Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOC Packet 2022-11-02 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING 215 N. Tioga St 14850 607.273.1747 www.town.ithaca.ny.us 10/26/2022 TO: Codes and Ordinances Committee: William Goodman, Chair Eric Levine Eva Hoffmann Rob Rosen Chris Jung Ariel Casper FROM: Christine Balestra, Planner RE: Next Codes and Ordinances Committee Meeting – November 2, 2022 The next meeting of the Codes and Ordinances Committee is scheduled for Wednesday, November 2, 2022, at 5:30pm in the Aurora Conference Room, located in Town Hall at 215 North Tioga Street. This meeting combines the October and November COC meetings. A quorum of the Town of Ithaca Town Board may be present at this meeting. However, no official Town Board business will be conducted. The following items are attached: 1. Minutes from the August 31 and September 14, 2022, COC meetings 2. Draft memo from Nick Goldsmith, Sustainability Planner, related to proposed amendments to the Town Energy Code Supplement (ECS) 3. Draft revised Local Law §270-219 Personal Wireless Service Facilities that incorporates all changes and recommendations to date, plus proposed “Aesthetic criteria applicable to non-small cell wireless facilities” document If you cannot attend this meeting, please notify Abby Homer as soon as possible at (607) 273- 1747, or ahomer@town.ithaca.ny.us. cc: Susan H. Brock, Attorney for the Town Susan Ritter, Director of Planning Marty Moseley, Director of Code Enforcement Abby Homer, Administrative Assistant Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk (email) Town Administrative staff (email) Town Board Members (email) Town Code Enforcement staff (email) Town Planning staff (email) Town Public Works staff (email) Media TOWN OF ITHACA CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 (607) 273-1747 PLEASE NOTE: This meeting will be held in person in the Aurora Conference Room of Town Hall, located at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY. Members of the public who wish to view the meeting virtually may visit the Town of Ithaca YouTube Channel, where it will be recorded: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCC9vycXkJ6klVIibjhCy7N Q/live Meeting of November 2, 2022– 5:30 P.M. AGENDA 1. Member comments/concerns. 2. Review of minutes from the August 31 and September 14, 2022, COC meetings. 3. Discussion of proposed revisions to the Town Energy Code Supplement (ECS). 4. Review of revised draft local law §270-219 Personal wireless service facilities and related document. 5. Other business: • Next meeting date: December 14, 2022 • Next meeting agenda Town of Ithaca Planning Department October 26, 2022 1 TOWN OF ITHACA CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE (COC) Meeting of August 31, 2022 – 5:30 pm – via Zoom Draft Minutes Members Present: Bill Goodman, Chair, Eva Hoffmann, Eric Levine, Rob Rosen, Chris Jung & Ariel Casper -Members. Staff Present: Chris Balestra, Planner; Susan Brock, Counsel; Susan Ritter, Director of Planning ; Marty Moseley, Director of Code Enforcement. Guests: None. The meeting was set up to broadcast on YouTube. However, there was an error, and the meeting was not able to be livestreamed. The Zoom platform was used for committee members and staff and later posted for public viewing. Bill then reviewed the agenda. 1. Member comments/concerns: None. 2. Minutes: Eric moved to approve the 7/6/22 COC minutes as amended; Eva seconded. All members voted in favor of approval. 3. Discussion of Draft Local Law - §270-219 Personal wireless service facilities: Susan Brock provided the committee with an updated version of the law with following summary note: “COC discussed the first part of the law (through the end of the aesthetic criteria on p.21) at its 5/11/22 COC meeting, and many of the requested changes have been made and are shown in red-line. COC did not review the red-lined changes or remaining questions at its 7/6/22 meeting, so they are still shown in red-line. This version adds a few additional notes that are labelled “8/31/22 note”. For the COC’s 7/6/22 meeting, new provisions began with G (applications) on page 22 and ended with I (Visual Impact Analysis) on p.31. For ease of reading, the new provisions were not red lined for the 7/6/22 meeting. The COC’S 7/6/22 changes and associated follow-up items are shown in red line in this version. For the COC’S 8/31/22 meeting, new provisions begin with design standards on p.32.” The committee began their review on page 32 of the revised law at “J. Design standards.” Chris B explained that the design standards were from the existing law, which was written for large towers (the only technology that existed at the time). Susan noted that once the committee decided which provision to keep, there could be a general section applicable to both large and small facilities or standards could be repeated in each section. The previously approved aesthetic criteria were moved to this section from the draft, pages 17- 22. The COC reviewed and revised the following provisions from current Town Code §270-219 G & H and decided on the additions/changes to the aesthetic criteria noted below: Lighting and marking. (1) Towers shall not be artificially lighted and marked beyond the requirements of the FAA. 2 Susan will broaden “tower” to “PWSF’s” throughout where appropriate. (2) Notwithstanding the preceding subsection, an applicant may be compelled to add FAA-style lighting and marking, if in the judgment of the Planning Board, such a requirement would be of direct benefit to public safety and would not unduly adversely affect residents of any surrounding property. Committee decided to keep this provision and to apply the provision to all applications. Appearance and buffering. (The next revision will fix the formatting to be consistent with rest of law section) (a) Have a galvanized finish, or shall be painted gray above the surrounding tree line and gray or green below the tree line, as deemed appropriate by the Planning Board, or… Susan asked a question for staff: Does this add to or conflict with the other aesthetic criteria? Chris B. replied that it does not add to or conflict with the other aesthetic criteria and should be left in to apply to large towers and not small facilities. (6) Without limiting the requirements of the preceding subsection, where site plan review is required, existing on-site vegetation shall be preserved to the maximum extent possible, and no cutting of trees exceeding four inches in diameter (measured at a height of four feet off the ground) shall occur in connection with the telecommunications facility prior to the granting of site plan approval. Clear cutting of all trees in a single contiguous area exceeding 20,000 square feet shall be prohibited. Susan noted that the aesthetic criterion about trees currently reads: “Tree “topping,” or the improper pruning of trees is prohibited. Any proposed pruning or removal of trees, shrubs or other landscaping already existing in the right-of-way must be noted in the site plan application and must be approved by the Planning Board.” Should any of “6”’s more specific provisions be retained as well? Committee asked for them to all be retained. Chris B. explained that all the provisions in this section were specifically catered to large towers and that some of the provisions could not apply to both large and small facilities. Rather than continue going through the list, Susan recommended that she collaborate with staff before the next meeting to devise a simpler list of aesthetic criteria for the tall towers. Those that also make sense for small facilities could be identified and listed separately for clarity. K. Dimensional standards. (current Town Code §270-219.F) The committee discussed this section and revised as noted below. At a later meeting, COC will determine setbacks from residences and minimum spacing between facilities. (1) A fall zone around any tower constructed as part of a telecommunications facility must have a radius at least equal to the height of the tower and any attached antennae. The entire fall zone may not include public roads and must be located on property either owned or leased by the applicant or for which the applicant has obtained an easement, and may not, except as set forth below, contain any structure other than those associated with the telecommunications facility. If the facility is attached to an existing structure, relief may be granted by specific permission of the Planning Board on a 3 case-by-case basis if it is determined by such Board after submission of competent evidence, that the waiver of this requirement will not endanger the life, health, welfare, or property of any person. In granting any such waiver, the Board may impose any conditions reasonably necessary to protect the public or other property from potential injury. The committee discussed this section at length. Chris B reminded the committee that this provision was written for large towers. Susan asked if the law should require fall zones for small facilities as well? Or only for non-small facilities? How about for non-small facility support structures, such as poles and towers (not for buildings, water towers, and the like)? The committee decided to require fall zones for non-small facilities and their support structures – towers that are typically 50 feet or higher. The committee also decided to retain all the language related to fall zones in this section. (2) All telecommunication facilities shall be located on a single parcel. The committee went back and forth about whether to allow facilities, or more specifically, the fall zones of facilities, to cross property lines. After a long discussion, the committee finally concluded to leave the section as written for tall towers. It was unclear what the committee decided in terms of small facilities. No other final recommendations were made for changes to the remaining provisions in “K,” although re-wording will be necessary if the town allows fall zones to be on adjacent properties. L. Accessways and parking. (current Town Code §270-219.I) The committee reviewed and discussed but made no changes to the language presented. M. Security. (current Town Code §270-219.J) No revisions were made to the language as presented. Marty noted that the fencing requirement would conflict with the existing fe nce law. A reference to this law may need to be added into the existing regulations to make it clearer. Chris B offered to research the approved fencing for previously approved tower projects. (4) The Planning Board (where site plan is required) or Director of Planning may require a locked gate at the junction of the accessway and a public thoroughfare to obstruct entry by unauthorized vehicles. Such gate must not protrude into the public right-of-way. Susan wondered if this should be deleted or if the committee should consider adding criteria for the Planning Board/Director of Planning to apply to determine if a locked gate is necessary? Chris B commented that locked gates are not typically a Planning Board or Department decision, that they had nothing to do with the land use process but might be something more appropriate for the Codes Department. Gates are typically a standard feature on telecommunications sites, as the telecommunications company wants to eliminate the potential for vandalism and locked gates are a safety feature. Marty noted there is a provision 4 in the Uniform Code about locked gates and a mechanism to assure fire access in conjunction with the Codes Department and Fire Department. It was recommended to add “ in consultation with the Director of Code Enforcement” or to delete the Director of Planning part. The committee discussed the possibility of adding criteria for when a locked gate might be necessary, e.g., when a driveway to the facility exceeds a certain distance value. The committee liked this idea. Staff will craft language for the next version of the law. N. Removal. (current Town Code §270-219 L(2) and (3). The committee reviewed the existing removal language, along with the Fishkill law language. The existing removal language reads: (2) At the time of obtaining a building permit, the applicant must provide a financial security bond for removal of the telecommunications facility and property restoration, with the municipality as the assignee, in an amount specified by the Planning Board (where site plan is required) or Director of Planning, but not less than $50,000. (3) At times of modification of modification or renewal of the PWSF permit, the Director of Planning may adjust the required amount of the financial security bond to adequately cover increases in the cost of removal of the telecommunications facility and property restoration. The COC decided to require a removal bond for collocated facilities and small cell facilities, as well as large towers, but an amount was not established. After reviewing the Fishkill law, the committee decided to handle removal of facilities like the Fishkill Law, where there is no set bond amount. Susan and staff will wordsmith the language for the next draft. 