HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2024-10-29TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
Shirley A. Raffensperger Board Room,Town Hall
215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca,New York 14850
Tuesday, October 29,2024 6:30 P.M.
Members of the public are welcome to attend in-person at Town Hall or virtually via Zoom. The public will have
an opportunity to see and hear the meeting live and provide comments in-person or through Zoom (by raising
hand icon) at httys://usO6web.zoom.us/i/83643764382.
If the public would like to attend the meeting for viewing purposes only,it is recommended to watch the livestream
video on YouTube(httys://www.youtube.com/channel/UCC9vvcXkJ6klVlibihCv7NO/live).
AGENDA
1.SEQR Determination: Personal Wireless Service Facility(Tower)— 111 Wiedmaier Court.
2.PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for a
personal wireless service facility located at I I I Wiedmaier Court, off Slaterville Road/NYS Route 79.The
proposal involves the construction of a 138' +/-monopole tower with 9 antennas,two equipment cabinets, a
generator, and other equipment within a 50' x 50'+/-chain link fenced area. The project is an Unlisted Action
under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review. S. Roberts WC Land,
LLC, Owner; Verizon Wireless,Applicant; Jared C. Lusk,Nixon Peabody, LLP,Agent.
3.SEQR Determination: Maplewood Phase II Project—Maple Avenue.
4.PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Recommendation to the Town Board Regarding Proposed Rezoning for
the Maplewood Phase II Project on Maple Avenue, located between the Maplewood Graduate Student Apartment
complex and the East Lawn Cemetery. The project,which requires a rezoning from Multiple Residence and High-
Density Residential Zones to a Planned Development Zone (PDZ),involves consolidating four parcels and
constructing six(6)five-story apartment buildings,containing 615 units/800 beds in studio,one bedroom,and
two-bedroom unit configurations. The project will also include integrated amenity/service spaces,parking areas,
trails and pedestrian facilities,open spaces, stormwater facilities,and other site improvements. The project is a
Type I Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review. Cornell
University, Owner/Applicant;Michele Palmer,Whitham Planning,Design,Landscape Architecture,PLLC,
Agent.
5.Persons to be heard.
6.Approval of Minutes.
7.Other Business.
8.Adjournment.
C.J. Randall
Director of Planning
607-273-1747
NOTE:IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND,PLEASE NOTIFY
CMUSTINE BALESTRA AT 607-273-1747 or CBALESTRA(&,,TOWNITHACANY.GOV.
A quorum of four(4)members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.)
Accessing Meeting Materials Online
Site Plan and Subdivision applications and associated project materials are accessible electronically on the Town's website at
https://townithacany.gov/meeting-calendar-agendas/under the calendar meeting date.
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
October 29, 2024
The full recording of this meeting is available on the Town's YouTubLiveMeetings page.
Minutes
Present: Caitlin Cameron, Vice Chair; Cindy Kaufman, Sara Reynolds, Liz Bageant, Bill Arms,
Gary Stewart(Out 8:00pm) and Kelda McGurk Absent: Fred Wilcox, Chair
CJ Randall, Director and Christine Balestra, Senior Planner, Planning; Guy Krogh, Attorney for
the Town; David O'Shea, Director of Engineering; Justin McNeal, Civil Engineer; Dana
Magnuson, Senior Code Officer; and Ashley Colbert, Deputy Town Clerk
Written comments submitted at the meeting or after posting of the official mailout packet and 24
hours after the meeting can be found in the updated packet online and will be filed permanently
with the project folder along with any other comments received after the post meeting deadline.)
Ms. Cameron opened the meeting at 6:30p.m.
Item 1 Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for
a personal wireless service facility located at III Wiedmaier Court, off Slaterville
Road/NYS Route 79. The proposal involves the construction of a 138' +/- monopole tower with
9 antennas, two equipment cabinets, a generator, and other equipment within a 50' x 50' +/- chain
link fenced area. The project is an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality
Review Act and is subject to environmental review. S. Roberts WC Land, LLC, Owner; Verizon
Wireless, Applicant; Jared C. Lusk,Nixon Peabody, LLP,Agent.
OVERVIEW
Ms. Cameron noted that at the last meeting,the Board had a number of questions and
recommendations for the applicants, including topics such as visual screening and landscaping
and whether the level of service could be provided by multiple shorter towers or towers at other
locations. Some materials have been submitted by the applicant and are in the packet, which is
available to the public via the town's website.
