meeting, after one of his convoluted explanations, a Board member (incorrectly) surmised that the consultant concluded that small cells would not be technically feasible, and Johnson did not correct him. His silence was curious and again seems to support the idea that he favors Verizon getting the pole they want. I was happy to see that Susan Brock has called this out a few times, and I hope his bias is so obvious that The Board, or at least some of its more discerning/knowledgeable members, have to acknowledge it. However, my concern is that the various Boards and staff are making decisions based on a (in my opinion) misplaced trust that the "independent" consultant is a neutral party. I urge the Town to find a more neutral consultant in the future. The bottom line is this: At the 10/1/24 Planning Board meeting, the Board requested more information on whether the "gap in coverage (can) be achieved with several microcells on telephone poles." In return, they only received a statement from Verizon engineer, Wasif Sharif, stating issues such as terrain, foliage, and coverage area as their reasons why small cells would "fail to achieve the site objectives." Notice how he didn't say they would fail to fill the coverage gap. In fact, throughout this whole process, Verizon has never stated that a small cell strategy would "fail to fill the coverage gap." They only ever use language like "fail to achieve the site objectives," but the issue at hand is not the objectives of their proposed site. As per Town Code 270-219.R(4)., the purpose of the proposed PWSF is to address "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." So while Verizon's objectives may be to utilize the mid-range band frequencies that occupy 90% of their licensed bandwidth, and create a space they can rent out to other carriers in the future (and small cells would not meet those objectives), the Zoning Board's objective is to discern whether the LEAST INTRUSIVE MEANS TO ADDRESS A GAP IN COVERAGE is a monopole that exceeds the allowable height limit by over 100 feet. Verizon has provided copious graphs and charts of colorful propagation plots for towers of various sizes at various locations, but they have steadfastly refused to do the same for co-located small cells strategically placed along the areas with the highest concentration of dropped calls. Verizon needs to be pressed on this matter, as it is THE key point in the entire review process. If small cells can fill the coverage gap, then they would be the least intrusive 10 means to remedy the problem, thus negating the need for a giant monopole and nullifying grounds for an Effective Prohibition declaration. If the Town's "independent" consultant is simply accepting Verizon's evidence-free justification for not using small cells, then he is grossly shirking his duty. Why do we have Verizon provide hard data to support their claims on dropped calls, communication failures, and the coverage propagation of multiple sized towers at multiple sites but then accept their unsupported opinion about the efficacy of small cells? Especially in light of Mr. Johnson's constant flip-flopping on the matter, the Board needs to request, no, demand the same level of data-supported evidence for the coverage of small cells that Verizon provided for everything else. Thank you for your attention to this important matter. Bob Babjak 106 Wiedmaier Ct. 1 Lori Kofoid From:Marty Moseley <MMoseley@townithacany.gov> Sent:Thursday, December 19, 2024 3:38 PM To:Chris Jung; Connor Terry; Dana Magnuson; David Squires ; Larry Sallinger (larry14850 @gmail.com); Marty Moseley; Matthew Minnig; Ritter, Kim Cc:Codes; Susan H. Brock Subject:FW: A timely note for the Zoning Board Categories:Red Category Good Afternoon Zoning Board Members, We were requested to send this email to you prior to the January mailout for the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting that will occur on January 28, 2025. It is unusual that we send our correspondence prior to the mailout, but I agreed to send the email early. It will also be in your packet for the January 28th meeting, as usual. Thank you, Marty Moseley Director of Code Enforcement Town of Ithaca 215 N Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 P: 607-273-1783 F: 607-273-1704 www.townithacany.gov The information contained in this e-mail message is confidential and intended only for the individual or entity to whom or which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, alteration, or copying of this e-mail message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e- mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone (607-273-1783), or by return e-mail, and delete this e- mail message. From: Marie/Andrew Molnar <marieandrew93@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2024 3:34 PM To: Marty Moseley <MMoseley@townithacany.gov>; Codes <codes@townithacany.gov> Subject: Fwd: A timely note for the Zoning Board Thank you for talking today. The timely email is below. 