4. Other business: None. Next meeting: September 14, 5:30 p.m., public comments will be taken. Agenda: Continued review and discussion of draft Local Law §270-219. The meeting adjourned at 7:27 p.m. 1 TOWN OF ITHACA CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE (COC) Meeting of September 14, 2022 – 5:30 pm – via Zoom and live on YouTube Draft Minutes Members Present: Bill Goodman, Chair, Eva Hoffmann, Eric Levine, Rob Rosen, Chris Jung & Ariel Casper -Members. Staff Present: Chris Balestra, Planner; Susan Brock, Counsel; Susan Ritter, Director of Planning ; Marty Moseley, Director of Code Enforcement. Zoom Guests: Irina, Sheila Out, Wendy, Andrew & Marie Molnar, David, Adam, Lydia, Jeff and 2 call in guests. The meeting was broadcasted on YouTube along with the Zoon platform. Bill reviewed the agenda and began allowing public comment. 1. Member comments/concerns: None. No meeting minutes were ready from the August meeting. 2. Public Comments (time limit 3 minutes per person): Bill noted several comments were emailed through the Town Clerks office and received by the committee. -Irina was concerned that about cell phone antennas being placed near homes to fill gaps in coverage and how they would impact the home values and compromise health, supported a minimum 1500 ft setback between facilities. -Wendy stated that 5G is invasive, uses too many resources, and there is no need for more advanced technology than the current, adequate 4G. -Sheila was most concerned over health risks from radiation and supported the largest setbacks possible. She also thanked the committee for the work being put into the revisions. -Marie thanked the committee for the informed and detailed conversations . She also recommended the town disallow redundant wireless infrastructure and define the parameters for gaps in coverage to be proven as well as 1640 ft setbacks from occupied locations. She asked how the possible number of 250 ft setback came into play when the committee was agreeable to the minimum of 1500 ft at previous meetings. -David appreciated being able to input and urged the town to write strict codes for any wireless infrastructure, only allow antennas where there is a proven gap in cell phone coverage and a min setback of 1640 ft., require general liability insurance without pollution exclusion and conduct radiation testing. Main concern was protecting health. 2 -Adam had concerns over the radiation, EMF and health effects based on proximity of the cell antennas and the potential that nearby home values could be reduced by 20%. -Andrew thanked the committee for their time and shared a short video on health effects vs safety standards related to Microwave Power Density (radiation). He also noted it did not appear that any of the City of Ithaca’s new Telecommunications provisions had been incorporated into the Town’s draft and asked why and where the revision recommendations that were emailed stood? -Jerome thanked the committee for their time and advised to take precau tions for the short- and long-term effects of all wireless facilities as well as require general liability insurance without a pollution exclusion. -Lydia agreed with all the previous points and noted concern with the Telecommunications Act not allowing health concerns to be taken into account for regulating the cell industry . She thanked the committee for being heard. -April asked for sufficient protection for the population’s health and recommended a 1500 ft minimum setback to mitigate the potential radiation, only allow if proven gap in cell coverage and include unannounced radiation testing. She also thanked the committee. The guests were thanked for their comments. Staff and committee members continued the meeting on Zoom for the remainder of the agenda. Guests were encouraged to watch from the YouTube platform for the remainder of the meeting. Bill did note that further review of additional sections would still be required by the committee prior to recommendation to the Town Board, and that the Town Board process included holding an official public hearing prior to decisive action. Susan B. provided another reminder of the Town of Fishkill process in adopting their recent local law and restated the statement made by their consultant Attorney Andrew Camp anelli regarding health effects that “a municipality cannot legally regulate telecommunications based on health concerns if the facility is compliant with the FCC regulations regarding RMF emissions.” Susan then read another excerpt from the November 2021 COC minutes which referenced a quote from the Town of Fishkill public hearing when Mr. Campanelli explained, for the record, “that local governments may not regulate wireless facilities based on environmental concerns which, Federal courts in NYS have ruled “environmental” means health concerns, to the extent that the facility is FCC compliant and that is the law .” Bill addressed the question from the public on the “placeholder” number for the proposed setback to be 250 ft between facilities verses the minimum of 1500 ft or 1640 ft recommended. He explained the two-year history of the committee, the changing of members and various aspects of the aesthetic considerations including setbacks. The COC mapped out both options of the setback distances chosen by the City of Ithaca and Town of Fishkill. He stated that the 3 law could be subject to challenge if the municipality uses health concerns in relation to the setback distances adopted, as it would be in violation of the federal law. Ariel stated that it would be helpful for him and future public comment periods to know which spectrum of 5G is being talked about, what band/frequency. There are several frequencies available and used and the public has been simply saying “5G” with no regard to which frequency they are talking about. 3. Continued review of Draft Local Law - §270-219 Personal wireless service facilities : It was noted that the draft being reviewed is the same from the meeting two weeks ago. Additional sections are anticipated for further review including the gap in coverage requirement, based on the Second Circuit guidelines. Chris and Susan are looking at the items raised at the last COC meeting, including fall zones over property lines, and which criteria applies to larger towers compared to small facilities. Susan is reviewing the existing law to see if there are any other items not addressed in the current draft proposed language. She will review the Fishkill law to ensure all the items the committee wanted included in in the draft are included. She will also review of all the public comments. This is anticipated to take another couple of COC meetings to review all the final language being proposed. The committee briefly discussed the email received from Andrew Molnar: 1- Final setback numbers between facilities - Bill addressed this earlier. Susan added that, although the other attorney said towns can establish any limit they wish, the limits cannot have an effective prohibition for the service. She noted the Town of Fishkill Board asked for the setbacks to be as large as legally possible and they ended up with 300 ft for all small wireless facilities from any residential dwelling or structure within residentially zoned districts unless there is a colocation or existing pole. 2- Add schools and day care facilities to the setback distance- Susan would need to know the basis for adding these locations if regulations cannot be based on health effects. For example, what aesthetic or other legally permissible criteria could be applied to come add those specific areas? A quick search of Fishkill law did not appear that schools or day care facilities were called out specifically, the other setback number used in other zoning districts in their law was 50 ft. 3/4 - Adequate Coverage definition- Susan addressed above, noting that part had not been drafted yet, however will be researched. The law will follow the definitions and interpretations from the Second Circuit Court (personal wireless service meaning phone coverage, not internet/data). 5- Include fall zone requirement- this is being drafted as noted above. 6- Add a statement in the Purpose and legislative Intent section to minimize the number of facilities to avoid redundant infrastructure. Susan noted th at in some cases, two smaller 4 facilities would be preferred rather than one large one depending on location and impacts. There are other protection measures in the Purpose and legislative Intent section as well and this could be discussed further if the committee would like. 4. Other business - next meeting: Bill proposed combining the October and November meetings to be held as one on November 2nd, 2022. Agenda: Review draft revised Telecommunications Law. Also, changes to the Ithaca Energy Code Supplement (ECS) are anticipated to be presented by Nick Goldsmith, Sustainability Planner. The goal is to have the ECS amendments adopted by the end of the year. If the committee recommends changes to the language provided for the November meeting, the final recommendation to the Town Board could include those changes to save the revised document having to come back for a second COC meeting. Susan informed the committee that an email was sent out from the Town Clerk that NYS Governor is not extending the Executive Order that allowed the meetings to be held fully virtually. The new town policy will be followed, which requires a quorum of members to be in one place physically and open to the public. There are provisions for extreme circumstances for a member to participate virtually and she recommended the full policy be sent to COC members for reference. This committee has 6 members, so 4 physically present is required. There is no requirement in the policy that staff must be present physically - they could attend virtually depending on how each board and committee chose to move forward. There also does not appear to be a grace period from the time the Executive order expired (30-day period ended 9/12/22). Chris noted a large amount public attendance at COC meetings could cause the need to move to the Town Board room. She also stated she would be at the Town Hall for future meetings. Bill noted the hybrid meeting set up in the Town Board room is less effective due to the audio compared to the smaller Aurora Conference room. New audio equipment is anticipated for the bigger room in the future but there has been a delay in receiving the components. Rob was not in favor of hybrid meetings and preferred all virtual or all in person. Eva was in favor of virtual meetings in place of in person when snow or other major circumstances arise and noted preference for the Aurora room for hybrid and in person meetings. Ariel was in favor of hybrid meetings. Committee members agreed to combine October and November and hold the meeting in person on November 2nd. The meeting concluded at 6:43 p.m. Page 1 of 2 Date: 10/27/2022 To: Codes and Ordinances Committee From: Nick Goldsmith, Sustainability Planner Regarding: Energy Code Supplement Amendments Overview The Energy Code Supplement (IECS or ECS), adopted in 2021, is scheduled to become more stringent on January 1, 2023. Due to the updated rules, the Town will need to refile the IECS with New York State. In conjunction with the refiling, Town staff would like to adopt amendments to the IECS. There are several amendments under consideration by both the Town and the City: some clarifying and non-substantive, and some more significant. The goal is to have the Town Board consider some of these amendments soon, so that they can be included in the refiled version of the IECS. Some amendments will likely need more analysis and discussion, and will be considered later in 2023. Following is an overview of the amendments that will be proposed. At next month’s COC meeting, Town staff will prepare a red-lined version of the ECS which shows the exact language changes proposed. If you would like to reference the complete ECS, please visit the Code Enforcement page of the Town website at http://www.town.ithaca.ny.us/code-enforcement. Proposed Amendments 1. OP1 Development Density. Change IECS language to allow dormitories to earn this point. Through an oversight, dormitories are not currently eligible for this point, which was intended to be available to all buildings. 2. OP3 Electric Vehicle Parking Spaces. Award double the number of points for point OP3. This change is meant to align with the existing rule where, effective January 1, 2023, all points awarded from the Efficient Electrification section will be doubled. The rationale is the same: the regional electric grid is cleaner than it was when the IECS was adopted, and getting cleaner, meaning that a switch from fossil fuels to electric power is more impactful than it used to be. These changes to the electrification section (already in IECS) and the EV Parking Spaces point (proposed) will help applicant projects attain the 12 points that will be required starting January 1. 