Jared Lusk,Applicant's Agent
Mr. Lusk showed a revised landscaping plan. He stated that they went back to the landscape
engineers and asked them to develop a plan taking in the restrictions of the boundaries of the
restricted area that Verizon cannot do anything in. (Drawing c-lb)
The revised plan now shows four spruce trees at the boundary line as the driveway widens, as
well as some berry shrubs and similar smaller plantings. He added that they are open to specific
requests from staff or the Board on native species to use.
He then stated that they are also proposing privacy slats in the fencing. These are plastic slats
PB 2024-10-29 (Filed 02/21/2025) Pg. 1
that are threaded through the fencing that will block the view of the low-level equipment.
Mr. Lusk turned to the requested analysis of alternate locations and/or sizes of tower(s).
He said that Verizon's Rf engineer,Mr. Shariff, was in person and available for questions, but
the letter that was provided speaks to this.
At the last meeting, we spoke about the evaluation of placing a tower across the street, and the
elevation levels that make those not productive.
The option of smaller cells was brought up. This is a rural area, and small cells are appropriate as
a secondary tool of providing service,but you cannot build enough small cells in a large
coverage area. Small cells have a short coverage area, approximately 5' feet. They really are
only appropriate in urban areas.
Mr. Lusk added that they provided some law on the topic and there was also a comment about
Starlink and other possibilities that Verizon does not operate. Verizon has an FCC license for this
area and is responsible for providing coverage for our users.
There are other technologies we have for dense buildings such as hospitals and dense population
areas such as shopping plazas where high demand usage may occur, but those technologies do
not work in rural settings and residential areas that are spaced out.
Mr. Lusk stated that they have received the revised Consultant's Report from Professor Johnson
and have submitted their response. Mr. Johnson described three findings in his letter.
The first was that a compelling need has been demonstrated. He had one question in the
compelling need section, and that was whether or not the dropped call data provided was for
voice calls only or included data drops.
We confirmed that the data was for dropped voice calls. No ambiguity.
Secondly, the question was about a significant gap being present. Mr. Lusk said he read
Professor Johnson's comments related to significant gap at least 25 times and is still confused,
but what he thought the Professor was saying was that because Verizon showed a Neg 105
coverage in Exhibit H,then based upon his review of the Town of Ithaca Code, that did not show
that there was a significant gap.
Mr. Lusk said he thought that was a very narrow reading of the applicable law. It is pretty clear
that case law does show and has upheld that if you can demonstrate two things (1)that you have
a dropped volume percentage above 2%, and we have shown a 12% dropped call volume, and (2)
that if you can show that there is insufficient coverage for in-building service that along with
showing a lack of midband coverage or other coverage, is enough to show a significant gap
exists. Mr. Lusk stated that the Courts have determined and upheld that a dropped call rate in
excess of 2% alone is enough to prove a significant gap.
PB 2024-10-29 (Filed 02/21/2025) Pg. 2
Mr. Lusk also stated that Table HHI shows the coverage rates. In this rural area,there is a span
of Neg 85 to Neg 105. Neg 105 would allow you to make a call on the side of the road,but not
inside a house or a car.
So again, based on the case law of January 2024, the Court recognized that if there is not
sufficient in-building coverage, which we have shown, there is a significant gap.
DISCUSSION
Ms. Cameron noted that comments received by the public up until 3pm today are on the Board's
computers and available to the public online.
Ms. Balestra added that Professor Johnson is available on ZOOM tonight.
Professor Johnson stated that Mr. Lusk has correctly interpreted his report. Verizon operates on
multiple frequency bands and one of the points in the Town's law is that a significant gap cannot
be show by referring to a preferred frequency band. They have coverage at 700 MHz or low band
and as Mr. Lusk explained, that it is the outdoor coverage for part of the target improvement
area, and its indoor coverage lacking for a significant part of that targeted improvement area that
is the significant gap.
He said that Mr. Lusk makes some good points, and if the Board agrees with his points that
outdoor coverage is not sufficient to conduct their services, then the Board should consider that
particular point.
Professor Johnson noted that currently voice communication telephone calls and digital data
browsing the Internet, getting information from apps on your smartphones for example, while
you are in mobile mode, all of that is digital data. There is no engineering distinction between the
type of information which is transmitted to and from the phone. It just so happens that some of
that is for voice calls.