2 Could you please confirm once you've sent it on to the ZB members? Thank you. Andrew ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Marie/Andrew Molnar <marieandrew93@gmail.com> Date: Mon, Dec 2, 2024 at 3:29 PM Subject: A timely note for the Zoning Board To: <codes@townithacany.gov>, Town Of Ithaca Clerks Department <clerks@townithacany.gov> Zoning Board members, Thank you for your careful attention to details around Verizon’s proposed cell tower. We were relieved to finally hear some critical discerning questions asked concerning the need for this specific macro tower in this specific location, including distinguishing the size of the actual gap NOT the entire "Sunny View project area", questioning the need for such a large pole to fill a relatively small gap, and the proof (not simply conclusory statements) that this tower is the least intrusive means to fill the small gap. We have a timely request: We ask that you request that Verizon also show the least intrusive way to remedy the gap for voice coverage using small cell(s). Somebody brought this up earlier in the meeting, but then it seemed to get forgotten. Some relevant facts: Fact #1: As Susan Brock has repeatedly pointed out, voice calls are the only applicable standard per our code. Fact #2: Almost all voice calls and texting are done using the low-band frequencies. Fact #3: Low band frequencies (like Verizon’s main low band 700 MHz (Band 13) or even 850 MHz (Band 5/n5) are particularly suited to this gap area as they offer excellent broad/distant coverage as well as the most effective building and foliage penetration (more than mid- or high-band frequencies). Fact #4: Small cells use considerably less energy than a macro tower. Fact #5: Small cells can often use already existing poles. Fact#6: How much mid-range bandwidth Verizon has to use is irrelevant to our situation of remedying a gap. For some reason the consultant raised the issue that Verizon has no mid-band coverage in the gap areas and that (mid-band) is "90% of their usable licensed bandwidth that they can provide to their subscribers; the other 10% is low band...Along Route 79 there's adequate coverage at low band. ...90% of the bandwidth that Verizon has available is not even on the map in this particular gap area....Without something in this gap area, we're going to be dealing with that outdoor marginal kind of coverage that Mr Lusk described in a lot of the target area, and not have the other 90% of the bandwidth for high-speed data and other types of services." Fortunately, Susan Brock reminded all that "We're talking about voice calls only, nothing about other things." It is not our concern that Verizon recently invested $52 billion purchasing C-band/mid-band (such that it now makes up 90% of their usable licensed spectrum). Midband is rarely used for phone or text coverage. This investment of mid-band (which primarily utilizes macro towers) is based on Verizon's projections of fixed wireless broadband and other data heavy uses (streaming, gaming, video conferencing, etc). Our concern is that they are utilizing a relatively small gap in phone coverage to justify a macro tower for the companies' larger projected needs. It has been confusing to hear the consultant change opinions throughout this process (starting with the Planning Board). In his initial letters, he was clear that small cells would work, which he reiterated in the Zoning Board meeting. But then he added that they might be more complicated (more project applications) or expensive for Verizon if multiple ones were 3 needed, or they are not ideal in a rare total power outage. None of these changes the fact that he has repeatedly said that small cells are "technically feasible." If it is feasible to use small cells in this situation, they would likely constitute the least intrusive means to fill this gap, and likely mollify most of the community concerns. So, in addition to the good information you asked from Verizon for the next meeting, we are requesting that you also ask them to follow through on what several of you said earlier in the meeting: showing how a small cell or 2 could remedy the existing gap in voice coverage (not the "Sunny View coverage area" or "project goals" as Jared Lusk repeats in this meeting: "we have uh stated I believe multiple times that uh this is the uh least intrusive uh manner of delivering service to the sunny view coverage area". Feel free to contact us if you have any questions. Thank you again for your work in our beloved community. Marie and Andrew Molnar 607-277-9420 We hope that Verizon, by having more realistic expectations of the amount of service it needs to provide, can find a better site for this tower or can use small cells. Please demand robust evidence that will allow you Board members to make real comparisons based on what is needed to cover the small demand in our rural area. Thank you, Diane Florini Corner of Slaterville and Burns Roads LEAST INTRUSIVE MEANS is defined in Zoning section 270-219 regarding Personal wireless service facilities [Amended 5-9-2005 by L.L. No. 5-2005; 5-12-2014 by L.L. No. 9-2014; 