3. OP6 Custom Energy Improvement. Clarify the content and the format of information that applicants must submit to show compliance with OP6. Working with permit applicants, the Town has clarified the documentation requirements for this point, and proposes updating the IECS language to reflect this. 4. RE2 Biomass Systems. Point RE2 currently states that all biomass equipment must comply with the NYSERDA Renewable Heat NY program guidelines. However, NYSERDA has discontinued this program. Town staff is currently researching ways to address this issue. Page 2 of 2 5. Throughout IECS: update ASHRAE and NYSECCC reference years and associated reduction percentages required by IECS. The IECS references other codes and standards, including ASHRAE and NYSECCC, which are periodically updated. Town staff is looking into updating the versions of these standards which are referenced, with the goal of avoiding confusion and extra work for applicants who must already work with the updated versions to fulfill state code requirements. 6. Major Renovation Definition. Town and City staff are considering language changes to more clearly define “disassembly” and “heating system” in the definition of Major Renovation, to avoid potential future issues. [end of amendments] We look forward to discussion on this issue. Please let us know if you have any questions or comments before the meeting. FOR 11/02/22 COC MEETING—ROUGH DRAFT INCORPORATES COC CHANGES TO DATE; ADDS RECOMMENDATIONS & QUESTIONS § 270-219 Personal wireless service facilities. A. Purpose and legislative intent. (1) The purpose of this section is to establish uniform standards for the siting, design, permitting, maintenance, and use of personal wireless service facilities in the Town of Ithaca. While the Town recognizes the importance of personal wireless service facilities in providing high- quality communications service to its residents, businesses and institutions, the Town also recognizes that it has an obligation to protect public safety and to minimize the adverse effects of such facilities. (2) By enacting this section, the Town intends to: (a) Provide for the managed development of personal wireless service facilities in a manner that accommodates the needs of Town residents, businesses, and institutions to receive, and wireless carriers to provide, communication signals without interference from other communication providers, in accordance with federal, state, and local laws and regulations; (b) Establish fair and efficient processes for review and approval of applications; (c) Establish procedures for the design, siting, construction, installation, maintenance, and removal of personal wireless service facilities in the Town; (d) Encourage the co-location of personal wireless service facilities on existing structures rather than the construction of new support structures; (e) Protect Town residents, businesses and institutions from potential adverse impacts of personal wireless service facilities, to the maximum extent permitted under law; (f) Avoid and minimize safety hazards and avoid potential damage to adjacent properties through proper locational, engineering, and operational requirements; (g) 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; (h) Protect the public health, safety, and welfare; (i) Protect property values of the community; (j) Minimize the impact of such facilities on residential properties; and (k) Encourage the siting of personal wireless service facilities on properties and areas which are not used exclusively for residential purposes. 2 B. Definitions. As used in this section, the following terms shall have the meanings indicated: [Some definitions not already discussed may be reworked.] ACCESSORY EQUIPMENT-Equipment installed, mounted, operated, or maintained in close proximity to a Personal Wireless Service Facility to provide power to the Personal Wireless Service Facility or to receive, transmit or store signals or information received by or sent from a Personal Wireless Service Facility. ACHP-The federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. [[Deleted because this term is not used in the law.] ADEQUATE COVERAGE-As determined by the Planning Board or Director of Planning, Adequate Coverage means that a specific Wireless Carrier’s Personal Wireless Service coverage is such that the vast majority of its customers can successfully use the carrier’s Personal Wireless Services the vast majority of the time, in the vast majority of the geographic locations within the Town, that the success rate of using their devices for Personal Wireless Services exceeds 97%, and that any geographic gaps in a Wireless Carrier’s Personal Wireless Services are not significant gaps, based upon such factors including, but not limited to, physical size of the gap, number of customers affected by the gap, whether the gap is in a lightly traveled or lightly occupied area, drop call or failure rates, and whether or not the Wireless Carrier’s customers are affected for only limited periods of time. A Wireless Carrier’s Personal Wireless Service coverage shall not be deemed inadequate simply because the frequency or frequencies at which its customers are using its Personal Wireless Services are not the Wireless Carrier’s most- preferred frequency. ANTENNA-An apparatus designed for the purpose of emitting radiofrequency (RF) radiation, to be operated or operating from a fixed location pursuant to Federal Communication Commission authorization, for the provision of Personal Wireless Service and any commingled information services. For purposes of this definition, the term Antenna does not include an unintentional radiator, mobile station, or device authorized under 47 CFR Part 15 (Radio Frequency Devices). ANTENNA EQUIPMENT-Equipment, switches, wiring, cabling, power sources, shelters or cabinets associated with an Antenna, located at the same fixed location as the Antenna, and, when collocated on a Structure, is mounted or installed at the same time as such Antenna. ANTENNA FACILITY-An Antenna and associated Antenna Equipment. CELL TOWER-A free-standing, guy-wired, or otherwise supported pole, Tower, or other structure designed to support or employed to support, equipment and/or antennas used to provide Personal Wireless Services, including, but not limited to, a pole, monopole, monopine, slim stick, lattice Tower or other types of standing structures. [Not sure we need this definition— need to understand why Fishkill law refers to “cell towers and other Personal Wireless Service Facilities” instead of just PWSFs, which encompass cell towers and other types of support structures] COLLOCATION and/or COLLOCATE-The mounting or installation of FCC-licensed or Formatted: Font: Bold Formatted: Font: Not Bold Formatted: Font: Not Bold Formatted: Font: Not Bold Formatted: Font: Not Bold Formatted: Font: Bold 3 FCC-authorized wireless communication service transmission equipment on an existing structure for the purpose of transmitting and/or receiving radio frequency signals for communications purposes. DEPLOYMENT -The placement, construction, or modification of a Personal Wireless Service Facility. DIRECTOR OF CODE ENFORCEMENT-The Town of Ithaca’s Director of Code Enforcement, or their designee. [This is a staff-recommended addition] DIRECTOR OF PLANNING-The Town of Ithaca’s Director of Planning, or their designee. DISTRIBUTED ANTENNA SYSTEM, DAS-A network of spatially separated antenna nodes connected to a common source via a transport medium that provides Personal Wireless Services within a geographic area. EFFECTIVE PROHIBITION [rework this definition and move part of it out of the definitions and to a substantive provision later in the law]-A finding by the Planning Board or Director of Planning that, based upon an Applicant’s submission of sufficient probative, relevant, and sufficiently reliable evidence, and the appropriate weight which the Board deems appropriate to afford same, an Applicant has established that an identified Wireless Carrier does not have Adequate Coverage, but suffers from a significant gap in the provision of its Personal Wireless Services within the Town and that a proposed installation by that Applicant would be the least intrusive means of remedying that gap, such that a denial of the Application to install such installation would effectively prohibit the carrier from providing Personal Wireless Services within the Town. Any determination of whether an Applicant has established, or failed to establish, both the existence of a significant gap and whether its proposed installation, at the site chosen, the specific location on that proposed site, and the proposed minimum height for the new facility, shall be based upon Substantial Evidence, as is hereinafter defined. ELEVENTH HOUR SUBMISSIONS-An Applicant’s submission of new and/or additional materials in support of an Application within 48 hours of the expiration of an applicable Shot Clock Period, or at an otherwise unreasonably short period of time before the expiration of the Shot Clock Period, making it impracticable for the Planning Board, Director of Planning or Director of Code Enforcement Code Enforcement Officer to adequately review and consider such submissions due to their complexity, volume, or other factors, before the expiration of the Shot Clock Period. [Staff recommends changing to Director of Code Enforcement (which includes their designees, per the added definition. Susan B added “period” after shock clock to be consistent with the terminology used in the federal regulations] ELIGIBLE FACILITIES REQUEST-A request that meets the requirements in 47 CFR § 1.6100 for modification of an existing tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station and involving: (a) Collocation of new transmission equipment; (b) Removal of transmission equipment; or (c) Replacement of transmission equipment, Formatted: Font color: Auto 4 EPA-The United States Environmental Protection Agency. FAA-The Federal Aviation Administration. FACILITY-An Antenna Facility or a Structure that is used for the provision of Personal Wireless Service, whether such Service is provided on a stand-alone basis or commingled with other wireless communications services. FCC-The Federal Communications Commission. GENERAL POPULATION/UNCONTROLLED EXPOSURE LIMITS-The applicable radiofrequency radiation exposure limits set forth within 47 CFR §1.1310(e)(1), Table 1 Section (ii), made applicable pursuant to 47 CFR §1.1310(e)(3). HEIGHT-When referring to a Tower, Personal Wireless Service Facility, or Personal Wireless Service Facility structure, the Height shall mean the distance measured from the pre-existing grade level to the highest point on the Tower, Facility, or structure, including, but not limited to, any accessory, fitting, fitment, extension, addition, add-on, antenna, whip antenna, lightning rod or other types of lightning-protection devices attached to the top of the structure. [These are staff-recommended changes] ILLEGALLY EXCESSIVE RF RADIATION or ILLEGALLY EXCESSIVE RADIATION-RF radiation emissions at levels that exceed the legally permissible limits set forth within 47 CFR §1.1310(e)(1), Table 1 Sections (i) and (ii), as made applicable pursuant to 47 CFR §1.1310(e)(3). MAINTENANCE or ROUTINE MAINTENANCE- Plumbing, electrical, or mechanical work that may require a building permit but that does not constitute a modification to the Personal Wireless Service Facility. It is work necessary to assure that a wireless Facility and/or telecommunications structure exists and operates reliably and in a safe manner, presents no threat to persons or property, and remains compliant with the provisions of this chapter and FCC requirements. NEPA-The National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq. NHPA-The National Historic Preservation Act, 54 U.S.C. §§ 300101 et seq., and its regulations at 36 CFR Part 800 et seq. NODE, DAS NODE-A fixed antenna and related equipment installation that operates as part of a system of spatially separated antennas, all of which are connected through a medium through which they work collectively to provide Personal Wireless Services. OCCUPATIONAL/CONTROLLED EXPOSURE LIMITS-The applicable radiofrequency radiation exposure limits set forth within 47 CFR §1.1310(e)(1), Table 1 Section (i), made applicable pursuant to 47 CFR §1.1310(e)(2). 