Ms. Bageant asked what Mr. Krogh's (Attorney for the Town) interpretation and perspective on
the case law that was cited by Mr. Lusk.
Mr. Krogh replied that to an extent what federal circuits rules you want to apply you would get
many definitions of significance as you would want to consider. The question being the
significant gap in this circuit for that town the courts have identified a number of different ways
by which a gap is significant or can be identified as by its frequency penetration, shading and
signal drop off, degradation of signal power as it tries to penetrate trees, other geological features
or buildings, and it can also be measured by dropped call data. He also pointed out that phones
do not distinguish between data. Some may come through text messages, calls, data or streaming.
Whenever there are multiple factors pointing to a significant gap in coverage, for example signal
degradation, lost calls, or weak signal you can look at maps or other tools to determine whether
or not that loss of signal is significant.
Ms. Cameron wanted to know from the applicant what collocation options were explored to
PB 2024-10-29 (Filed 02/21/2025) Pg. 3
cover the gap and why they wouldn't work. Mr. Lusk responded that routinely Verizon will seek
collocation opportunities, due to being cheaper and codes being more relaxed. Mr. Morgan from
Verizon's real estate team completed the analysis on potential collocation and commented that in
that area there are no tall structures that are co-locatable in and around the search area, which can
be seen in exhibit H.
The Board discussed the aesthetic impact of the proposed tower and whether it is a significant
impact. One of the board members asked what the definition of a Conservation Zone was
regarding aesthetics, or if it more had to do with a unique nature zone.
Ms. Balestra responded that when the town zones a parcel as conservation it takes a lot of
research and a lot of time. The areas are walked and are looked at for various kinds of
environmental constraints, not simply for aesthetic reasons.
Public Comments
The Board chose to open this agenda item for public comments, although the legally required
public hearing is held after the consideration of SEQR.
Jenn from Danby: She was concerned that the residents living within 500 feet of the project were
not notified. She was also concerned on the restriction of health and safety comments are a red
flag and that the cell tower puts corporate interests over the health and safety risks.
Andrew Molnar: He wanted to inform the board that a previous point that was made was about
relieving the capacity of other towers and that whether or not it's true, it is legally irrelevant to
this case. His other comment about the SEQR is about the adverse impacts on trees, vegetation
and wildlife and that many studies have found even low intensities of cell radiation can cause
impacts on orientation, migration, reproduction, mating, nesting/den building and rates of
survival.
Robert Berg the Attorney for Ithacans for Responsible Technology: He had concerns regarding
the SEQR and that the Town's Conservation Committee had recommended strongly against
putting a tower at this location. He also has concerns as it is in the watershed for the reservoir,
along with increases in land erosion. He also commented that the Board should take into greater
account the visual impact and the consequences on the surrounding residences.
Natalie Lester: She would like the Board to consider the ethical implications, with the impacts on
lives,the environment,plants, and animals. She also addressed her concerns with health impacts
in relation to living close to a cell tower. She also finds it a red flag that the health dimension is
not being talked about.
Jerone Gagliano: He commented on the reasons he's opposed to the installation of the tower due
to the adverse effect it will have on the beauty of the area. That the Conservation Board does not
recommend approving the permit and that the tower would be over three times the height
limitations of the Town Code. He also mentioned that the collocation will cause even more
visual disturbance. He also had concerns about the tower reducing property values. He also
PB 2024-10-29 (Filed 02/21/2025) Pg. 4
commented that the applicant has sufficiently proven that there is significant gap coverage
according to the Town's wireless codes.
Marilee Murphy: She has concerns about the neighborhood being a recreation zone and a
conservation area and that it should be protected. She also had concern that the Board has not
considered whether the proposed site is the least intrusive location for the tower to go.
Eve Florini: She wanted the DEC's restrictive covenants, which are preventing Verizon from
planting more trees,to be posted for the public to see.
Dara Riegel: She would like it to be considered what it would mean for the owner of the
development and the residents that live there as well as potential for future residents. There was
also concern about the fact that the conservationists that came out to look at the property were
adamant that a tower would not be an appropriate use for that area.
Stephanie Cresting spoke briefly of the issue that prior owners had created and her concern with
making it worse with the tower. Even though she has heard that location referred to as just a
field, it is still an important part of the ecosystem. She also commented that she has Verizon and
has not experienced a problem with cellular data and doesn't find this an effective use of the
land.