6-26-2023 by L.L. No. 12-2023] (https://ecode360.com/8662692#8662691). The location and design of a personal wireless service facility that would remedy a significant gap in personal wireless service coverage and 1) does the least disservice to the objectives stated in § 270-219A(2) which include: f) Protect Town residents, businesses and institutions from potential adverse impacts of personal wireless service facilities, to the maximum extent permitted under law; h) Protect the physical appearance of the Town and preserve its scenic and natural beauty by avoiding and minimizing adverse visual and aesthetic impacts of personal wireless service facilities to the maximum extent practicable through careful design, siting, landscaping, screening, and innovative camouflaging techniques; k) Minimize the impact of such facilities on residential properties;], and 2) deviates as little as possible from: a) the preferential order of location in Subsection K (Priority of siting) Essentially: industrial zones, then commercial zones, then elsewhere) b) applicable design standards in Subsection L (= All PWSFs shall be sited, designed, and constructed in a manner which minimizes to the maximum extent practicable i) visual impact, and ii) adverse impacts upon migratory and other birds and other wildlife. Aesthetic criteria applicable to non-small wireless facilities include: The facility shall have the least practical visual effect on the environment. The facility shall be located at least 300 feet from any structure that contains a dwelling unit.) 1 Lori Kofoid From:Caroline Ashurst <hello@carolineashurst.com> Sent:Sunday, January 5, 2025 6:43 PM To:Town Of Ithaca Planning Cc:Codes; Town Of Ithaca Clerks Department; CJ Randall; Chris Balestra; Marty Moseley; Rich Depaolo; Rod Howe Subject:Dear Planning Board Members (CC: Town Board, Zoning Board) **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 Dear Planning Board Members: [NOTE: Please make sure this email is sent to all the planning board members as we recently were told that in order for them to receive these emails and have them in the official register, we have to specifically request that by addressing them directly. Here is my specific request in writing to assure their receipt and documentation in the Wiedmaier/Verizon docs. Thank you.] I am writing today to request the board to re-vote and reject the Wiedmeier Court cell tower application before the Zoning Board's January 28 meeting. At the November 19 Planning Board meeting, the board members were misled into believing that denying the tower would be an "effective prohibition." However, Verizon failed to prove, as required by code, that their 138' monopole is the least intrusive way to address the service gap. The town's independent consultant confirmed that smaller, less obtrusive solutions, such as small cell antennas, are viable alternatives—something Verizon never - actually- disproved in their burden of proof. Instead, they relied on vague claims without solid evidence, misleading the Board into approving the application. We are deeply concerned that the Board’s decision was based on this misinformation, especially since a majority initially supported denying the tower before Verizon’s misleading statements. It appeared some members felt pressured into approval rather than exercising their authority to deny. Additionally, I would like to point out that the town lawyer seems to deny this claim. She mentioned at the zoning board meeting that the residents here at that meeting overreacted to what occurred at that planning board meeting in question- which is plainly untrue and concerning. Why is the public's experience of this meeting being gaslit? We have the right to voice our observations of this process and the events of the meetings. Let it be known that the town lawyer is essentially claiming that a group of people who all experienced the same thing in that room/on that zoom are all exaggerating/misinterpreting the situation. Please do not further gaslight this community. We will not have it. The voting process seemed biased and unprofessional. A straw poll initially favored denial, yet the Board suddenly shifted focus to an approval resolution. Chairperson Fred Wilcox’s comments, such as accusing members of “trying to find reasons to say no when you should be saying yes,” revealed a troubling bias toward approval. This behavior undermines public trust. The town lawyer downplaying this whole incident is disturbing and we will not stay quiet about it. 2 At timestamp 1:33 on 11/19's meeting, this is what was said: “I’m concerned right now that members of this board are trying to find reasons to say no when the answer is yes. And that concerns me. People are struggling right now to figure “how can i say no and get away with it”. (Fred Wilcox) Fred then asked “Can a cell phone tower EVER be unobtrusive?” Caitlin said "Yes” and Fred started laughing when she was answering. Don't you find this concerning? I sure do. (Also, side note: why are there no meeting minutes available for that