5 PERSONAL WIRELESS SERVICE, PERSONAL WIRELESS SERVICES-Commercial mobile services, unlicensed wireless services, and common carrier wireless exchange access services, within the meaning of 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(c)(i), and as defined therein. PERSONAL WIRELESS SERVICE FACILITY or PWSF-A Facility or facilities used for the provision of Personal Wireless Services, within the meaning of 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(c)(ii). This term includes structures, antennas, poles, towers, cables, cabinets, equipment enclosures, equipment, and Accessory Equipment and related improvements used to provide Personal Wireless Services. PERSONAL WIRELESS SERVICE FACILITY PERMIT-The permit granted by the Director of Planning pursuant to which an Applicant is allowed to construct and use a Personal Wireless Service Facility. [Should the Planning Board issue this permit where the PB issues site plan approval? This is a permit with terms and conditions, so it seems more appropriate to have the Director of Planning (or perhaps Director of Code Enforcement) issue this permit even if the Planning Board does site plan review.] [UPDATE FOR 11/02/22 VERSION: Marty Moseley and Sue Ritter recommend the permit be issued by the Director of Code Enforcement, after recommendation by Director of Planning (same process as that used for the sign law). COC to decide.] PWSF-Personal Wireless Service Facility. REPAIRS-The replacement or repair of any components of a wireless Facility where the replacement is substantially identical to the component or components being replaced, or for any matters that involve the normal repair and Maintenance of a wireless Facility without the addition, removal, or change of any of the physical or visually discernible components or aspects of a wireless Facility that will impose new visible intrusions of the Facility as originally permitted. RF-Radiofrequency. RF RADIATION-Radiofrequency radiation, that being electromagnetic radiation which is a combination of electric and magnetic fields that move through space as waves, and which can include both Non-Ionizing radiation and Ionizing radiation. SETBACK-The distance between (a) any portion of a Ppersonal Wwireless Facility, including but not limited to any and all accessory facilities and/or structures, and (b) the exterior lot line of the parcel on which the proposed Facility will be placed. any parcel of real property or part thereof which is owned by, or leased by, an Applicant seeking an approval or permit to construct or install a personal wireless Facility upon such real property or portion thereof. In the event that an Applicant leases only a portion of the lot, the Setback shall be measured from the Facility to the line of that portion of the real property which is leased by the Applicant. [These are staff- recommended changes. Staff also recommends deleting the last sentence. Keep or delete it?] 6 SEQRA-The New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR Part 617 et seq. SHOT CLOCK PERIOD-The applicable period which is presumed to be a reasonable period within which the Town is generally required to issue final decisions upon an Application seeking approvals and permits for the installation or substantial modification of a Personal Wireless Services Facility or structure, to comply with Section 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(ii) of the TCA. The sum of the number of days specified by federal regulation as the presumptively reasonable time for the Town to act on the relevant Personal Wireless Services Facility application type, plus the number of days of any applicable tolling period, per 47 CFR § 16003. [Revised to follow wording in federal regulations] SHPO-The New York State Historic Preservation Office. SMALL WIRELESS FACILITY-A Personal Wireless Service Facility that meets all the following criteria: (a) The Facility (i) is mounted on a Structure 50 feet or less in height, including its antennas; or (ii) is mounted on a Structure no more than 10 percent taller than other adjacent structures; or (iii) does not extend the existing structure on which it is located to a height of more than 50 feet or by more than 10 percent, whichever is greater; (b) Each antenna associated with the Deployment, excluding associated antenna equipment, is no more than three (3) cubic feet in volume; (c)All other wireless equipment associated with the Structure, including the wireless equipment associated with the Antenna and any pre-existing associated equipment on the Structure, is no more than 28 cubic feet in volume; (d) The Facility does not require antenna structure registration under 47 CFR Part 17 (Construction, Marking, and Lighting of Antenna Structures); (e) The Facility is not located on tribal lands, as defined under 36 CFR §800.16(x); and (f) The Facility will not result in human exposure to radiofrequency radiation in excess of the applicable FCC safety standards set forth within Table 1 of 47 CFR §1.1310(E)(1). STEALTH or STEALTH TECHNOLOGY-A design or treatment that minimizes adverse aesthetic and visual impacts on the land, property, buildings, and other facilities adjacent to, surrounding, and generally in the same area as the requested location of such Personal Wireless Service Facilities. This shall mean building the least visually and physically intrusive Facility under the facts and circumstances. STRUCTURE-A pole, Tower, base station, building, water tank, or other physical support of any form, whether or not it has an existing Antenna Facility, that is used or to be used for the provision of Personal Wireless Service (whether on its own or commingled with other types of services). Formatted: Line spacing: Multiple 1.15 li 7 SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE-Substantial Evidence means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. It means less than a preponderance but more than a scintilla of evidence. TCA-The Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. §332(c). TOLLING or TOLLED-The pausing of the running of the time period under the applicable Shot Clock Period. TOWER, TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER-Any Structure designed primarily to support one or more antennas and/or equipment used or designed for receiving and/or transmitting a wireless signal. TOWN-The Town of Ithaca. UNDERTAKING [rework]-Any Application for a special permit seeking Board approval for the installation of a Personal Wireless Services Facility licensed under the authority of the FCC shall constitute an undertaking within the meaning of NEPA, in accord with 42 CFR §137.289 and 36 CFR §800.16. [Deleted because this term is not used in the law. Also, the cited regulations do not cover all projects, so they do not need to be listed elsewhere. They apply only to historic properties projects and Indian Health Service construction projects.] WIRELESS CARRIERS or CARRIER-Companies that provide Personal Wireless Services to end-use consumers. C. General approval and permit requirements for personal wireless service facilities. (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, personal wireless service facilities (“PWSFs”) are allowed in every zoning district in the Town. [COC still needs to decide if PWSFs are prohibited in historic districts] (2) Except as otherwise provided by this section, no person shall be permitted to Deploy, operate, or prepare any site for the Deployment of PWSFs without having first obtained the approvals and permits required by this section. (3) Repairs to and/or Maintenance of a legally existing PWSF shall not require site plan approval or a PWSF permit. (4) In addition to the requirements set forth in this section for the issuance of a PWSF permit and, where applicable, site plan approval, any telecommunications provider seeking to place a PWSF in the public right-of-way shall also comply with the procedures and requirements set forth in Chapter 230 (Streets and Sidewalks) of the Town Code relating to conducting construction activities within the public right-of-way. To the extent any provisions in Chapter 230 are inconsistent with the provisions set forth in this section, the provisions in this section shall control. Formatted: Font color: Auto Formatted: Font color: Dark Red 8 (5) Notwithstanding the provisions set forth in this section, in the event an application seeks to place a PWSF on property owned or controlled by the Town, other than within a Town- owned public right-of-way, such application shall be exempt from the requirements of this section. The Town Board has sole and absolute discretion to determine whether to allow an applicant to place a PWSF on such Town property, and the Town Board may impose such conditions on any such placement and use as it deems appropriate. Nothing herein shall be deemed to create any right or entitlement to use Town property for such PWSF. D. Approvals and permits required for personal wireless service facilities and Section 6409(a) eligible facilities. (1) All PWSFs shall require a building permit issued by a Code Enforcement Officer, where the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code or the Ithaca Town Code requires a building permit. (2) A Small Wireless Facility proposed to be collocated on an existing Small Wireless Facility that will remain a Small Wireless facility after the collocation, and its related ground- mounted or underground facilities and equipment, shall require a PWSF permit issued by the Director of Planning. [Change to Director of Code Enforcement? See comment under PWSF Permit definition above] (3) A Small Wireless Facility proposed to be collocated on an existing Small Wireless Facility that will no longer be a Small Wireless facility after the collocation, and its related ground- mounted or underground facilities and equipment, shall require both a PWSF permit issued by the Director of Planning [change to Director of Code Enforcement?] and site plan approval by the Planning Board. (4) A PWSF proposed to be collocated on an existing PWSF that is not a Small Wireless Facility, and its proposed related ground-mounted or underground facilities and equipment, shall require a PWSF permit issued by the Director of Planning.[Change to Director of Code Enforcement?] In addition, site plan approval by the Planning Board is required if the proposed PWSF collocation will: (a) Increase the approved Height of the support Structure by more than 15%; (b) Increase the number of antennas by more than 50% over the previously approved number of antennas; (c) Increase the square footage of accessory buildings by more than 200 square feet over the previously approved square footage of accessory buildings; (d) Add one or more microwave antenna dishes; or (e) Expand the footprint of the support Structure. (5) Where more than one PWSF is proposed and at least one PWSF will not be collocated on an existing structure, all of the proposed PWSFs (including collocated PWSFs) shall require both a PWSF permit issued by the Director of Planning [change to Director of Code Enforcement?] and site plan approval. Formatted: Font: Bold Formatted: Font: Bold Formatted: No underline Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.25" 9 (6) All PWSFs that do not fall under subsection 2-5 above shall require a PWSF issued by the Director of Planning [change to Director of Code Enforcement?] and site plan approval by the Planning Board pursuant to the requirements of this section and (for site plans) in accordance with Chapter 270 (Zoning), Article XXIII (Site Plan Review and Approval Procedures). (7) Notwithstanding subsections 2-6 above, any application that asserts Spectrum Act § 6409(a) applies and that meets the requirements in 47 CFR § 1.6100 for an eligible facilities request shall not require site plan approval. If such application is for personal wireless services, a PWSF permit issued by the Director of Planning is required, and a building permit issued by a Code Enforcement Officer is also required if the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code or the Ithaca Town Code requires a building permit. If such application is for FCC-authorized wireless communication services other than personal wireless services, all that shall be required is a building permit issued by a Code Enforcement Officer, if the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code or the Ithaca Town Code requires a building permit. [Will wordsmith provisions to make sure other Codes-related permits, such as electrical permits and development permits under Town Code Chapter 157 (Flood Damage Prevention), are also covered.] E. Shot Clock Periods and Tolling. (1) To comply with the requirements of 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(ii) of the TCA, and unless Tolled, extended by agreement, or subject to reasonable delays due to circumstances beyond the Town’s control, as described in subsections (O), (P), (Q), and (R) below, the Planning Board and Town officials shall issue, grant or deny PWSF site plans, PWSF permits and building permits within the following number of days from Town receipt of an Application for same: [still to rework wording above] (a) For Collocated facilities: (i) Sixty (60) days for PWSFs that meet the requirements in 47 CFR § 1.6100 for an eligible facilities request. (ii) Sixty (60) days for Collocation of a new Small Wireless Facility upon an existing Small Wireless Facility Structure, where the completed Facility would still constitute a Small Wireless Facility after the collocation. (iii) Ninety (90) days for all other Collocations of PWSFs on an existing structure. (b) For non-collocated facilities: (i) Ninety (90) days for new Small Wireless Facilities. (ii) One hundred fifty (150) days for all other PWSFs. (c) For batched applications: (i) If a single application seeks authorization for multiple Deployments, all of which fall within subsection (a)(2) above, or all of which fall within subsection (b)(i) above, Formatted: Font: Bold, Font color: Dark Red Formatted: Font color: Auto Formatted: Font color: Auto Formatted: Font color: Auto Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.25", Hanging: 0.25" Formatted: Font: 8 pt Formatted: Font: 8 pt Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.25", Hanging: 0.25" Formatted: Font: 8 pt Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.25", Hanging: 0.31" Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", Hanging: 