Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutALL Verizon comments for 1.7.25 PB Meeting From: Mary Alm Sent: Friday,January 3, 2025 10:48 AM To: Town Of Ithaca Planning Subject: cell tower decisions Dear Planning Board members, I understand there is a request for a re-vote concerning a proposed large cell tower installation in Ithaca. I also understand that some information on detrimental effects of cell phone technology has also been sent to you. I'm requesting that these be taken with the upmost seriousness due to the size of the impact these decision have. Appreciatively, Mary Alm From: Irina Peress Sent: Friday,January 3, 2025 9:40 AM To: Town Of Ithaca Planning Subject: For Planning Board: Re-Vote on Wiedmeier Court proposed tower Dear Planning Board Members, I am writing to urge you to re-vote on the Wiedmeier Court proposed Verizon cell tower. The planning board process that took place prior to the vote so far does not seem ethical or appropriate and violates the Town's code for proposed cell towers. It also sets a bad precedent for industry to force dozens of future towers into our town. As a Town of Ithaca homeowner, I value the unspoiled natural beauty of our town, and it is heartbreaking to see it destroyed by unnecessary industry like cell towers. The site that would need to be cleared for a tower would destroy habitat for wildlife and destroy trees. If small cells can fill any gap in service, that would be less destructive to our area. Cell tower radiation kills birds, bees, and trees, and wireless radiation is also harmful for human health as evidenced by thousands of peer-reviewed studies. Use your role in public office for the greater good and leave a record you can be proud of by revoting on this extremely important issue. Sincerely, Irina Peress From: marieuhx@twcny.rr.com Sent: Monday, December 30, 2024 10:34 AM To: Town Of Ithaca Planning Subject: proposed radio tower at Burns Rd and Rte 79 T-TIMMIXIMMUM Dear Planning Board Members, It has come to my attention that large radio tower is being considered for placement in the area of Burns Road and Route 79 in the Town of Ithaca. This is a request for you to reconsider your plans and NOT ALLOW placement there. From my perspective this area is dead center of ecologically valuable land and waters worthy of protection from such an intrusion. Thank you for this consideration. Mary S. Eldridge Mrs. F.L. Eldridge ( TNC Eldridge Wilderness) From: Jill Ullian/ Dennis Anello Sent: Thursday,January 2, 2025 11:55 AM To: Town Of Ithaca Planning Subject: Verizon's application for a large cell tower at Wiedmeier Court Dear Planning Board members, At the last Planning Board meeting the Board approved Verizon's application for installing a large cell tower at Wiedmeier Court. I believe this approval was based on erroneous information, and request that this Verizon application be re-voted on, with the erroneous information corrected. It is my understanding that Ithaca codes require proof that their 138' tower is the least intrusive means to fill the gap in service coverage. Verizon claims that it is the least intrusive means to fill the gap. This despite independent consultants attesting that small cell antennas would be able to provide viable solutions to filling the gap. It is Verizon's burden to demonstrate that this large scale cell tower is in fact the "least intrusive means of filling the gap" by providing credible proof that small cell antennas could not viably fill the gap. I am therefore requesting that the board re-vote on this issue, and deny Verizon's application, since they have not met Ithaca codes at this time. I ask that the Board members re-read the 2 articles I submitted earlier (copied below) before making any final decision. As I stated in my earlier email to the Board, though I do not live in the vicinity of the new proposed Verizon tower, I do live in the Town of Ithaca, and am concerned about my neighbors' being exposed to unnecessary levels radio frequency radiation. Sincerely, Dennis Anello Former Physics Teacher (high school), Former Adjunct Faculty, Physics & Math (Springfield Technical Community College) Ithaca On 9/30/2024 2:43 PM, Jill Ullian / Dennis Anello wrote: Re: Verizon's application to place a new large tower in the Town of Ithaca at 79 and Burns Road Hello, Though I do not live in the vicinity of the new proposed Verizon tower, I do live in the Town of Ithaca, and am concerned about my neighbors' health and safety. Please see the below 2 resources, which I believe give reason for prudent caution on the addition of this new large tower. I am a former physics teacher, and I would like to ask that you read these resources, and that they be included in the information you make available to the public. 