meeting on 11/19 available on the town website?) Here's something else that's alarming that I'm only sharing now as well: That day at that meeting on 11/19, one of the male members of the board came over to our group and started chatting with us. He encouraged us to contact the town papers, etc, to share our concerns. It was odd, and also gave us hope that he supported our case. We then asked him how he was voting. Do you want to know what he said? He said he was: "against it but I'll probably just vote for it because it's going to pass anyway." He told this to my face. What kind of attitude is that to have on the planning board? This man who is supposed to represent the community just admitted he caved into some agenda he was already aware of---and TOLD me? Unbelievable. At this point, for all of these reasons, we ask the Planning Board to correct this error, conduct a re- vote, and deny the cell tower application. You are in a position where you have to regain the public's trust because it has eroded significantly in this whole fiasco. EVERY MEMBER OF YOUR BOARD DESERVES THE RIGHT TO VOTE IN A WAY THAT REFLECTS THEIR TRUTH WITHOUT BEING BULLIED INTO THEIR DECISION. We are grateful for every one of you who tried to follow your truth and the values that guide our community here. You are on that board because you don't want to greenwash these agendas, and WE ARE GRATEFUL FOR YOU. RE-VOTE RE-VOTE RE-VOTE NOW. With Gratitude, Caroline Grace Ashurst, L.Ac., M.Ac. www.carolineashurst.com @restorativeharmony -- The Fertility Formula Functional Fertility Coaching + Restorative Harmony Acupuncture 2022|2020|2019 Philadelphia Family LOVE Award Best Acupuncture in Philadelphia! 3 To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. *******©2024 Restorative Harmony Acupuncture, LLC. All rights reserved. This document is for educational and informational purposes only and solely as a self-help tool for your own use. I am not providing medical, psychological, or nutrition therapy advice. You should not use this information to diagnose or treat any health problems or illnesses without consulting your own medical practitioner. Always seek the advice of your own medical practitioner and/or mental health provider about your specific health situation. For my full Disclaimer, please go to https://www.restorativeharmony.com/legal-disclaimers 1 Lori Kofoid From:Marty Moseley <MMoseley@townithacany.gov> Sent:Tuesday, February 18, 2025 11:00 AM To:Codes; Lori Kofoid Subject:Re: Please deny the height variance on the proposed Verizon tower Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged Lori, As usual, please send this email to the Zoning Board or Appeals . Thank you, Marty Moseley Director of Code Enforcement Town of Ithaca 215 N Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 P: 607-273-1783 F: 607-273-1704 www.townithacany.gov The information contained in this e-mail message is confidential and intended only for the individual or entity to whom or which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, alteration, or copying of this e-mail message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e- mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone (607-273-1783), or by return e-mail, and delete this e- mail message. From: Codes <codes@townithacany.gov> Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2025 8:20 AM To: Lori Kofoid <LKofoid@townithacany.gov>; Marty Moseley <MMoseley@townithacany.gov> Subject: FW: Please deny the height variance on the proposed Verizon tower Please see email below. Thank you, Emily Banwell Administrative Assistant II Code Enforcement & Zoning Dept Town of Ithaca 215 N. Tioga St Ithaca, NY 14850 2 607-273-1783 From: Sheila Out <sheilaout49@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 17, 2025 4:32 PM To: Codes <codes@townithacany.gov> Subject: Please deny the height variance on the proposed Verizon 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 Dear Zoning Board members, Verizon has claimed that denying their tower/monopole would constitute effective prohibition. They have, however, never shown proof that small cells couldn’t remedy the gap in cell phone coverage. Verizon is pushing for the monopole in order to maximize profits by renting out spaces on it to other companies. They could also use it for their 'fixed wireless broadband" rollout, but this is completely irrelevant to a gap in voice coverage. A monopole with a height exceeding the code's 30 foot limit by more than 100 feet in order to remedy a small gap in phone service would constitute unnecessary massive overkill. Please deny the requested height variance. Sincerely, Sheila Out Ithaca 1 Lori Kofoid From:Bob Babjak <bobbabjak@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, February 21, 2025 3:10 PM To:Codes; Chris Balestra; CJ Randall Cc:caroline grace ashurst; Andrew Molnar Subject:Verizon tower at 111 Wiedmaier Ct. Dear Zoning Board members, Thank you for receiving this email, and I appreciate the work you do for the Town of Ithaca. I am writing today to urge you