Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2022-03-15 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca,New York 14850 Tuesday, March 15, 2022 Due to COVID-19 and the NYS Legislation allowing virtual meetings (amendments to Chapter 417 of the Laws of 2021 signed by Governor Hochul on 1/14/22),the meeting will be held via the Zoom audio/visual application with no in-person attendance permitted. Members of the public may listen to (call in on cell or landline: (929)436-2866 and enter the Meeting ID: 836 4376 4382) or view(by computer go to https://us06web.zoom.us/j/83643764382)the Board meeting through Zoom. AGENDA 7:00 P.M. SEQR Determination: Verizon Wireless Telecommunications Antenna Replacement, 156 Palustris Drive. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed improvements to the telecommunications facility located at 156 Palustris Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 65.-1-5.2, Low Density Residential Zone. The project involves replacing telecommunications antennas and other equipment on an existing telecommunications tower located off of Dryden Road/NYS Route 366. This is an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review. Cornell University, Owner; Bell Atlantic Mobile Systems, LLC d/b/a Verizon Wireless,Applicant; Robert Burgdorf,Nixon Peabody LLP,Agent. 3. Discussion of revisions to Town Code Section 270-188, Site Plan Requirements. 4. Persons to be heard. 5. Approval of Minutes: March 1, 2022 6. Other Business. 7. Adjournment. Susan Ritter Director of Planning 273-1747 NOTE:IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY CHRIS BALESTRA AT 273-1747 or CBALESTRA(a->,TOWN.ITHACA.NY.US. (A quorum of four(4)members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) Site Plan and Subdivision applications and associated project materials are accessible electronically on the Town's website under"Planning Board"on the"Meeting Agendas"page(http://www.town.ithaca.nv.us/meeting-agendas). TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE The Planning Board will hold a public hearing on Tuesday,March 15,2022,at the following time and on the following matter: 7:00 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed improvements to the telecommunications facility located at 156 Palustris Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 65.-1-5.2, Low Density Residential Zone. The project involves replacing telecommunications antennas and other equipment on an existing telecommunications tower located off of Dryden Road/NYS Route 366. This is an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review. Cornell University,Owner;Bell Atlantic Mobile Systems,LLC d/b/a Verizon Wireless,Applicant; Robert Burgdorf,Nixon Peabody LLP,Agent. Due to COVID-19 and the NYS Legislation allowing virtual meetings(amendments to Chapter 417 of the Laws of 2021 signed by Governor Hochul on 1/14/22),the meeting will be held via the Zoom audio/visual application with no in-person attendance permitted. Members of the public may listen to (call in on cell or landline: (929)436-2866 and enter the Meeting ID: 836 4376 4382) or view the Board meeting through Zoom(by computer go to https://us06web.zoom.us/j/83643764382). Any person wishing to address the board will be heard. In addition, comments can be sent via email to townclerkLa)town.ithaca.ny.us up to the end of business the day of the meeting and all comments will be forwarded to the board. Additional information is available at www.town.ithaca.ny.us. Susan Ritter,Director of Planning TOWN OF ITHACA ................... NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING 215 N. Tioga St 14850 607.273.1747 www,town.itha— ny us AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL AND POSTING & PUBLICATION STATE OF NEW YORK ) SS,: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) 1, Abby Homer, Administrative Assistant for the Town of Ithaca being duly sworn, depose and say, that deponent is not a party to the actions, is over 21 years of age with a professional address of 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York. That anthe 9th day of March 2022, deponent served the within Notice upon the property owners within 500 ft. of the property and projects identified below for: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed improvements to the telecommunications facility located at 156 Palustris Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 65.