0.25" 10 then the presumptively reasonable period of time for the application as a whole is equal to that for a single Deployment within the category applicable for the Deployments. (ii) If a single application seeks authorization for multiple Deployments, the components of which are a mix of Deployments that fall within subsections (a)(2) and (b)(i) above, then the presumptively reasonable period of time for the application as a whole is 90 days. [Added the shot clock rules from 47 CFR § 16003 for batched applications so staff know what periods to apply for these types of batched applications.] (2) Upon receipt of an Application, the Director of Planning and Director of Code Enforcement shall review the Application for Completeness. If the Director of Planning and [or?] Director of Code Enforcement determines the Application is: (a) incomplete, (b) is the wrong type of Application, or (c) is otherwise defective, then the Director of Planning shall send the Applicant a Notice of Incompleteness by the Town’s digital software program, email, or first-class mail to the email or mailing address provided by the Applicant. [This reflects the proposal by staff and is consistent with the 8/31/22 note in the prior version of this law] (3) For Small Wireless Facilities, the Notice of Incompleteness shall be sent within ten (10) days of the Town’s receipt of the Application. For all other PWSFs, the Notice of Incompleteness shall be sent within thirty (30) days of the Town’s receipt of the Application. (4) The Notice of Incompleteness shall describe why the Application is incomplete, the wrong type, or defective. (5) For proposed Small Wireless facilities, the Director of Planning’s sending of a Notice of Incomplete Application for a Small Wireless Facility shall reset and Toll the relevant Shot Clock Period. The reset sShot cClock Period shall begin running upon the Town’s receipt of any responsive materials from the Applicant. (6) For proposed PWSFs other than Small Wireless Facilities, the Director of Planning’s sending of a Notice of Incomplete Application for a Small Wireless Facility shall Toll (but not reset) the relevant Shot Clock Period. The sShot cClock Period shall begin running again upon the Town’s receipt of any responsive materials from the Applicant. (7) If upon receipt of any responsive materials from the Applicant, the Director of Planning or the Director of Code Enforcement determines that the Application is still incomplete or defective, then the Director of Planning shall, within ten (10) days of receipt of such responsive materials, send the Applicant another Notice of Incompleteness by the town’s digital software program, email, or first- class mail to the email or mailing address provided by the Applicant. Regardless of the type of PWSF, the Director of Planning’s sending of this second Notice of Incomplete Application shall again Toll (but shall not reset) the relevant Shot Clock Period, which shall resume running upon the Town’s receipt of any responsive materials from the Applicant. The same procedure may continue to be repeated with subsequent Applicant submissions and Notices of Incompleteness. Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.56", Hanging: 0.19" Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", Hanging: 0.25" Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.56" 11 F. Extensions & reasonable delay periods. (1) Shot Clock Period Extension by Mutual Agreement The Planning Board (if applicable), or Director of Planning or Code Enforcement Officer may extend any applicable Shot Clock pPeriod by mutual agreement with an Applicant. The agreement may either be in writing or stated on the record at any public meeting. (2) Reasonable Delay Extensions of Shot Clock Periods The Town recognizes that there may be situations wherein, due to circumstances beyond the control of the Planning Board, the Planning Board’s review and issuance of a final decision upon an Aapplication for site plan approval and a PWSF permit cannot reasonably be completed within the Application Shot Clock pPeriods delineated within subsection E above. In such situations, the Planning Board shall be permitted to continue and complete its review, and issue its determination at a date beyond the expiration of the applicable period, if the delay of such final decision is due to circumstances including, but not limited to, those set forth within Sections §150(O), (P), (Q), and (R) herein below. [Still need to check FCC Orders for the wording and reasonable delay rationales] [Moved “Design standards” section to L below.] G. Applications for personal wireless service facilities. Applications shall be made via the Town’s digital software program to the Director of Planning for PWSF permits, site plan approvals, and to the Director of Code Enforcement for PWSF permits, building permits, and all other Town permits and Town approvals required by local, state, or federal law or regulation. Each application for a PWSF permit, site plan approval, and /or building permit shall include the following materials. An application for any Town permit or approval is incomplete if it is missing any item listed below, it does not contain everything required by law or regulation, or the Director of Planning and [or?] Director of Code Enforcement determines that the application contains inconsistent, contradictory, or unclear information. [Staff recommends the above changes—thinking has evolved since a prior recommendation to send all applications to the Director of Planning] (1) Applications for Section 6409(a) eligible facilities must include: (a) Identification of all applicants, site developers and FCC-licensed carriers on whose behalf the application is being submitted, as well as the property owner of the proposed site. (b) All applicable application and other fees then being charged by the Town for such applications. (c) An email address and a US mail address to which the Town may email or mail notices to comply with any notice requirement under this section, as well as under any local, state and/or federal law or requirement. (d) Copies of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) license, if applicable, and of all documents submitted to the FCC or any other governmental agency having jurisdiction over the proposed eligible facilities; Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Hanging: 0.25" Formatted: Font: Bold, Font color: Blue Formatted: Font color: Auto Formatted: Font color: Auto Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Hanging: 0.33", Space Before: 2 pt, After: 12 pt 12 (e) Written documentation sufficient to show that the proposed deployment is an eligible facilities request. This documentation shall include a drawn-to-scale depiction containing complete calculations for all of the proposed eligible facilities to show whether they, when installed, will meet the physical size limitations and other requirements to qualify them as Section 6409(a) eligible facilities. (f) Written documentation sufficient to show that the proposed deployment complies with all applicable building, structural, electrical and safety codes and with all other laws codifying objective standards reasonably related to health and safety. This documentation shall include a certification by an engineer licensed to practice in the State of New York that the eligible facilities have been designed in accordance with generally accepted good engineering practices and in accordance with generally accepted industry standards (including but not limited to the most recent, applicable standards of the Institute of Electric and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI)), and if constructed, operated and maintained in accordance with the plans the eligible facilities, Structure, and other PWSFs and FCC-authorized wireless communication service facilities on the site will be safe, will be in accordance with all applicable governmental building codes, laws and regulations and in accordance with generally accepted good engineering practices and industry standards, including without limitation, acceptable standards as to stability, wind and ice loads, and bird protection. [Will ask Town’s engineers to wordsmith.] (g) An FCC compliance report, as described below. (h) Written documentation sufficient to show compliance with any relevant federal requirement, including any applicable FCC, FAA, NEPA, or National Historic Preservation Act Section 106NHPA requirements. (i) Completed Part 1 of the relevant New York State environmental assessment form. (j) All of the information required by Town Code § 125-4 (Building permits), if applicable. (k) Where an applicant is not the owner of the real property upon which the applicant seeks to collocate Section 6409(a) eligible facilities, proof of the property owner's consent to the deployment of the eligible facilities on the real property and agreement to abide by this Section 270-219. If the applicant is leasing all or a portion of real property upon which it intends to install its new eligible facilities, the applicant shall provide a written copy of its lease with the owner of such property. The applicant may redact any financial terms contained within the lease, but it shall not redact any portion of the lease which details the amount of area leased nor the specific portion of the real property to which the applicant has obtained the right to occupy, access, or preclude others from entering. (l) Where an applicant is not the owner of the existing wireless tower or base station upon which the applicant seeks to collocate Section 6409(a) eligible facilities, proof of the wireless tower or base station owner’s consent to the collocation of the eligible facilities 13 onto the existing wireless tower or base station and agreement to comply with this chapter. (2) Applications for all other PWSFs must include: (a) A completed project application form in such detail and containing such information as the Director of Planning may require, including identification of all applicants, site developers and wireless carriers on whose behalf the application is being submitted, as well as the property owner of the proposed site. (b) All applicable application and other fees then being charged by the Town for such applications, including any deposits required by the Town for application to the costs of any consultants retained by the Town as provided below. [At some point, COC or Town Board needs to discuss ROW fees. Also: will add later in the law (not in the application section) some version of existing §270-219.K(5) (with an increased minimum escrow amount?) That provision currently reads: “To assure sufficient funds are available to the Town to pay for the consultants referred to in the preceding subsection, any applicant shall be required to deposit review fees in escrow, in accordance with the terms of any Town of Ithaca law, ordinance or resolution, as the same may be amended from time to time. Notwithstanding the provisions of any such law, ordinance or resolution, the minimum initial escrow deposit for any telecommunication facility application which anticipates construction of any type of tower shall be $5,000 or the minimum prescribed by such law, ordinance or resolution as in effect at the date of the application, whichever is greater.”] (c) An email address and a US mail address to which the Town may email or mail notices to comply with any notice requirement under this section, as well as under any local, state and/or federal law or requirement. (d) Copies of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) license, if applicable, and of all documents submitted to the FCC or any other governmental agency having jurisdiction over the Facility.; (e) If the applicant claims that its proposed installation qualifies as a Small Wireless Facility within this section, the drawn-to-scale depiction shall include complete calculations for all of the antennas and equipment of which the Facility will be comprised, depicting that, when completed, the installation and equipment will meet the physical size limitations which enable the Facility to qualify as a Small Wireless Facility. (f) Written documentation sufficient to show that the proposed Facilities comply with all applicable building, structural, electrical and safety codes and with all other laws reasonably related to health and safety. This documentation shall include a certification by an engineer licensed to practice in the State of New York that the Facilities (including any proposed collocations) have been designed in accordance with generally accepted good engineering practices and in accordance with generally accepted industry standards (including but not limited to the most recent, applicable standards of the Institute of Electric and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI)), and if constructed, operated and maintained in accordance with the plans the Facilities will be safe, will be in accordance with all applicable governmental building Formatted: Font: 8 pt Formatted: Font: 8 pt Formatted: Font: 8 pt Formatted: Font: 6 pt 14 codes, laws and regulations and in accordance with generally accepted good engineering practices and industry standards, including without