in the strongest possible terms to DENY Verizon's request for a height variance at 111 Wiedmaier Ct. for their Sunny View tower project. Approval for this variance, which would exceed the current height limit by 108 feet, would be a blight on the beauty of the Six Mile Creek Valley and set a precedent for future PWSF approvals that would significantly alter the character (both aesthetically and philosophically) of Ithaca. Aside from being 108 feet over the currently zoned height limit, I also request the variance be denied for the following code violations:  Applicant has repeatedly failed to prove that this tower is the "Least Intrusive Means" of remedying their claim of a significant gap of coverage (Town Code 270-219). While they have provided reams of data supporting this site as the best option for their tower, they have not produced a shred of data in regards to the efficacy of small cells co- located on existing utility poles in filling the alleged coverage gap. They have only submitted the opinion of their engineer that the small cells would not "meet the objectives of this project." As pointed out to the applicant time and again, the legal standard is not the "objectives of applicant's project" but the least intrusive means to fill a coverage gap of voice from mobile phones to landlines connected to a national telephone network as outlined by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. By failing to submit evidence addressing the feasibility of small cells, the applicant is in violation of Town Code 270-219G(s)[5] and should be denied a variance.  The applicant's Visual Impact Analysis inexplicably states that there will be no significant aesthetic impact from the tower. This is simply not true. They are proposing a 138" tower in a surrounding area where the tallest trees are less than 40" high. That means the tower will be 100" higher than anything else remotely near it, as well as clash with the forested hill that serves as its backdrop when viewed from Route 79. Speaking of Route 79, it is one of the few main arteries into Ithaca from the south. Where visitors arriving to the area are currently greeted by the majestic natural beauty of the Southern Tier, this tower would serve as an immense disrupter to the character of The Town. So not only would this be an eyesore to visitors traversing Route 79, but also to all the nearby residents of Slaterville Rd. and Burns Rd. For the applicant's intentional misrepresentation of the project's aesthetic impact, it should be denied a variance.  I also want to reiterate the approval standards in our Town Codes for PWSFs: o 270-219R(3)(b)[1] 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. - Just because the applicant may wish to have better wireless internet service, our Town Code defines coverage as "the ability of wireless telephones to make and receive calls to and from landlines that are connected to the national telephone network." Applicant's desire for future uses are irrelevant when determining approval. o 270-219R(3)(e) 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. - As established above, the project would most definitely inflict a significant aesthetic impact on neighboring properties. 2 o 270-219R(3)(g) 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. - As established above, the project is undeniably incompatible with the use and character of both the surrounding area and the neighboring properties. Honorable Zoning Board members it is for all these reasons (as well as the myriad adverse health issues associated with RF radiation that are recognized by the WHO, countless peer-reviewed studies, and adopted by over 100 countries around the world as justification for their own PWSF regulations, but which the FCC continues to ignore, and are therefore inadmissible in this process) that I request you deny Verizon's request for a height variance on a 138 foot monopole at 111 Wiedmaier Ct. Thank you, Bob Babjak 1 Lori Kofoid From:Diane Allyn Florini <diflorini@hotmail.com> Sent:Friday, February 21, 2025 4:14 PM To:Codes Subject:Wiedmaier cell 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 Dear Director Moseley, I would love to attend the Zoning Board meeting on Tuesday but am taking minutes at another meeting. Please let the Zoning Board members see my comments below or read them at the meeting for me. Dear Zoning Board members, Verizon needs to realize that if it builds a cell phone tower on the NORTH side of Route 79, it will be in our neighborhood, we will all see it, but it will be LESS INTRUSIVE on a hillside than at eye level in a Conservation Zone. At an early Zoning Board meeting, the members wondered if the amount of cell signal that Verizon is proposing is excessive for the area which includes a rural highway (Route 79), portions of South Hill, and the South Hill Recreation Way. A tower on the north side of Route 79 will give great coverage to South Hill and a better line-of-sight to the South Hill Recreation Way. A cell phone signal from a Wiedmaier tower will have to go through lots of