1. WITH GOOD REASON radio program interview with Deborah O'Dell, professor of biology at the University of Mary Washington: "Does the radiation emitted by our cell phones harm us?" https://www.withgood reason radio.org/episode/do-cell-phones- cause-cancer-2/ Does the radiation emitted by our cell phones harm us? Professor Deborah O'Dell recently finished a study that found cell phone radiation can cause changes to our cells. 2. Article from The Nation magazine: How Big Wireless Made Us Think That Cell Phones Are Safe: A Special Investigation The disinformation campaign—and massive radiation increase— behind the 5G and cell tower rollouts. https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/how-big-wireless-made- us-think-that-cell-phones-are-safe-a-special-investigation/ I am requesting that Verizon's application to place a new large tower in the Town of Ithaca at 79 and Burns Road be denied. Thanks for your work on this issue. Dennis Anello Former Physics Teacher (high school), Former Adjunct Faculty, Physics & Math (Springfield Technical Community College) Ithaca From: Ithacans For Responsible Technology Sent: Monday,January 6, 2025 11:04 AM To: Town Of Ithaca Planning Subject: Public petition for the Town Planning Board T-TIM51161MMUM Ithaca Town Planning Board members, We the undersigned 115 concerned citizens of Ithaca are urging you to re-vote and deny the Wiedmeier Court cell tower application before the Zoning Board's January 28 meeting. At the November 19 Planning Board meeting, the Board members were given incorrect information that denying the cell tower would be 'effective prohibition' when in fact, Verizon had not shown any proof, as our codes require, that their 138' tower is the least intrusive means to fill the gap in service coverage. In fact, this large, obtrusive monopole is likely not the least intrusive means of filling this gap in service when there is the option of small cell antennas, which are viable solutions as attested to by independent consultants. Verizon "respectfully disagreed", referring to their 'evidence' in Exhibit GG, which was simply conclusory statements that small cells were not viable to achieve "the necessary coverage goals sought by VZW" (not for remedying the gap). Tellingly, neither Verizon employees ever explicitly said that small cells could not remedy the gap in service. Thus, it was highly misleading for Verizon to claim that denying their tower would constitute effective prohibition, given that they never showed proof that small cells couldn't remedy the gap. Given what we heard at the meeting, we are concerned that Board members' decision to approve was based on this false knowledge, especially since a majority of the Board said they were going to deny the tower before Verizon's statement about effective prohibition. It seemed like some Board members felt that it was a done deal and that they couldn't deny the application. Ultimately, it is the Planning Board's responsibility to ensure that due diligence and adequate proof has been shown for a tower that will negatively affect countless Ithacans. Additionally, a re-vote would ameliorate what seemed like an unprofessional and biased process. In the meeting, a straw poll indicated a majority of the Board was in favor of denying the tower, but then the Board inexplicably changed from working off the 'denial' resolution to working off the `approval' resolution. Board member Cindy Kaufman even questioned this saying, "I don't understand why we're reviewing the approval [resolution]." She was ignored. Unfortunately, it seemed that Chairperson Fred Wilcox's words/actions were biased in favor of approving the resolution, for example when he said, "I'm concerned right now that members of this board are trying to find reasons to say no when the answer is YES." This behavior is unethical and an embarrassment to our town. Therefore, we ask the Planning Board to right this error, re-vote, and deny the cell tower. SIGNED: Andrew Molnar Natalie Lester Jeff Zorn Marie Molnar Cara Robertus Madeline McCann Dennis Anello Jill Ullian Lisa Bertuzzi Jill Kellner Mary Murphy Sherri Bennette Brittany D Johnson Lisa Robinow Jennifer Heatley Eamonn Murphy Amanda Moretti William Gauger Pam Millar Leeny Sack Mary Archin Louise Mygatt Josie Judge Emma Peila Ashley Schiller Natasha Keller Caroline Ashurst Wendy Ives Anna Sidor Jessie Vassallo Bob Babjak Dara Riegel Rigel Bissonette Barbara Harrison Molly Donovan Sujata Gibson Lillian Tomik Tom Clausen Florinda Larkin Mary Alm Barbara Appel Vanessa Wood Henry