-1-5,2, Low Density Residential Zone. Tile project involves replacing telecommunications antennas and other equipment oil all existing telecommunications tower located off of Dryden Road/NYS Route 366. This is all Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review, Cornell University, Owner; Bell Atlantic Mobile Systems, LLC d/b/a Vernon Wireless, Applicant; Robert Burgdorf,Nixon Peabody LLP, Agent. By depositing same enclosed in a postpaid addressed wrapper, in a post office under the exclusive care and custody of the United States Post Office Department within the State of New York, and that the attached notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca on March 9, 2022, and the notice has been duly published in the official newspaper, Ithaca Journal on March 9, 2021 l_Y) TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE The Planning Board will hold a public hearing on Tues- day, March 15, 2022, at the following time and on the -lon, Administrative Assistant 1 110- ?matter, 7 00 P Abby 1 ? .I"m Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the pro used improvements to the teleCOM� munications facility l®rcated at 356 Palustris Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 65.-I.S.2, Low Density Residential Zone. The project Involves replacing telecommunications antennas and other equipment on an existing telecom- munications tower located off of Dryden Road/NYS Route S%votm to before me on WV 6?'�kda '"Ol(lk- 22 366., This is an Unlisted Action under the State Environ- menta! Quality Review Act and Is subject to environmen. tal review. Cornell University, Owner; Bell Atlantic Mobile SYStOrris, LLC d/b/a Verizon Wireless, Applicant; Robert Burgdorf,Nixon Peabody LIP,Agent. Due to COVID 19 and the NYS Legislation allowing virtual meetings (amendments to Cha ter 417 of the Laws of 2021 signed by Governor Hochu on 1/14/22), the meetip ................................................................................................................................ w be ill held via the Zoom audio/visual application witg Notary Pu flfl li no M-person attendance permitted. Members of the pub- BECUY L JORDAN I lic may listen to(call In on cell or landline: (929) 436-2866 and enter the Meeting IM 836 4376 4362) or view the y pUBL�r__STATE OF NEW YORK w Board Meeting through Zoom (by corn puter go to https:# 9401AR No 01,)06,186381 us06eb.zoom.u54/836437643S2). person wishing to address the board will be heard. In addition, comments can be sent via email to towncl, Quailtied il'I TOMIAlnS COUT'lly ovvn.ithaca,ny.us up to the end of business the day of the pril 2 0, meeting and all comments will be forwarded to the 8. 2 board, Additional information is available at www.town,l tAy COrnM�$$ton Expiies A "Y thaca,ny.us. Susan Ritter, Director of Planning 3/9/22 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD March 15, 2022 Minutes Present: Greg Lindquist, Acting Chair; Cindy Kaufman, Ariel Casper, Yvonne Fogarty, and Liz Bageant Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Sue Ritter, Director of Planning; Chris Balestra, Planner; Marty Moseley, Director of Codes; and Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk Ms. Fogarty made a motion to appoint Mr. Lindquist as Acting Chair, seconded by Mr. Casper, unanimous, with Mr. Lindquist abstaining. Item 1 Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed improvements to the telecommunications facility located at 156 Palustris Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel.No. 65.-1-5.2, Low Density Residential Zone. The project involves replacing telecommunications antennas and other equipment on an existing telecommunications tower located off of Dryden Road/NYS Route 366. This is an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review. Cornell University, Owner; Bell Atlantic Mobile Systems, LLC d/b/a Verizon Wireless, Applicant; Robert Burgdorf, Nixon Peabody LLP, Agent. Mr. Lindquist read the action's description then noted that communications between Town Staff, Counsel and the Applicant as of late this afternoon may affect whether the Board proceeds, and asked Ms. Brock and Ms. Balestra if they had received a response from the applicant as to whether they would like to proceed,postpone or withdraw the application. Ms. Brock stated that she has not heard from them,but that Ms. Balestra has been the point of contact. Ms. Balestra reported that she had forwarded the emails from Ms. Brock to the applicant at the same time they were sent to the Board. She added that the applicant's representatives were present. Mr. Lindquist asked the representatives if they had had time to review the emails. Robert Burgdorf; Agent and Counsel, was present and responded that he just received the email about an hour ago. He introduced others who were available for questions. Tim Richmond, Site Acquisition Consultant, and Tim Zarneke, Verizon Wireless RF Engineer. Mr. Burgdorf stated that this is an application to replace 15 existing antennas with 12 antennas that are either the same size or smaller, so in the end there is basically less in size in terms of antenna and otherwise there is no change. PB 2022-03-15 (Filed 3/29) Pg. 1 He stated that this qualifies under federal regulations 6409 as an eligible facility, and it should be administrative approval only and he didn't know why there is a Code requirement here or the direction to apply for a site plan approval, but nevertheless, they have done that. Mr. Burgdorf stated that the federal law requires that the inquiry be limited to whether or not this qualifies as an eligible facility, which it does. Issues have been raised with respect to