The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutBZA 3245 - ATT Batch SWF - Decision CITY OF ITHACA BOARD of ZONING APPEALS Area Variance Findings & Decision Appeal No.: 3245 Applicant: Adam Wolfrey, Centerline Communications, LLC Property Location: Right of Way Locations Near 507 N. Albany Street; 307 Franklin Street; 312 Thurston Avenue; 120 Utica Street; 202 King Street; 635 W. State Street; 333 W State Street Zoning District: CBD-50 Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: §325-29.8B(1)(h); §325-29.8C(1) Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Siting Standards for Personal Wireless Service Facilities, Design Standards for Personal Wireless Service Facilities Publication Dates: December 26, 2022 and December 30, 2022. Meeting Held On: January 3, 2023 Summary: Appeal of Centerline Communications LLC for an area variance from Section 325-29.8B(1)(h), Siting Standards for Personal Wireless Service Facilities, and Section 325-29.8C(1), Design Standards for Personal Wireless Service Facilities, of the City of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to install seven new small wireless facilities on utility poles within the City’s right-of-way at locations nearest to the properties noted above. The City’s Telecommunications Ordinance, Article VA of the Zoning Ordinance, requires that all Personal Wireless Service Facilities be located (1) at least 1,500 feet from all other PWSF (§325-29.8B(1)(h)) and (2) at least 250 feet from all residences, schools, and daycare facilities. The applicant is seeking a variance from these setback requirements for the proposed locations Public Hearing Held On: December 6, 2022- January 3, 2023 Members present: Donna Fleming Michael Cannon Andre Gardiner Joseph Kirby David Barken, Chair The following interested parties spoke or submitted comments in support of the requested variances: 120 Utica Street John “Nate” Foster, 209 Utica Street CITY OF ITHACA 108 E. Green Street — 3rd Floor Ithaca, NY 14850-5690 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING, ZONING, & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Division of Zoning Megan Wilson, Secretary to the Board of Zoning Appeals Telephone: 607-274-6550 Fax: 607-274-6558 E-Mail: mwilson@cityofithaca.org The following interested parties spoke or submitted comments in opposition to the requested variances: 507 N. Albany Street Jerone Gagliano, 105 First Street Molly Kornblum, 105 First Street Deb Justice, 106 Second Street 309 Franklin Street Janice Kovar, 601 Willow Avenue Mary Russo, 603 Willow Avenue Marty Blodgett, 414 Adams Street 202 King Street Deborah Cohen, 108 King Street Charles (Andy) Rollman and Andrew Hertzberg, 830 N. Aurora Street Vanessa Wood, Fall Creek Elementary School Natalie Lester, 832 N. Aurora Street Nicole Housson, 510 Linn Street 333 W. State Street Elizabeth Salon, 108 S. Albany Street 312 Thurston Avenue Erin Cuddihy, 123 Roberts Place 120 Utica Street Marilyn Webb, 703 N. Cayuga Street Jerone Gagliano, 105 First Street Molly Kornblum, 105 First Street Margot Lystra, 518 N. Tioga Street Heather Stone, 511 N. Tioga Street Jill Freidmutter and Katherine Herrera, 116 Utica Street John Steiniger, 110 E. Marshall Street Tompkins County Review per Section 239 -l & -m of New York State General Municipal Law: Not applicable. Environmental Review: This is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”), and State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), and is subject to Environmental Review. The City of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals hereby declares itself Lead Agency for the environmental review for the approval of zoning appeal 3245, an variance for seven proposed personal wireless service facilitates at locations within the right-of-way in the City of Ithaca. The Board has reviewed the Environmental Assessment Form and determines that the requested variance will result in no significant impact on the environment. Planning & Development Board Recommendation: The Board has reviewed this variance and has no comments. Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission Recommendation: Not applicable. Deliberations & Findings: The Board acknowledges the frustration expressed by many interested parties but notes many of the issues of community concern lie outside of the Board’s purview and beyond what the Board can legally consider in its evaluation of the variance requests. The goal of the City of Ithaca Telecommunications Ordinance is to minimize the adverse impacts caused by the placement of wireless facilities. The Board finds that the proposed PWSF do not add significant visual clutter and blend in relatively well with the existing street conditions. There is no evidence that the small cell facilities will reduce property values. The applicant has demonstrated that the current proposal is the best option to meet service needs. While there are alternatives, there are no alternatives that would not require variances from the same requirements and those would likely have more impacts on the neighborhoods in which they would be located. The Board finds that the requested variances will result in no undesirable change on the character of the neighborhoods. The benefit sought by the appellant outweighs any detriment community, based on the criteria for the area variance that the Board must consider. Board members also acknowledged that the City has a broader problem with the aesthetics of utilities but this is a larger issue that this lies beyond the purview of the BZA and this appeal. The City is moving toward burying utilities but there is a lot of work to do. The renderings of the proposed PWSF show installations that are less impactful than many existing installations. Motion: A motion to grant variance #3245 for the Right of Way Locations Near 507 N. Albany Street; was made by M. Cannon and seconded by A. Gardiner Factors Considered: 1. Whether an undesirable change would be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties: Yes No The City’s Telecommunications Ordinance identifies potential negative impacts including aesthetic impact, reductions in property values, and potential dangers due to structural failures. The applicant is locating their PWFS on existing NYSEG poles to minimize the aesthetic impact. Visuals of the facilities suggest that they will not add significant visual clutter to the community. There is also no evidence indicating that the facilities will reduce property values. Again, the visual impact will be minimal and there is no reason to think it would decrease property values. While there have been studies that suggest that traditional cellular towers have a negative impact on the property values of adjacent residences, there is no indication that small cell facilities have had a similar impact in other communities. Finally, given the small size of the facilities and the involvement of NYSEG in the selection process, there is no reason to believe there are any structural failure dangers. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the variance: Yes No The City's Ordinance seeks to achieve the simultaneous objectives of enabling wireless carriers to provide personal wireless services within the City while minimizing the number of facilities used to provide such coverage, avoid unnecessary, redundant wireless infrastructure, and avoiding to the greatest extent possible, any unnecessary adverse impacts upon residential homes and residential communities. Due to the nature of small cell PWSF, it is unfeasible for AT&T to both close coverage gaps and comply with the City's zoning restrictions on locating a PWSF within 250 feet of a residence. The applicant has demonstrated that there are no feasible alternatives that meet NYSEG’s requirements and service needs in a less impactful manner. 3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes No The proposed PWSF is located less than 25’ from the nearest residence and less than 1500’ from the nearest wireless service facility. Given the difficult practicality of locating a PWSF in a location that is not within 250’ of a residence or 1500’ from another PWSF in the city, the Board is particularly concerned with any impacts of such a variance request. While the setback deficiency is proportionally substantial, the proposed variance does not create substantial impacts. Since the proposed facilities do not represent a threat to neighborhood character or property values, the requested area variance is not substantial. 4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood: Yes No The PWSF is being installed on an existing NYSEG poll, and it will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes No AT&T has a responsibility to its customers to provide adequate service. The proposed facilities fill a coverage gap and are therefore not self-created. Vote: 5-0-0 Donna Fleming YES Michael Cannon YES Andre Gardiner YES Joseph Kirby YES David Barken, Chair YES Motion: A motion to grant variance #3245 for the Right of Way Locations Near 307 Franklin Street; 312 Thurston Avenue; 120 Utica Street; 202 King Street; 635 W. State Street; and 333 W State Street was made by A. Gardiner and seconded by M. Cannon. Factors Considered: 1. Whether an undesirable change would be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties: Yes No The City’s Telecommunications Ordinance identifies potential negative impacts including aesthetic impact, reductions in property values, and potential dangers due to structural failures. The applicant is locating their PWFS on existing NYSEG poles to minimize the aesthetic impact. Visuals of the facilities suggest that they will not add significant visual clutter to the community. There is also no evidence indicating that the facilities will reduce property values. Again, the visual impact will be minimal and there is no reason to think it would decrease property values. While there have been studies that suggest that traditional cellular towers have a negative impact on the property values of adjacent residences, there is no indication that small cell facilities have had a similar impact in other communities. Finally, given the small size of the facilities and the involvement of NYSEG in the selection process, there is no reason to believe there are any structural failure dangers. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the variance: Yes No The City's Ordinance seeks to achieve the simultaneous objectives of enabling wireless carriers to provide personal wireless services within the City while minimizing the number of facilities used to provide such coverage, avoid unnecessary, redundant wireless infrastructure, and avoiding to the greatest extent possible, any unnecessary adverse impacts upon residential homes and residential communities. Due to the nature of small cell PWSF, it is unfeasible for AT&T to both close coverage gaps and comply with the City's zoning restrictions on locating a PWSF within 250 feet of a residence. The applicant has demonstrated that there are no feasible alternatives that meet NYSEG’s requirements and service needs in a less impactful manner. 3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes No The proposed PWSF are all located less than 250’ from the nearest residence and 1500’ from other wireless service facilities. Given the difficult practicality of locating a PWSF in a location that is not within 250’ of a residence or 1500’ from another PWSF in the city, the Board is particularly concerned with any impacts of such a variance request. While the setback deficiency is proportionally substantial, the proposed variance does not create substantial impacts. Since the proposed facilities do not represent a threat to neighborhood character or property values, the requested area variance is not substantial. 4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood: Yes No The PWSF is being installed on an existing NYSEG poll, and it will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes No AT&T has a responsibility to its customers to provide adequate service. The proposed facilities fill a coverage gap and are therefore not self-created. PWSF NEAREST 307 FRANKLIN STREET Vote: 5-0-0 Donna Fleming YES Michael Cannon YES Andre Gardiner YES Joseph Kirby YES David Barken, Chair YES PWSF NEAREST 312 THURSTON AVENUE Vote: 5-0-0 Donna Fleming YES Michael Cannon YES Andre Gardiner YES Joseph Kirby YES David Barken, Chair YES PWSF NEAREST 120 UTICA STREET Vote: 5-0-0 Donna Fleming YES Michael Cannon YES Andre Gardiner YES Joseph Kirby YES David Barken, Chair YES PWSF NEAREST 202 KING STREET Vote: 5-0-0 Donna Fleming YES Michael Cannon YES Andre Gardiner YES Joseph Kirby YES David Barken, Chair YES PWSF NEAREST 635 W. STATE STREET Vote: 5-0-0 Donna Fleming YES Michael Cannon YES Andre Gardiner YES Joseph Kirby YES David Barken, Chair YES PWSF NEAREST 333 W. STATE STREET Vote: 5-0-0 Donna Fleming YES Michael Cannon YES Andre Gardiner YES Joseph Kirby YES David Barken, Chair YES Determination of the BZA Based on the Above Factors: The BZA, taking into the five factors for an area variance, finds that the benefit to the applicants outweighs the detriment to the neighborhood or community. The BZA further finds that the variances from the Zoning Ordinance, §325-29.8B(1)(h) and §325-29.8C(1) are the minimum variances that should be granted in order to preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety, and welfare of the community. ___________________________ January 3, 2023 Megan Wilson, Zoning Administrator Date Secretary, Board of Zoning Appeals