limitation, acceptable standards as to stability, wind and ice loads, and bird protection. [Will ask Town’s engineers to wordsmith.] (g) An FCC compliance report, as described below. (h) Written documentation sufficient to show compliance with any relevant federal requirement, including any applicable FCC, FAA, NEPA, or National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 NHPA requirements. (i) Completed Part 1 of the relevant New York State environmental assessment form. (j) A visual impact analysis, as described in subsection _I_ below. (k) All of the information required by Town Code § 125-4 (Building permits), if applicable. (l) Where site plan review is required, a site plan and other documentation that complies with Town Code §270-186 (Site plan requirements), and also contains the following: (ia) The exact location including geographic coordinates of the proposed Facility including any towers, guy wires and anchors, if applicable; (iib) The maximum height of the proposed Facility, including all appurtenances; (iiic) A detail of Facility type, if any, including engineering drawings from the Facility manufacturer (monopole, guyed, freestanding, or other); (ivd) The location, type, and intensity of any lighting on the Facility or its accessory structures; (ve) Property boundaries and names of all adjacent landowners; (vif) The location of all other structures on the parcel and all structures on any adjacent parcels within 100 feet of the property lines, together with the distance of these structures from any proposed tower; (viig) The location, nature and extent of any proposed fencing, landscaping, and screening; (viiih) The location and nature of any proposed utility easements and access roads or drives. (m) Where an applicant is not the owner of the real property upon which the applicant seeks to deploy Facilities, proof of the property owner'’s consent to the deployment of the Facilities on the real property and agreement to comply with this chapter. If the applicant is leasing all or a portion of real property upon which it intends to install its new Facilities, the applicant shall provide a written copy of its lease with the owner of such property. The applicant may redact any financial terms contained within the lease, but it shall not redact any portion of the lease which details the amount of area leased nor the Formatted: Highlight Formatted: Highlight Formatted: Font: 8 pt Formatted: Font: 8 pt Formatted: Font: 8 pt Formatted: Font: 8 pt Formatted: Font: 8 pt Formatted: Font: 8 pt 15 specific portion of the real property to which the applicant has obtained the right to occupy, access, or preclude others from entering. (n) Where an applicant seeks to collocate Facilities and is not the owner of the structure upon which the applicant seeks to collocate the Facilities, proof of the structure owner’s consent to the collocation of the proposed Facilities onto the existing structure. (o) An agreement to remove all antennas, driveways, structures, buildings, equipment sheds, lighting, utilities, fencing, gates, accessory equipment, or structures, as well as any tower(s) dedicated solely for use within a telecommunications facility if such facility becomes technologically obsolete or ceases to perform its originally intended function for more than 12 consecutive months. Upon removal of said facility, the land shall be restored to its previous condition, including but not limited to the seeding of exposed soils. [Wordsmith—this is from existing §270-219.L(1).] (p) Agreement that the applicant will negotiate in good faith with any subsequent applicant seeking to co-locate a telecommunications facility on the initial applicant's structures. This agreement shall commit the initial applicant and landowner and their respective successors in interest to: (ia) Respond in a timely, comprehensive manner to a request for information from a potential shared-use applicant. (iib) Negotiate in good faith for shared use by third parties. (iiic) Allow shared use if an applicant agrees in writing to pay reasonable charges for same. (ivd) Make no more than a reasonable charge for shared use, based upon generally accepted accounting principles. The charge may include but is not limited to a pro rata share of the cost of site selection, planning, project administration, land costs, site design, construction and maintenance, financing, return on equity, and depreciation, and all of the costs of adapting the tower or equipment to accommodate a shared user without causing electromagnetic interference or causing uses on the site to emit electromagnetic radiation in excess of levels permitted by the FCC. (qp) Information required by, and proof of compliance with, subsection __ (Collocation) below. [COC decided at its 7/6/22 meeting to retain the co-location provisions below in a separate section (not in the Application section) A note added after that meeting suggested the edits below, which COC did not comment on at its 8/31/22 meeting.] Current §270-219 D. Co-location (with staff edits). H. Co-location. (1) The shared use of existing telecommunications facilities or other structures shall be preferred to the construction of new facilities. Any PWSF permit or site plan application, renewal or Formatted: Not Highlight Formatted: Font: Not Italic Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.25", Hanging: 0.25" Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Hanging: 0.98", Tab stops: 0.5", Left + 0.63", Left Formatted: Font: Not Italic Formatted: Indent: First line: 0", Tab stops: 0.5", Left + 0.63", Left Formatted: Font: Not Italic Formatted: Font: 8 pt, Not Italic Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.33", Hanging: 0.65", Tab stops: 0.56", Left Formatted: Font: Not Italic Formatted: Font: 8 pt, Not Italic Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.33", Hanging: 0.65", Tab stops: 0.5", Left + 0.56", Left Formatted: Font: Not Italic Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.33", Hanging: 0.65" Formatted: Highlight Formatted: Not Highlight Formatted: Font: Bold Formatted: Font: Not Italic, Not Highlight Formatted: Font: (Default) Liberation Serif, Not Italic Formatted: Font: Not Italic 16 modification thereof shall include proof that reasonable efforts have been made to co-locate within an existing telecommunications facility or upon an existing structure. (2) The application shall include an adequate inventory report specifying existing telecommunications facility sites and any structures (except 1-2 family dwellings and multiple residences) within a one mile radius of the proposed Facility. exceeding 75% of the height of the proposed tower within the search range of the cell grid. The inventory report shall contain an evaluation of opportunities for shared use as an alternative to the proposed location, along with a map showing the location of each site inventoried, and the height of the structure and/or tower and accessory buildings on the site of the inventoried location(s). (3) The applicant must demonstrate that the proposed telecommunications facility cannot be accommodated on existing telecommunications facility sites in the inventory due to one or more of the following reasons: (a) The planned equipment would exceed the structural capacity of existing and approved telecommunications facilities or other structures, considering existing and reasonably anticipated future use for those facilities; (b) The planned equipment would cause radio frequency interference with other existing or planned equipment, which cannot be reasonably prevented; [add exceedance of FCC RF emissions levels] (c) Existing or approved telecommunications facilities or other structures do not have space and cannot be modified to provide space on which proposed equipment can be placed so it can function effectively and reasonably; (d) Other technical reasons make it impracticable to place the equipment proposed by the applicant on existing facilities or structures; (e) The property owner or owner of the existing telecommunications facility or other structure fails to reach agreement after negotiating in good faith to allow such co- location. [Moved “Priority of siting locations” section to K below (after everything related to application materials)] HI. FCC compliance report. [From Fishkill’s law. Will wordsmith. Among other things, state the analysis must comply with any applicable FCC Bulletins or other FCC requirements.] The FCC compliance report required by this section shall be prepared by a licensed engineer, and certified under penalties of perjury, that the content thereof is true and accurate, wherein the licensed engineer shall certify that the proposed Facility will be FCC compliant as of the time of its installation, meaning that the Facility will not expose members of the general public to radiation levels that exceed the most current permissible radiation limits which the FCC has set. If it is anticipated that more than one carrier and/or user is to install transmitters into the Facility that the FCC Compliance Report shall take into account anticipated exposure from all users on Formatted: Pattern: Clear Formatted: Font: Not Italic Formatted: Font: Not Italic Formatted: Font: Not Italic Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Hanging: 0.25" Formatted: Font: Not Italic Formatted: Font: Not Italic Formatted: Font: Not Italic Formatted: Font: 8 pt, Not Italic Formatted: Font: Not Italic Formatted: Font: 8 pt, Not Italic Formatted: Font: Not Italic Formatted: Font: 8 pt, Not Italic Formatted: Font: Not Italic Formatted: Pattern: Clear 17 the Facility and shall indicate whether or not the combined exposure levels will, or will not exceed the permissible General Population Exposure Limits, or alternatively, the occupational Exposure Limits, where applicable. Such FCC Compliance Report shall provide the calculation or calculations with which the engineer determined the levels of RF radiation and/or emissions to which the Facility will expose members of the general public. On the cover page of the report, the report shall explicitly specify: (a) Whether the Applicant and their engineer are claiming that the applicable FCC limits based upon which they are claiming FCC compliance are the General Population Exposure Limits or the Occupational Exposure Limits. If the Applicant and/or their engineer are asserting that the Occupational Exposure Limits apply to the proposed installation, they shall detail a factual basis as to why they claim that the higher set of limits is applicable, (b) The exact minimum distance factor, measured in feet, which the Applicant calculate the level of radiation emissions to which the proposed Facility will expose members of the general public. The minimum distance factor is the closest distance (i.e., the minimum distance) to which a member of the general public shall be able to gain access to the transmitting antennas mounted upon, or which shall be a part of, the proposed Facility. IJ. Visual impact analysis. [Staff provided the wording below for COC’s consideration. Susan B question: Should the analysis also look at impact on important/scenic views?] Each Aapplication 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 supporting structure that is to be constructed, as well as its base, guy wires, accessory structures, buildings, and overhead utility lines. The visual impact analysis required by this section shall, at a minimum, include the following: (a) Small Wireless Facilities: the applicant shall provide a visual impact analysis which shall include (i) line-of-sight drawings (ii) detailed elevation maps (iii) visual simulations, including photographic images, depicting the height at which the proposed fFacility shall stand when completed (including all portions and attachments to the Facility), taken from the perspectives of the properties situated in closest proximity to the location being proposed for the Facility siting, as well as those properties which would reasonably be expected to sustain the most significant adverse aesthetic impacts due to such factors as their close proximity to the site, their elevation relative to the site, or the Facility location and their location. (iv) before and after renderings (v) alternate Facility designs and color schemes (b) Personal Wireless Service Facilities which do not meet the definition of a Small Wireless Facility: the applicant shall provide: (i) A “Visibility Map” to determine locations from where the Facility will be seen. (ii) A visual impact analysis which shall include Formatted: Not Highlight Formatted: Font: Bold Formatted: Font: 8 pt Formatted: Tab stops: 0.25", Left Formatted: Font: Not Italic Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.25", Hanging: 0.24", Space Before: 0 pt, After: 7 pt Formatted: Font: (Default) Liberation Serif, Bold, Not Italic Formatted: Font: Not Italic Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.25", Hanging: 0.24" Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Hanging: 0.25" Formatted: Font: 6 pt Formatted: Indent: First line: 0" Formatted: Font: 8 pt Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0" 18 (i) A “Visibility Map” to determine locations from where the Facility will be seen. (ii) line-of-sight drawings (iii) detailed elevation maps (iv) visual simulations, including photographic images, depicting the height at which the proposed facility shall stand when completed (including all portions and attachments to the Facility), taken from the perspectives of the properties situated in closest proximity to the location being proposed for the siting of the Facility, as well as those properties which would reasonably be expected to sustain the most significant adverse aesthetic impacts due to such factors as their close proximity to the site, their elevation relative to the site, the existence or Tower location and their location. [garbled—fix] (v) before and after renderings (vi) alternate Facility designs and color schemes [Moved “Priority of siting locations” section here] K. Priority of siting locations. In determining whether a site is appropriate, and if it is determined a need exists for the telecommunications facility, the preferential order of location, to the extent the same may be, or may be made, technically feasible, is as follows: (1) Co-located on existing telecommunications towers; (2) Co-located on any other existing radio or other tower that would not require any increase in height nor significant noticeable structural additions to accommodate the telecommunications facility; (3) Within any industrial zones or existing planned development zones that permit industrial activities; (4) Within any light industrial zones or existing planned development zones that permit light industrial activities; (5) Within any existing community commercial zones or existing planned development zones which permits all of the activities permitted in a community commercial zone; (6) On any other property in the Town. [Moved “Design standards” section here. Design standards for non-small cells are in a separate document for COC to consider at its 11/2/22 meeting, and they will be added below once approved.] JL. Design standards. 