Robert Babjack shared concerns that the Town Codes are not being followed and that the health
concerns with RF Radiation cannot be considered. He also brought up the height variance that
would be needed for the tower and that the height requirements for the tower are higher than the
trees and would be a view disturbance.
Daniel Sieb spoke on the views coming into Ithaca and that the tower would have an adverse
effect on that. He also shared his concerns with not a lot of people who know about the proposed
tower and that they will have to live with it if it goes up, along with concerns that once the tower
goes up there won't be anything in the future stopping it from getting larger. He also said that he
has Verizon and doesn't have problems with service.
Sujata Gibson spoke on wanting to preserve the area and the tower would destroy the character
of the area and would be hugely disruptive. She also commented that no one has asked for the
tower, wants the tower or is significantly needed and is considered more significant than their
concerns and the concerns for wildlife.
Sam spoke on concerns with how much information was submitted pertaining to how the
residents felt about the coverage. Many people living close to the site have had no issues with
service.
Gary Kohlenberg spoke about concerns with aesthetics, but more so with the scenic view of the
area. He also mentioned the various species of birds he has seen in the area and his concern
about bird strikes that could be associated with a tower especially with bad weather.
Britton spoke on outdated FCC regulations and sited a court case on the FCC failing to produce
PB 2024-10-29 (Filed 02/21/2025) Pg. 5
data concerning health effects and environmental effects. She also mentioned a textbook from
2023 containing studies on the impact of wireless service facilities. She also had concerns with a
140-foot tower being the least intrusive and that small cells should be used and why this location
was picked.
A Town resident spoke about the seriousness of putting up another cell tower and the impact it
will have on generations to come. She also had concerns that the Town is being passive and
allowing a company that does not care about the people, come in and make decisions.
Questions answered:
Notification of the project was sent to property owners whose properties are within 500 feet of
said project. Ms. Randall listed the addresses which were notified.
The tower itself will not be lit, but the equipment below will be.
The question of bird strike has not been covered yet. Jared Lusk,the applicant, was unaware of
any studies that have determined that unlit cell towers has had any impact on bird strikes. Ms.
Balestra commented on the bird strike question, that with previous cell tower projects they had
looked at the US Fish and Wildlife Service's databases and had found that most of the bird
strikes seemed to happen with the guyed wire style cell towers,very tall (350 ft and over) cell
towers, and especially the ones that are lit with non-flashing lights.
The Board made corrections to the FEAF for the project, specifically the FEAF Part 2 and item F
on the FEAF to check off that it is an inconsistency with the character of the existing natural
landscape.
SEQR DETERMINATION
PB RESOLUTION 2024-021:SEQR
Verizon Wireless Personal Wireless Service Facility
III Wiedmaier Court
Tax Parcel No. 56.4-1.22
WHEREAS:
1. This action is Consideration of Preliminary&Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for a
personal wireless service facility located at I I I Wiedmaier Court, off Slaterville Road/NYS Route
79. The proposal involves the construction of a 138'+/-monopole tower with nine antennas,two
equipment cabinets,a generator,and other equipment within a 50' x 50' +/-chain link fenced area. S.
Roberts WC Land, LLC,Owner; Verizon Wireless,Applicant;Jared C. Lusk,Nixon Peabody,LLP,
Agent; and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting in an uncoordinated
environmental review with respect to the Verizon Wireless Personal Wireless Service Facility
proposal; and
PB 2024-10-29 (Filed 02/21/2025) Pg. 6
3. The Planning Board,on October 29,2024,has reviewed and accepted as adequate a completed Full
Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 1, submitted and prepared by the applicant; FEAF
Parts 2 and 3,prepared by Town Planning staff, application materials dated November 13,3023, and
May 29,2024,including Exhibits A-Y; additional application materials dated August 7,2024,
including Exhibits Z-EE; additional application materials dated October 22,2024,including Exhibits
FF and GG and revised drawings titled"Bell Atlantic Mobile Systems LLC d/b/a Verizon, Site
Name: Sunny View WBS#: VZ-00049818.C.9341,MDG#: 50000072226,"with sheets T-1,AD-1,
SB-I, C-IA, C-113,C-2, C-3, C-4A, C-413,C-5, and ECS-1 through ESC-7,prepared by Tectonic,
dated 02/16/24 and revised 10/21/24; consultant report prepared by William P. Johnson and Steven
Ciccarelli,dated September 20,2024,and revised October 21,2024; and other plans and materials;
and
4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance
with respect to the proposed Verizon Wireless Personal Wireless Service Facility project;
NOW,THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental
significance in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617
New York State Environmental Quality Review for the above referenced action as proposed,based on the
information in the FEAF Part I and for the reasons set forth in the FEAF Parts 2 and 3, and,therefore,an
Environmental Impact Statement will not be required.