trees on the properties along Route 79 so the tree blockage along Route 79 from a Wiedmaier tower would be similar to that of a tower on the north side of the road. The hillside parcels owned by Gary Foote on the north side of Slaterville Road could support towers significantly above "area clutter." Verizon's maps of Gary Foote's parcels showed the towers close to residences, but those alternative plots of land were large enough to put the tower farther from the residences; these locations should be examined more in depth because they might give good enough coverage of the gap while being less intrusive. Looking at separate pictures of Rf plots is not easy. Verizon needs to present overlay plots of the Rf signal coverage from both small cells and from the alternative sites on those properties north of Route 79—including the one in Dryden—where towers could be sited. We all would still see a tower on the north side of Route 79, but it would not be intrusively AT EYE LEVEL and NOT in a Conservation Zone. Please balance the poor choice of a Conservation Zone against the a slight decrease in coverage. Thank you, Diane Florini 1603 Slaterville Road 1 Lori Kofoid From:Jeff Zorn <jrz3@cornell.edu> Sent:Sunday, February 23, 2025 2:06 PM To:Codes Subject:Verizon Monopole **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 Dear Zoning Board members, Trying to keep Verizon from running rough shod over well-thought out local ordinances is a wearying task for community members. It seems like it should be a commonsense procedure. Always go for what will be least intrusive and least harmful. Yet Verizon is close to skirting our local guidelines regarding their intent to erect a 138’ monopole (trying to get around our limit of 30’). Verizon has not shown that this monumental pole is the least intrusive means of providing coverage or that small cell antennas are not feasible for their project. They want the big pole so that they can rent out space on it to other companies. I.e. the want to maximize corporate profits and the expense of local interests. I can only hope that a local planning board will put local interests over Big Tech interests. Make them prove their points with real data, not generic claims. Sincerely, Je Jeff Zorn 202 Pine Tree Rd. Ithaca, NY 14850 C: 607-339-7328 E: jrz3@cornell.edu 1 Lori Kofoid From:Jill Ullian / Dennis Anello <judax214@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, February 23, 2025 5:52 PM To:Codes Subject:Verizon's application for a large cell tower Dear Zoning Board members, I am opposed to Verizon's requested 138 foot tower. It is my understanding that Ithaca codes require proof that their 138' tower is the least intrusive means to fill the gap in service coverage. Verizon claims that it is the least intrusive means to fill the gap. This despite independent consultants attesting that small cell antennas would be able to provide viable solutions to filling the gap. It is my understanding that small cells use considerably less energy than a large cell tower, and can often use already existing poles of only between 25 - 50 feet, instead of the requested 138 foot tower. It is Verizon's burden to demonstrate that this large scale cell tower is in fact the "least intrusive means of filling the gap" by providing credible proof that small cell antennas could not viably fill the gap. I am therefore requesting that the board deny the height variance on this issue, since they have not met Ithaca codes at this time. I ask that the Board members re-read the 2 articles I submitted earlier (copied below) before making any final decision. As I stated in my earlier email to the Board, though I do not live in the vicinity of the new proposed Verizon tower, I do live in the Town of Ithaca, and am concerned about my neighbors' being exposed to unnecessary levels radio frequency radiation. Sincerely, Dennis Anello Former Physics Teacher (high school), Former Adjunct Faculty, Physics & Math (Springfield Technical Community College) Ithaca On 9/30/2024 2:43 PM, Jill Ullian / Dennis Anello wrote: 2 Re: Verizon's application to place a new large tower in the Town of Ithaca at 79 and Burns Road Hello, Though I do not live in the vicinity of the new proposed Verizon tower, I do live in the Town of Ithaca, and am concerned about my neighbors' health and safety. Please see the below 2 resources, which I believe give reason for prudent caution on the addition of this new large tower. I am a former physics teacher, and I would like to ask that you read these resources, and that they be included in the information you make available to the public. 1. WITH GOOD REASON radio program interview with Deborah O’Dell, professor of biology at the University of Mary Washington: "Does the radiation emitted by our cell phones harm us?" https://www.withgoodreasonradio.org/episode/do-cell-phones-cause-cancer-2/ Does the radiation emitted by our cell phones harm us? Professor Deborah O’Dell recently finished a study that found cell phone radiation can cause changes to our cells. 