Fitzgerald Alex Kowtun Molly Kornblum Dakota River I. Peress Judith Jones Isabel Rachlin Helena Cooper Lori Yelensky Adam Monzella Deborah Loewe Kelly Hook Joan Jedele Daryl Mclain Pat Shea Kaori Teramura Judith Barker Rebecca Sydney Angelo Abdalla Melissa Jackson Dianne Ferriss Florian Chaubet Amala Lane Jerone Gagliano Emmett G. James Riegel Jessica Lindsay Rhiannon Cobb Krisra Bellavigna Kelsey Hicks Nellie Wallace Colleen Cole Valletta Megan Allen Melissa Heslop Sara Garner Courtney Sullivan Kyra Coleman Christina Haltom Kalleen Grey Patricia Keen Alison Gelsleichter Alisa Shargorodsky Andrea Davis Amy Wiiki KJ Jin Jennifer Oursler Kristine Wills Kate Nicholson Suzanne Beltz Yuliya Kim Katherine Hayes Helena Prieto Sarah Bannister Rachael Tissot Karlem Sivira Gimenez Kenzey Simon Crystal Keller Justin Hicks Dani Ferriss Elizabeth Mcever Marion Gunderson Bethany LeBlanc Virginia Smithson Damaris Vazquez Abigail Sisson Anne Schneider Daniel Seib Shula Stern Francine Rivera Reynolds Kaide Magee Jennifer Whitaker Heather Fowler Aaron Rakow The original petition may be viewed at: https://www.change_orgip/please-re-vote-on-the-cell-tower From: Daniel Seib Sent: Monday,January 6, 2025 7:46 AM To: Town Of Ithaca Planning Subject: Re-Vote on Verizon Cell Tower on Wiedmaier Ct. • IQUIlIL91 • • - • Dear Planning Board Members, I am writing to add my voice to those asking for a re-vote on the Planning Board's decision to allow Verizon's cell tower on Wiedmaier Ct. I think the previous vote was unduly influenced by Fred Wilcox as there was enough information in the SEQR application to deny this project. I ask you to please bring this issue up for a re-vote given the strong public outcry and the irregularities of the first vote. Thank you, Daniel Seib 1581. Slaterville Road From: Caroline Ashurst Sent: Sunday,January 5, 2025 6:43 PM To: Town Of Ithaca Planning Cc: Codes;Town Of Ithaca Clerks Department; CJ Randall; Chris Balestra; Marty Moseley; Rich Depaolo; Rod Howe Subject: Dear Planning Board Members (CC:Town Board, Zoning Board) R-TIMORUMMY01 Dear Planning Board Members: [NOTE: Please make sure this email is sent to all the planning board members as we recently were told that in order for them to receive these emails and have them in the official register, we have to specifically request that by addressing them directly. Here is my specific request in writing to assure their receipt and documentation in the Wiedmaier/Verizon docs. Thank you.] I am writing today to request the board to re-vote and reject the Wiedmeier Court cell tower application before the Zoning Board's January 28 meeting. At the November 19 Planning Board meeting, the board members were misled into believing that denying the tower would be an "effective prohibition." However, Verizon failed to prove, as required by code, that their 138' monopole is the least intrusive way to address the service gap. The town's independent consultant confirmed that smaller, less obtrusive solutions, such as small cell antennas, are viable alternatives—something Verizon never - actually- disproved in their burden of proof. Instead, they relied on vague claims without solid evidence, misleading the Board into approving the application. We are deeply concerned that the Board's decision was based on this misinformation, especially since a majority initially supported denying the tower before Verizon's misleading statements. It appeared some members felt pressured into approval rather than exercising their authority to deny. Additionally, I would like to point out that the town lawyer seems to deny this claim. She mentioned at the zoning board meeting that the residents here at that meeting overreacted to what occurred at that planning board meeting in question- which is plainly untrue and concerning. Why is the public's experience of this meeting being gaslit? We have the right to voice our observations of this process and the events of the meetings. Let it be known that the town lawyer is essentially claiming that a group of people who all experienced the same thing in that room/on that zoom are all exaggerating/misinterpreting the situation. Please do not further gaslight this community. We will not have it. The voting process seemed biased and unprofessional. A straw poll initially favored denial, yet the Board suddenly shifted focus to an approval resolution. Chairperson Fred Wilcox's comments, such as accusing members of "trying to find reasons to say no when you should be saying yes," revealed a troubling bias toward approval. This behavior undermines public trust. The town lawyer downplaying this whole incident is disturbing and we will not