emissions, and we have submitted proof that we comply with the FCC limits for emissions and, in fact, comply with the occupational limits which are even more stringent, and we comply with those. He added that he didn't know if the Board had questions on that, but he didn't believe they are relevant or are able to be explored under either the 1996 federal Telecom Act or under 6409. He went on to say that, however, they intend to fully comply and Tim Zarneke is happy to answer any questions the Board might have in that regard, and they would be happy to answer any questions the Board had on any other aspect of this antenna swap. Mr. Lindquist thanked Mr. Burgdorf and stated that due to the communication from the Town's legal counsel late this afternoon,he made a motion to table the application until such time as the applicant provides all necessary communication and documentation, as requested by legal counsel in the email that we and the applicant and their counsel has received. Mr. Burgdorf stated that they have no intention of supplying any additional information, at least as part of the formal record. If that is the case, you have 60 days which is March 23rd and as of March 23, 2022, it will be deemed denied, and we will be in Federal Court. That is up to the Board, whether to go to court on our failure to provide information that is not legally required. Ms. Brock responded the applicant needs to prove that this is an eligible facility and there is no substantial change. One of the criteria is that you have to show that you meet all the conditions of the original approval. One of the conditions of the original approval was proof that RF emissions would meet the applicable FCC requirements. The applicable requirements here are for general population exposure. You apparently have not provided that information. There is a drawing, which, I believe, shows general population exposure. That drawing shows it being over 5%. Per the FCC Bulletin on how to measure RF emissions, you are considered a significant contributor if it is over 5%. You are to look at the cumulative RF emissions from every facility on that tower, whether it is yours or another facility provided by a different provider. You are then to provide proof that the combined emissions do not exceed the FCC limits for general population. You have not provided that proof, therefore, you have not shown that you are an eligible facility entitled to the 6409 process. We are requesting that you provide the legally required information so that this Board can then determine whether you fall under the 6409 process. Mr. Burgdorf asked Mr. Zarneke to respond to whether what has been provided shows compliance. PB 2022-03-15 (Filed 3/29) Pg. 2 Mr. Zarneke responded that they have supplied proof of compliance and the occupational threshold is 10 times more strict than general POPs. He added that he was trying to find what they gave to the Town that said they were at 5% on the ground. He apologized and said he was getting brought in at the last second. Ms. Brock responded that it was on Sheet RFE-1, which says there are no co-locators, which is another error in the submission. Mr. Zarneke said he did not have that document. Ms. Brock asked Ms. Balestra to share her screen and put the sheet on the screen. Ms. Brock responded that it was in the application and asked if he had the application. Mr. Burgdorf responded that in Mr. Zarneke's defense, they just asked Mr. Zarneke to join this meeting 10 minutes ago after seeing the email 20 minutes ago. Mr. Zarneke added that on the RF fields,he does this stuff on the side. He does not do the applications. He apologized. Ms. Brock asked when you did your occasional exposure limits, which are not the right limits to use in this situation, because the general public will be exposed, did you consider the co-locators or have the information there were co-locators on this facility? Mr. Zarneke responded that he does have a document that does have that. Ms. Balestra shared her screen with the document being discussed. Mr. Zarneke responded that that is a different sheet and he didn't know why that was submitted to the Town. That is something we do for our own information, for our own take on our gear. He apologized and said he doesn't know why that was there. He told Mr. Burgdorf he gave him the latest document. Mr. Burgdorf responded that he has a memo to the Town dated March 4cn Mr. Zarneke stated that that document takes [into account] all carriers. If you look at the picture on there, it shows that we fall in line with all guidelines of the FCC and shows that we have 00% on the ground and that there are also AT&T, T-Mobile and Verizon taken into consideration. Ms. Brock asked at what height was the measurement taken. Mr. Zarneke responded that it was at the standard ground level plus six foot. Ms. Brock responded that it does not say that on your document, it says that the measurements are at ground level. Ms. Balestra showed on her shared screen the Verizon Wireless (VZW) Radiofrequency (RF) Emissions