2. Article from The Nation magazine: How Big Wireless Made Us Think That Cell Phones Are Safe: A Special Investigation The disinformation campaign—and massive radiation increase—behind the 5G and cell tower rollouts. https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/how-big-wireless-made-us-think-that- cell-phones-are-safe-a-special-investigation/ I am requesting that Verizon's application to place a new large tower in the Town of Ithaca at 79 and Burns Road be denied. Thanks for your work on this issue. Dennis Anello Former Physics Teacher (high school), Former Adjunct Faculty, Physics & Math (Springfield Technical Community College) Ithaca 1 Lori Kofoid From:Codes <codes@townithacany.gov> Sent:Monday, February 24, 2025 8:36 AM To:Lori Kofoid Subject:FW: ZBAA-25-2 Please see email below. Emily Banwell Administrative Assistant II Code Enforcement & Zoning Dept Town of Ithaca 215 N. Tioga St Ithaca, NY 14850 607-273-1783 From: nancy leeming <nanleeming@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2025 8:26 AM To: Codes <codes@townithacany.gov> Subject: ZBAA-25-2 I am writing response to the request for a variance, ZBAA-25-2. I understand the need for a scoreboard at the Rugby field. However I see no need for it to be larger that the zoning permits. Eliminating or shrinking the banners would have less of an impact while still serving the purpose of a scoreboard. This proposed sign location will impact visually the town park known as the East Hill Recreation Way. I fail to see how the need for a larger sign should be allowed to disturb the many who use the walkway daily. There is a town bench along the path which would look directly at the proposed sign. At the very least Cornell should be required to plant and maintain evergreens of sufficient size as to mitigate any visual impact to the walkway and neighbors. Nancy Leeming 221 Strawberry Hill Circle #2 Ithaca, NY 14850 1 Lori Kofoid From:Ithacans For Responsible Technology <ithacasafetech@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 24, 2025 11:33 AM To:Codes Subject:Petition signed by 169 citizens to stop this cell 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 Ithaca Town Zoning Board members, Please note that 169 people signed the below petition asking the Planning Board to re-vote and deny the cell tower. At their January 7 meeting, PB members indicated interest in this (clearly showing they had some misgivings) and asked the Town lawyer how to do so. After research, the Board ultimately chose not to, given the parameters expressed by the lawyer. We disagree with their conclusion that they were legally unable to re-vote. But, the same logic in the petition applies to you, the Zoning Board. We ask that you read the petition below and follow the clear will of your citizens, whom you represent. Please correct the error that happened with the Planning Board and deny the tower. -------------------------- Ithaca Planning Board members, We the undersigned concerned citizens of Ithaca are urging you to re-vote and deny the Wiedmeier Court cell tower application before the Zoning Board's January 28 meeting. At the November 19 Planning Board meeting, the Board members were given incorrect information that denying the cell tower would be 'effective prohibition' when in fact, Verizon had not shown any proof, as our codes require, that their 138' tower is the least intrusive means to fill the gap in service coverage. In fact, this large, obtrusive monopole is likely not the least intrusive means of filling this gap in service when there is the option of small cell antennas, which are viable solutions as attested to by independent consultants. Verizon “respectfully disagreed”, referring to their 'evidence' in Exhibit GG, which was simply conclusory statements that small cells were not viable to achieve “the necessary coverage goals sought by VZW” (not for remedying the gap). Tellingly, neither Verizon employees ever explicitly said that small cells could not remedy the gap in service. Thus, it was highly misleading for Verizon to claim that denying their tower would constitute effective prohibition, given that they never showed proof that small cells couldn’t remedy the gap. Given what we heard at the meeting, we are concerned that Board members' decision to approve was based on this false knowledge, especially since a majority of the Board said they 2 were going to deny the tower before Verizon's statement about effective prohibition. It seemed like some Board members felt that it was a done deal and that they couldn't deny the application. Ultimately, it is the Planning Board's responsibility to ensure that due diligence and adequate proof has been shown for a tower that will negatively affect countless Ithacans. Additionally, a re-vote would ameliorate what seemed like an unprofessional and biased process. In the meeting, a straw poll indicated a majority of the Board was in favor of denying the tower, but then the Board inexplicably changed from working off the 'denial' resolution to working off the ‘approval’ resolution. Board member