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. [At its 5/11/22 meeting, COC stated if it decides to prohibit PSWFs in historic districts, then references to historic districts in the aesthetic criteria will be deleted where appropriate.] Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0.25" Formatted: Font: Bold Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.19", Hanging: 0.3", Tab stops: 0.25", Left + 0.81", Left Formatted: Font: Bold Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0.19" Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.25", First line: 0.24" Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0" Formatted: Font: Bold Formatted: Font: Bold, Not Italic Formatted: Font: Not Italic Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Hanging: 0.25" Formatted: Font: Not Italic Formatted: Font: Not Italic Formatted: Font: Not Italic Formatted: Font: Not Italic Formatted: Normal, Indent: Left: 0", Hanging: 0.25" Formatted: Font: (Default) Liberation Serif, Not Italic Formatted: Font color: Auto, Highlight Formatted: Font color: Auto 19 Aesthetic criteria applicable to Small Wireless Facilities: For Collocations that are considered “substantial” under §6409 (FCC Order 2014): a) There shall be no exposed wires. All cables and wires associated with the facility leading to and away from the facility must be fully concealed and the cable covering or conduit shall match the color of the structure on which the facility is located. There shall be no external cables and wires related to the facility hanging off or otherwise exposed. b) Each antenna shall be located within a stealth enclosure that matches the materials, color, and design of the tower on which the antenna is located. c) All equipment enclosures shall be as small as possible and undergrounded when possible. Building-mounted enclosures shall be located within a stealth enclosure that matches the materials, color, and design of the structure on which the enclosure is located. Ground- mounted enclosures shall have appropriate vegetative buffering to buffer the view from neighboring residences, recreation areas and public roads. The Planning Board may require screening adjacent to waterways, landmarks, refuges, community facilities, or conservation or historic areas within common view of the public. Collocations along New York State-designated Scenic Byways or located within an area listed in the Tompkins County or Town of Ithaca Scenic Resources Inventory must be as visually inconspicuous as possible. The views of, and vistas from, such structures, districts, and corridors shall not be impaired or diminished by the placement of wireless facilities. d) There shall be no illumination, except in accord with state or federal regulations. e) No portion of the wireless support structure or its accessory structures shall be used for signs or promotional or advertising purposes, including, but not limited to, company name, phone numbers, banners, streamers, and balloons. f) Access to the facility shall be achieved by using existing public or private roads; no new accessway, driveway or parking area shall be constructed. Equipment or vehicles not used in direct support, renovations, additions, or repair of any wireless facility shall not be stored or parked on the facility site. For Small Wireless Facility Nodes: a) If the node is located within a public ROW, then the preferable placement locations are the same as in the existing law for towers (e.g., most preferred= collocation on existing towers, utility poles or other structures; least preferred= installing all new poles) b) If collocation is not possible, then all new poles and equipment must be the same height, color, and finish as surrounding poles. c) There shall be no exposed wires. All cables and wires associated with the facility leading to and away from the facility shall be installed underground. If undergrounding is not possible, then all cables, wires and connectors must be fully concealed on the wireless support structure and the cable covering or conduit shall match the color of the wireless support structure. There shall be no external cables and wires related to the facility hanging off or otherwise exposed on the wireless support structure. d) Each antenna shall be located entirely within a shroud or canister type enclosure or a stealth facility. The diameter of an antenna enclosure at its widest point should not be wider than two times the diameter of the top of the wireless support structure. e) All antenna enclosures shall either be mounted to the top of the wireless support structure pole and aligned with the centerline of the support structure or mounted to the side of the structure such that the vertical centerline of the antenna enclosure will be parallel with the Formatted: Indent: Left: 0" 20 wireless support structure. Stealth enclosures shall match the architecture, materials, color, and design of the structure on which they are located (e.g., streetlight pole, building rooftop chimney, cupolas, etc.) Photo examples of stealth applications include the following (source: stealthconcealment.com): f) All equipment enclosures shall be as small as possible and undergrounded when possible. Ground-mounted equipment shall incorporate concealment elements into the proposed design, matching the color and materials of the wireless support structure. Concealment may include, but shall not be limited to, landscaping, strategic placement in less obtrusive locations and placement within existing or replacement street furniture (see photo example of stealth pole above). g) Tree “topping”, or the improper pruning of trees is prohibited. Any proposed pruning or removal of trees, shrubs or other landscaping already existing in the right-of-way must be noted in the site plan application and must be approved by the Planning Board. h) There shall be no illumination, except in accord with state or federal regulations, or unless the illumination is integral to the camouflaging strategy (e.g., design intended to look like a streetlight pole). i) Guidelines on placement: node facilities and wireless support structures shall be located: 1. No closer than 1,500 feet away, radially, from another small wireless facility and support structure, unless the telecommunications provider can prove that the facilities need to be closer together to meet a specified legal standard. 2. In alignment with existing trees, utility poles, and streetlights. 3. Equal distance between trees, when possible, with a minimum of 15 feet separation such that no proposed disturbance shall occur within the critical root zone of any tree. 4. So as to be not located along the frontage of any building that is listed on the National or State Register of Historic Places, or has been determined by the Commissioner of the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation to be eligible for listing on the State Register of Historic Places. 5. At least 250 feet [all setbacks TBD] away from a structure that contains a dwelling unit. 6. Facilities along New York State-designated Scenic Byways or located within an area listed in the Tompkins County or Town of Ithaca Scenic Resources Inventory must be as visually inconspicuous as possible. The views of, and vistas from, such structures, districts, and corridors shall not be impaired or diminished by the placement of such facilities. 7. If a streetlight is present, a combination wireless support structure and streetlight pole should only be located where an existing pole can be removed and replaced, or at a location where it has been identified that a streetlight is necessary. j) Internal administrative staff review by Planning staff is permitted only if a node system is located at least 500 feet from a public right-of-way and from the lot line of any adjoining owner. [In light of COC decisions that are reflected in D(2)-(6) above, does COC still want this? If so, j will be moved to D.] 21 (k) No portion of the wireless support structure or its accessory structures shall be used for signs or promotional or advertising purposes, including, but not limited to, company name, phone numbers, banners, streamers, and balloons. For Individual Small Wireless Facility Sites: a) There shall be no exposed wires. All cables and wires associated with the facility leading to and away from the facility shall be installed underground. If undergrounding is not possible, then all cables, wires and connectors must be fully concealed and the cable covering or conduit shall match the color of the structure on which the Small Wireless Facility is located. There shall be no external cables and wires related to the small wireless facility hanging off or otherwise exposed. b) Each small wireless antenna shall be located within a stealth enclosure that matches the architecture, materials, color and design of the structure on which the antenna is located (e.g., streetlight pole, building rooftop chimney, cupola, etc.). Examples of stealth applications include the following. Photo examples of stealth applications include the following (source: stealthconcealment.com): c) All equipment enclosures shall be as small as possible and undergrounded when possible. Building-mounted enclosures shall be located within a stealth enclosure that matches the architecture, materials, color and design of the structure on which the enclosure is located (see photo examples above). Ground-mounted enclosures shall have appropriate vegetative buffering to buffer the view from neighboring residences, recreation areas and public roads. Planning staff may require screening adjacent to waterways, landmarks, refuges, community facilities, or conservation or historic areas within common view of the public. Collocations along New York State-designated Scenic Byways or located within an area listed in the Tompkins County or Town of Ithaca Scenic Resources Inventory must be as visually inconspicuous as possible. The views of, and vistas from, such structures, districts, and corridors shall not be impaired or diminished by the placement of such facilities. d) There shall be no illumination, except in accord with state or federal regulations, or unless the illumination is integral to the camouflaging strategy (e.g., design intended to look like a streetlight pole). e) No Small Wireless Facility shall be located in a historic district that has been listed in the State or National Registers of Historic Places. f) No portion of the wireless support structure or its accessory structures shall be used for signs or promotional or advertising purposes, including, but not limited to, company name, phone numbers, banners, streamers, and balloons. g) Access to the Small Wireless Facility shall be achieved by using existing public or private roads; no new accessway, driveway or parking area shall be constructed. Equipment or vehicles not used in direct support, renovations, additions, or repair of any wireless facility shall not be stored or parked on the facility site. 22 KM. Dimensional standards. (1) A fall zone around any tower constructed as part of a telecommunications non-Small Wireless fFacility must have a radius at least equal to the height of the tower and any attached antennae. The entire fall zone may not include public roads and