Map that accompanied the applicant's March 4 memo. PB 2022-03-15 (Filed 3/29) Pg. 3 Mr. Zarneke responded that it is standard to say that, when it says "at ground level." What he used to make these calculations, the standard is ground level,but it is assumed that is 6 foot. It is part of the calculation. Mr. Burgdorf asked if the Board was asking for verification from us that "ground level" actually means six feet above ground level? Which is the standard when they say "ground level", it means where somebody is standing? Ms. Brock responded that she would like to see a document certifying that the general population exposure limits will be met at 6 feet from ground level, when all of the carriers who are located on the monopole and all of their RF emissions are taken into consideration per the FCC Bulletin. Ms. Balestra showed on her shared screen the March 4 memo. Ms. Brock said the memo did not mention any other carriers. She added that the map does not mention any other carriers. Mr. Zarneke pointed to the Emissions Map that was being shared, saying that it has a Carrier Color Code for AT&T, T-Mobile and Verizon. If any of those emissions would have hit the ground at 6 foot, it would show in those colors. Ms. Brock asked Ms. Balestra to share Mr. Burdgorf's email on her screen, which is the preceding page in the packet. Ms. Brock pointed to the second paragraph and asked everyone to read it. While it is expected that the other carriers are at similar low levels (all carriers are similarly regulated), VZW cannot provide any information related to other carriers, or provide an RF emissions propagation map that includes them, as it does not have access to their information and exact specifications. Mr. Burgdorf responded saying that he is reserving our rights, or should say, we do not have to provide it, and we don't, because we don't have access to their exact specs. Ms. Brock asked how an RF emissions analysis could be done on their facilities then, as you are saying you didn't do it. Mr. Zarneke responded that we have standards that we can use for them,but we cannot say for sure what they have on there and what they're using. This is how we do our general calculation, we have an assumption of what they put on there. Ms. Brock responded that that is not what the FCC Bulletin says. It says you are to work with the other carriers and if you can't get the information from them as to their specific specifications, you can do infield measurements surveys. This is the FCC Bulletin that tells you how to do these measurements to see if you are meeting the FCC emissions limits for general population and for occupational exposures. PB 2022-03-15 (Filed 3/29) Pg. 4 We want to see a certification, with the required information that follows the FCC's legal requirements. She added that she believes the landlord, Cornell University, will want to know that you are complying with the law too,before they let you put anything on the tower. Ms. Brock stated that if you want to go ahead and sue us, that's fine, we can tell a judge that you are refusing to follow the law as to RF emissions. But this is not unreasonable. We actually asked you for this information prior at least once and maybe twice. We said very specifically, that we wanted general population exposure measurements, and that is not what you provided, despite our very specifically asking you for that. Mr. Burgdorf responded that he did not think that is the law,but he will check with Verizon Wireless's counsel in New Jersey, to see if they would make an exception here in order to do this. Ms. Brock asked him what he felt was not the law here. Mr. Burgdorf responded that he would put that in a memo, that we have to do all three and the 5%. He added that you are reading from portions of the FCC that talk about these requirements, but they don't talk about it in this situation. But, he will talk to them,because, in the end we are so far, so far from the limit, so under that, that the whole thing is just silly. Ms. Brock responded that it is not silly when you have given us contradictory, inconsistent information in your own application. We have now been told that Sheet RFE-I, your own RF Engineer has no idea why it's in there, what it means, when it shows completely different standards and numbers and says there are no co-locators. I mean, we are not being silly. All we want you to do is follow the law. Mr. Burgdorf responded that that is a lot, but I will ask them if they will allow us to provide it. I will talk to them. They have to have a uniform position across the country, but he will ask them to provide that here. He asked, to be clear, you are asking for some kind of certification that "ground level"means six feet high; that the general population exposure limits are met with all three carriers, correct? Ms. Brock responded, and that you have followed the FCC Bulletin in doing this certification. The FCC Bulletin says that the worst-case scenario are measurements at six feet, because that is assumed to be at human head height