Cindy Kaufman even questioned this saying, "I don't understand why we're reviewing the approval [resolution]." She was ignored. Unfortunately, it seemed that Chairperson Fred Wilcox's words/actions were biased in favor of approving the resolution, for example when he said, "I'm concerned right now that members of this board are trying to find reasons to say no when the answer is YES.” This behavior is unethical and an embarrassment to our town. Therefore, we ask the Planning Board to right this error, re-vote, and deny the cell tower. Andrew Molnar Natalie Lester Jeff Zorn Marie Molnar Cara Robertus Madeline McCann Dennis Anello Jill Ullian Lisa Bertuzzi Jill Kellner Mary Murphy Sherri Bennette Brittany D Johnson Lisa Robinow Jennifer Heatley Eamonn Murphy Amanda Moretti William Gauger Pam Millar leeny sack Mary Archin Louise Mygatt Josie Judge Emma Peila Ashley Schiller Natasha Keller caroline ashurst Wendy Ives Anna Sidor Jessie Vassallo 3 Bob Babjak Dara Riegel Rigel Bissonette Barbara Harrison Molly Donovan Sujata Gibson Lillian Tomik Tom Clausen Florinda Larkin Mary Alm Barbara Appel Vanessa Wood Henry Fitzgerald Alex Kowtun Molly Kornblum Dakota River I Peress Judith Jones Isabel Rachlin Helena Cooper Lori Yelensky Adam Monzella Deborah Loewe Kelly Hook Joan Jedele Daryl Mclain pat shea Kaori Teramura judith barker Rebecca Sydney Angelo Abdalla Melissa Jackson Dianne Ferriss Florian Chaubet Amala Lane Jerone Gagliano Emmett G James Riegel Jessica Lindsay Rhiannon Cobb Krisra Bellavigna Kelsey Hicks Nellie Wallace Colleen Cole Valletta Megan Allen Melissa Heslop sara garner Courtney Sullivan Kyra Coleman Christina Haltom Kalleen Grey Patricia Keen 4 Alison Gelsleichter Alisa Shargorodsky Andrea Davis Amy Wiiki KJ Jin Jennifer Oursler Kristine Wills Kate Nicholson Suzanne Beltz Yuliya Kim Katherine Hayes Helena Prieto Sarah Bannister Rachael Tissot Karlem Sivira Gimenez Kenzey Simon Crystal Keller Justin Hicks Dani Ferriss elizabeth mcever Marion Gunderson Bethany LeBlanc Virginia Smithson Damaris Vazquez Abigail Sisson Anne Schneider Daniel Seib Shula Stern Francine Rivera Reynolds Kaide Magee Jennifer Whitaker Heather Fowler Aaron Rakow Angela Brodie Britton Dougherty Jenn Feingold Emily Paul Beatrice Olesko Erin Fierst Morgan Dart Meghan Valesente Whitney Elrod Elana Maragni Jenniffer DeSimone Lynsay Ayer Marla Walkuski Esther Boissin Tonya Lower-jordan Jeanette DeVita Erika Rikhiram Caitlin Hunter Alaina Boyett 5 Ariana Carvell Austin Ward Mirjana Neskovich susan devereaux Rosa Cabrerizo Cassie Harrison Consuelo Serena Velasco Gonny Stevens Tiffany Robbins Nelly PRESTAT Renata Cheferrino Madeline Greenwood Asakura Yumi Analía Caiazza Russell Robinson Tanya Krebs Roxana Moya Ahunesti Chisolm Susanna Rogers celine duburg anchen Diane Pleickhardt Elizabeth Hardin Mara Alper Odette Wilkens Melinda McCann Joyce Lawrence Dianea Kohl Deanna Nassar valentin klinnert Rosemary Rukavena James Hamilton Jony Thomas Unknown Unknown Mary Lou Bagchi Miriam Epstein https://www.change.org/p/please-re-vote-on-the-cell-tower 1 Lori Kofoid From:Andrew J. Molnar <andrewmolnar11@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 25, 2025 3:28 PM To:Codes Subject:URGENT INFO FOR ZONING BOARD! **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 We've just learned that Verizon is misleading Ithaca around the gap in service. What often happens when they are trying to build new cell towers is that they show a 'false' gap to towns, i.e. what they present in the gap DOES NOT MATCH WHAT THEY HAVE FILED WITH THE FCC. This FCC filing is the most trusted one, as they do so under penalty of perjury. If you look at the FCC map for the area of the proposed tower in Ithaca, THEY HAVE 100% COVERAGE FOR 4G IN JUST ABOUT THE ENTIRE AREA! This means that there's a major discrepancy in the maps shown to the town with what they have officially filed with the government. Keep in mind, federal law does not guarantee coverage for 5G - only to provide phone service in one frequency, which they clearly have. In the Second Circuit, if there's enough network coverage to make and receive cell calls, there's no significant gap in coverage even if the carrier wants to increase its capacity or to improve the network's ability to transmit data. In other words, just because they might have some 5G deficiencies, THIS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE GROUNDS TO BUILD ANOTHER TOWER UNDER FEDERAL LAW! Here is the FCC map: https://broadbandmap.fcc.gov/location- summary/mobile?version=jun2024&location_id=3e629b6c-9da3-4449-8ab7- b90083def0bf&addr1=309+SUNNYVIEW+LN&addr2=ITHACA%2C+NY+14850&zoom=13.00&vlon=- 76.453580&vlat=42.411995&env=0&tech=tech4g Simply go to the "Mobile Broadband", Click on the check mark next to Verizon under "4G LTE". It will turn green and show you the 100% coverage all around the area of the proposed cell tower. The purple hexagons show the coverage area for Verizon. I urge you to take this into consideration tonight. Yet another piece of information to deny the tower. Thank you Andrew Molnar