stay quiet about it. At timestamp 1:33 on 11/19's meeting, this is what was said: "I'm concerned right now that members of this board are trying to find reasons to say no when the answer is yes. And that concerns me. People are struggling right now to figure "how can i say no and get away with it". (Fred Wilcox) Fred then asked "Can a cell phone tower EVER be unobtrusive?" Caitlin said "Yes" and Fred started laughing when she was answering. Don't you find this concerning? I sure do. (Also, side note: why are there no meeting minutes available for that meeting on 11/19 available on the town website?) Here's something else that's alarming that I'm only sharing now as well: That day at that meeting on 11/19, one of the male members of the board came over to our group and started chatting with us. He encouraged us to contact the town papers, etc, to share our concerns. It was odd, and also gave us hope that he supported our case. We then asked him how he was voting. Do you want to know what he said? He said he was: "against it but I'll probably just vote for it because it's going to pass anyway." He told this to my face. What kind of attitude is that to have on the planning board? This man who is supposed to represent the community just admitted he caved into some agenda he was already aware of---and TOLD me? Unbelievable. At this point, for all of these reasons, we ask the Planning Board to correct this error, conduct a re-vote, and deny the cell tower application. You are in a position where you have to regain the public's trust because it has eroded significantly in this whole fiasco. EVERY MEMBER OF YOUR BOARD DESERVES THE RIGHT TO VOTE IN A WAY THAT REFLECTS THEIR TRUTH WITHOUT BEING BULLIED INTO THEIR DECISION. We are grateful for every one of you who tried to follow your truth and the values that guide our community here. You are on that board because you don't want to greenwash these agendas, and WE ARE GRATEFUL FOR YOU. RE-VOTE RE-VOTE RE-VOTE NOW. With Gratitude, Caroline Grace Ashurst, L.Ac., M.Ac. www.carolineashurst.com @restorativeharmony The Fertility Formula Functional Fertility Coaching + Restorative Harmony Acupuncture 20221202012019 Philadelphia Family LOVE Award Best Acupuncture in Philadelphia! *******©2024 Restorative Harmony Acupuncture, LLC. All rights reserved. This document is for educational and informational purposes only and solely as a self-help tool for your own use. I am not providing medical, psychological, or nutrition therapy advice. You should not use this information to diagnose or treat any health problems or illnesses without consulting your own medical practitioner. Always seek the advice of your own medical practitioner and/or mental health provider about your specific health situation. For my full Disclaimer, please go to https://www.restorativeharmony.com/legal- disclaimers From: Jerone Gagliano Sent: Sunday,January 5, 2025 11:22 AM To: Town Of Ithaca Planning Subject: Request Revote for Verizon's Large Cell Tower • • - • . Dear Planning Board Members, This message is for the upcoming Board meeting this week. I have watched and commented on the previous Planning Board meetings about the proposed large cell tower at Wiedmeier Court. I respectfully ask that the Planning Board do a re-vote on this application for the following reasons. Watching the meeting in Dec made it apparent that proper process was not being followed and it appears that the Board made their decision based on Verizon's misleading and false claim that denying this large tower would be an effective prohibition. Since it is very likely that smaller cell antennas would fill the gap in call coverage and be less intrusive and Verizon did not show proof that small cells couldn't remedy this gap, they did not meet our Code requirement of least intrusive means, and therefore, a denial of their application is NOT an effective prohibition. Additionally, I can only guess that the Board's decision was also influenced by the misleading statements from the supposedly independent RF consultant William Johnson. He appears to be biased toward Verizon with previous connections to the telecom industry. Lastly, I ask that Chairperson Fred Wilcox recuse himself from a re-vote given the blatant bias and unethical behavior he showed during that meeting in favor of approving the application. He ignored the proper procedure to work off the denial resolution given that the majority of the members wanted to deny the application, and ignored the board member who questioned this. He appeared to manipulate the process and pressure members to say why they were voting against it. Thank you, Jerone Jerone Gagliano PE, CEM