must be located on property either owned or leased by the applicant or for which the applicant has obtained an easement, and may not, except as set forth below, contain any structure other than those associated with the telecommunications facility. If the fFacility is attached to an existing structure, relief may be granted by specific permission of the Planning Board on a case-by- case basis if it is determined by such Board after submission of competent evidence, that the waiver of this requirement will not endanger the life, health, welfare or property of any person. In granting any such waiver, the Board may impose any conditions reasonably necessary to protect the public or other property from potential injury. [This was written for large towers. Require fall zones only for non-small cell support structures such as poles and towers (not for buildings, water towers, and the like)?] [COC decided at its 8-31-22 meeting to apply fall zone criteria to facilities over 50 feet tall.] (2) All telecommunication non-Small Wireless fFacilities shall be located on a single parcel. [Again, this was written for large towers. Do not apply this to nodes?] [COC decided at its 8-31-22 meeting to apply the single parcel requirement to facilities over 50 feet tall.] (3) All telecommunication Personal Wireless Service fFacilities shall comply with the setback, frontage, minimum lot size, and yard standards of the underlying zoning district and the fall zone requirements of this section. To the extent there is a conflict, the more restrictive provision shall govern. The size of the leased or owned lot, together with any land over which the applicant has obtained an easement, shall be, at a minimum, sufficiently large to include the entire fall zone. All lots leased or owned for the purpose of construction of a tower as part of a telecommunications Personal Wireless Service fFacility shall conform, at a minimum, to the lot size requirements of the underlying zoning district or the size of lot necessary to encompass the entire fall zone (to the extent easements for any part of the fall zone that extends outside the minimum lot size permitted in the zoning district have not been obtained), whichever requirement results in a larger lot. [At its 8/31/22 meeting, COC decided to allow an adjacent lot without any Facilities to provide part of a fall zone. But COC then decided all Facilities must be on a separate lot, so it is not clear whether it still wants to allow an adjacent lot to provide part of a fall zone. Please clarify.] (4) Notwithstanding provisions to the contrary of any other article of this chapter, the front, side, and rear yard requirements of the underlying zoning district in which a telecommunications facility is erected shall apply not only to a tower, but also to all tower parts, including guy wires and anchors, and to any accessory buildings and cabinets. LN. Accessways and parking. [Staff will identify whether this section may be deleted, as most of the provisions are now in the Design standards.] MO. Security. (1) Towers, anchor points of guyed towers, and accessory structures shall each be surrounded by fencing at least eight feet in height, the top foot of which may, at the discretion of the Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, Not Italic Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, Not Italic Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, Not Italic Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, Highlight Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, Highlight Formatted: Font: Not Italic Formatted: Font: 2 pt Formatted: Font: Not Italic Formatted: Font: Not Italic Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, Highlight Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, Highlight Formatted: Font: Not Italic Formatted: Font: Not Italic Formatted: Font: Not Italic Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, Not Italic Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, Not Italic Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, Not Italic 23 Planning Board (where site plan is required) or Director of Planning in deference to the character of the neighborhood, be comprised of three- strands of barbed wire to discourage unauthorized access to the site. The Planning Board (where site plan is required) or Director of Planning may waive the requirement of fencing if, in its /their discretion, it/they determines that other forms of security are adequate, or that, by reason of location or occupancy, security will not be significantly compromised by the omission, or reduction in size, of the otherwise required fencing. [Recommendations from staff: Delete any discretion, either by PB or staff. Just allow the fence provision and that’s it. Perhaps consider repeating buffering language from other areas of the law where landscaping/buffering is required around equipment shelters, etc.] (2) Motion-activated or staff-activated security lighting around the base of a tower or accessory structure entrance may be provided if such lighting does not project off the site and otherwise complies with Town Code Chapter 173 (Lighting, Outdoor). Such lighting should only occur when the area within the fenced perimeters has been entered. (3) There shall be no permanent climbing pegs within 15 feet of the ground of any tower. (4) The Planning Board (where site plan is required) or Director of Planning may require a locked gate at the junction of the accessway and a public thoroughfare may be required to obstruct entry by unauthorized vehicles. Such gate must not protrude into the public right-of- way. [At its 8/31/22 meeting, COC decided to require a locked gate if the accessway is greater than x feet (with staff to recommend the distance). Marty M now recommends deleting subsection (4), as it contradicts NYS Fire Code language and is a typical part of a company's safety feature. COC to discuss this.] NP. Removal. [Chris B is doing more research on this section and may have further recommendations for COC, so no changes made yet to this section.] 1. Bond Requirement: At, or prior to the filing of an Application for a Special Use Permit for the installation of a new Personal Wireless Service Facility, each respective Applicant shall provide a written estimate for the cost of the decommissioning and removal of the Facility, including all equipment that comprises any portion or part of the Facility, compound and/or Complex, as well as any Accessory Facility or Structure, including the cost of the full restoration and reclamation of the site, to the extent practicable, to its condition before development in accord with the decommissioning and reclamation plan required herein. The Planning Board’s engineer shall review this estimate. Upon receiving a special use permit approval from the Planning Board, and a building permit, prior to the commencement of installation and/ or construction of such Facility or any part thereof, the Applicant shall file with the Town a bond for a length of no less than three years in an amount equal to or exceeding the estimate of the cost of removal of the Facility and all associated Structures, fencing, power supply, and other appurtenances connected with the Facility. The bond must be provided within thirty (30) days of the approval date and before any installation or construction begins. Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, Not Italic Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, Not Italic Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, Not Italic Formatted: Font: Not Italic Formatted: Font: Not Italic Formatted: Font: Bold, Not Italic Formatted: Font: Not Italic 24 Replacement bonds must be provided ninety (90) days prior to the expiration of any previous bond. At any time the Town has good cause to question the sufficiency of the bond at the end of any three-year period, the owner and/ or operator of the Facility, upon request by the Town, shall provide an updated estimate and bond in the appropriate amount. Failure to keep the bonds in effect is cause for removal of the Facility at the owner's expense. A separate bond will be required for each Facility, regardless of the number of owners or the location. 2. Removal of Abandoned FacilitiesAny Personal Wireless Service Facility that is not operated or used for a continuous period of twelve (12) consecutive months shall be considered abandoned. At the owner's expense, the owner of said Facility shall be required to remove the Facility and all associated equipment buildings, power supply, fence, and other items associated with such Facility, compound and/ or Complex, and permitted with, the Facility. If the Facility is not removed within ninety (90) days, the bond secured by the Tower owner shall be used to remove the Facility and any Accessory Equipment and Structures. [More provisions to come] For 11/02/22 COC meeting: Planning staff-suggested language, after comparing 270-219.H, I, J with recently drafted (2020) aesthetic requirements for small facilities. 1 Aesthetic criteria applicable to Non-Small Cell Wireless Facilities (Reminder for COC – These are not collocations on existing facilities. They are facilities that are constructed to be taller than 50ft, with larger antennas and equipment that cannot be undergrounded –think: typical towers with equipment shelters and fenced- in, gated areas) 1. The facility shall have the least practical visual effect on the environment, as determined by the Planning Board. 2. There shall be no exposed wires. All cables and wires associated with the facility leading to and away from the facility must be fully concealed and the cable covering, or conduit shall match the color of the structure on which the facility is located. There shall be no external cables and wires related to the facility hanging off or otherwise exposed. 3. There shall be no illumination, except in accord with state or federal regulations. Towers shall not be artificially lighted and marked beyond the requirements of the FAA. Motion- activated or staff-activated security lighting around the base of a facility or accessory structure entrance may be provided if such lighting complies with Town Code Chapter 173 (Lighting, Outdoor). Such lighting should only occur when the area around the tower has been entered. 4. Notwithstanding the preceding subsection, an applicant may be compelled to add FAA- style lighting and marking, if in the judgment of the Planning Board, such a requirement would be of direct benefit to public safety and would not unduly adversely affect residents of any surrounding property. 5. Any tower that is not subject to FAA marking as set forth above shall otherwise have a galvanized finish or shall be painted gray above the surrounding tree line and gray or green below the tree line, as deemed appropriate by the Planning Board, or be disguised or camouflaged to blend in with the surroundings, to the extent that such alteration does not impair the ability of the facility to perform its designed function. 6. Accessory structures shall maximize the use of building materials, colors, and textures designed to blend in with the natural surroundings. Ground-mounted enclosures and fences shall have appropriate vegetative buffering to buffer the view from neighboring residences, recreation areas and public roads. The Planning Board may require screening adjacent to waterways, landmarks, parkland, community facilities, or conservation or historic areas within common view of the public. 7. No portion of the wireless support structure or its accessory structures shall be used for signs or promotional or advertising purposes, including, but not limited to, company name, phone numbers, banners, streamers, and balloons. 8. Existing on-site vegetation shall be preserved the maximum extent possible. Tree “topping,” or the improper pruning of trees is prohibited. There shall be no cutting of trees exceeding four inches in diameter (measured at a height of four feet off the ground) in connection with the proposed facility prior to the granting of site plan approval. Any For 11/02/22 COC meeting: Planning staff-suggested language, after comparing 270-219.H, I, J with recently drafted (2020) aesthetic requirements for small facilities. 2 proposed pruning or removal of trees, shrubs or other existing landscaping must be noted in the site plan application and must be approved by the Planning Board. 9. Equipment or vehicles not used in direct support, renovations, additions, or repair of any wireless facility shall not be stored or parked on the facility site. 10. Where permitted, accessways shall make maximum use of existing public or private roads to the extent practicable. New accessways constructed solely for telecommunication facilities must be at least twelve, but no more than twenty-four feet wide, and closely follow natural contours to assure minimal visual disturbance and reduce soil erosion potential. 11. Where permitted, parking areas shall be sufficient to accommodate the usual number of service vehicles expected on the premises at any one time. Driveways or parking areas shall provide adequate interior turnaround, such that service vehicles will not have to back out onto a public thoroughfare.