and that is why I am talking about six feet. That comes straight from the FCC Bulletin; it is not a number I just pulled out of the air. I just want you to follow the FCC Bulletin requirements. Mr. Burgdorf responded okay, we will. Ms. Brock said it may well be that all three carriers are well below, and that will be great, but we just don't have that information; right now we have inconsistent information and information PB 2022-03-15 (Filed 3/29) Pg. 5 that actually is not true, with Sheet RFE-I saying there are no co-locations on this tower. We just want to have accurate, true information, that follows the FCC's requirements and follows the FCC methodology for how to do these measurements. Robert Burgdorf responded that you do have information from each carrier independently, because I know you would have required it from the other two to show that we are at limits of 1% of the allowable limits... Ms. Brock responded that she didn't know what we have from the other carriers, and that is not our burden; it is your burden to find out what they have on there, right now; how they are operating those antennas right now, which perhaps has changed in the 10 years since these facilities were put on the tower. She said, you just need to do what the FCC requires of you. It is very simple, and I don't understand why there's this pushback. Robert Burgdorf responded that he will try,but he doesn't understand why there is such hostility to an antenna swap; you don't usually see that. But we will go back to general counsel. Ms. Brock responded that most municipalities don't understand the requirements. Mr. Lindquist spoke, saying that we are not trying to be hostile in any way, shape or form; we are only trying to adhere to the law, as we know and understand it, and also, to be fair to all applicants. He said this application is not being singled out. We are just asking for Verizon to provide the information that is required for us to make the determination. Mr. Burgdorf said he appreciates that. He asked if this was asked of other carriers, adding that the only reason he is suggesting that is there is some history that might suggest why we're being singled out, and I think that's the sensitivity. But if that's the case.... Ms. Brock responded that that is not true. We only learned that there were these different limits within the last year or two, and I think you are the first maybe to come on. But I can tell you that a few months ago, Sprint T Mobile proposed to swap out some antennas on one of the town's water tanks after we learned that there are these different limits and that carriers often provide the wrong information and certifications stating that they are in compliance with the limits. We absolutely have asked them for exactly what we are asking you. There are no co-located carriers on the tank,but we have asked them to provide us the information in a way that complies with the FCC Bulletin, because they didn't do it either. So you are not the only one. She added that she had no idea what he is talking about in terms of history with this carrier, and repeated she has absolutely no idea what he is talking about. That was not where her work today came from; she opened the packet, saw the information, and that started the emails. Mr. Burgdorf asked when is the date of the next meeting. Ms. Balestra replied it is April 5. PB 2022-03-15 (Filed 3/29) Pg. 6 Mr. Lindquist said we will gladly accommodate you on that agenda, provided that everything is provided that is required for our review and approval. Again, we are not trying to stand in the way of any cell phone caff ier at all, we are only trying to be fair and above-board to all applicants. Mr. Burgdorf said he appreciates that. lie said we will be back to you shortly, and certainly before April 5 lh. fle asked do you want us to submit anything to the Planning Board, or to a 'Town engineer who can understand the information'? Do you have an engineer that you are using to review this information? Typically technical information like that is sent to another RF consultant. Ms. Balestra said to send the information to her and she will distribute it to the Town Engineer, who is not an RF engineer, and neither is she, but they would look at the materials and also provide them to the Planning Board, Mr. Burgdorf thanked the Planning Board for all their time tonight. Mr. Lindquist asked for a second on his original motion to table the action; seconded by Ms. Fogarty. Ayes: Kaufman, Lindquist, Fogarty, Casper and Bageant, unanimous. to 2 Pulled—Discussion of Revisions to Town of Ithaca Code to 3 Persons to be Heard—No public present Other business Upcoming appearances were outlined. Closed session to seek the advice of Counsel. Moved by Ms. Fogarty, seconded by Ms. Bageant, unanimous. Motion to reenter open session made by Ms. Fogarty, seconded by Mr. Casper, unanimous. Motion made by Mr. Lindquist to adjourn, seconded by Ms. Kaufman, unanit-nous. Submi by Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk PB 2022-03-15 (Filed 3/29) Pg. 7