Moved: Bill Arms Seconded: Liz Bageant
Vote: Ayes-Cameron,Arms,Reynolds and Bageant
Nays-McGurk and Kaufman
PRELINIINARY AND FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND SPECIAL PERNHT
DISCUSSION
The Board discussed screening and landscaping for the tower and the use of natural materials for
the fencing, as well as seeing if it's possible to have a condition to plant trees and the type of
trees to be planted. They also discussed seeing if it would be possible to have the applicant put
additional plantings in the no disturbance zone. They also would like to see at the next meeting a
rendering of the view from 79 with the landscaping in place to have a visual of the mitigation
that the landscaping would provide.
PUBLIC HEARING
Ms. Cameron opened the Public Hearing at 9:27 p.m.
A resident spoke in person regarding the data provided by Verizon has not proven a gap in
coverage and cannot be trusted. He suggested having a third party verifying the dropped call
data. He also shared his concerns with the proximity to residences and the effect on property
values.
Daniel Sieb commented on the concern that the tower is still going to look terrible no matter
what is done to screen it. He also gave his concern with the effects on property values.
PB 2024-10-29 (Filed 02/21/2025) Pg. 7
A resident spoke about having no problem with their phone coverage. She also commented on
how a 140-foot tower would not be least means intrusive and that small cells should be placed
instead. She also raised her concern about the health of animals as well.
Sujata Gibson spoke again on residential areas are not the preferred place to put cell towers and
that no one in the Town is coming forward and asking for cell towers to be built. There are other
options such as small cells that have not been addressed and that is part of what they have to
show along with the least intrusive means for the special permit.
James Riegel spoke again with concerns that Verizon has acted on bad faith, saying there is a
need when it is not proven true. Along with concerns that no one on the Board is making a stand
about corporation taking their needs over the communities.
Robert Berg spoke again regarding the wireless ordinance set by the Town and the amount of
power that the Town has to place these towers. He also talked about the small search zone that
Verizon provided and the lack of analysis on other technologies.
Andrew Molnar spoke again regarding research done by the New Hampshire on cell tower
radiation and its harmful effects to humans, animals, insects and vegetation, with findings that
FCC's thresholds are unsafe. He also spoke on concerns regarding adverse aesthetic impacts and
noted that phone coverage is adequate.
Robert Babj ak spoke again on the map submitted for the small radius that was used as the search
area. He also commented on putting the tower in a valley and the seeming obsession with putting
it in this area. He also brought up the effects on people and animals in the area.
Caroline Ashurst spoke regarding the laws that were passed and the previous towers that were
built in the Town of Ithaca and them not being considered under the same criticisms as the one
today. She also commented on the phone companies not caring about aesthetics or doing some
kind of study on the local ecology. She also brought up her concerns about the health impacts
that the cell tower would bring.
Marie spoke regarding her disappointment with Verizon's continuous refusal to get the Town
information it needs to make an informed decision. That Verizon is trying to manipulate data to
get what they want and not addressing the community with their needs. She also voiced her
concern with the data, understanding it and that we are confident in the date provided by the
applicant.
Marilee Murphy spoke again regarding the character of the area and the tower being out of
character with the area and with the Town. She also brought up her concerns with the impact on
the view and the residences.
Dara Riegel spoke regarding the impact on individuals. She also voiced concern about the
studies done in New Hampshire regarding the effects it can have on children and on the wildlife
in the area.
PB 2024-10-29 (Filed 02/21/2025) Pg. 8
Mr. Lusk commented on the concerns regarding the property values being affected. They are
required by the Town Code to have appraisals done. They hired a certified appraiser, and they
looked at property sales in Tompkins County and compared before and after salves values. Cell
Towers do no effect or reduce property values.
Mr. Lusk also cited a court case in regard to the comments on not providing sufficient data on
drop call data to prove that there is a significant gap.
Ms. Cameron closed the public hearing at 10:23 p.m.
Ms. Reynolds was interested to know if there was more data that could be more convincing of
the gap coverage. Dr. Johnson went over how the data gets collected on the dropped calls. He
also pointed out that we don't have access to Verizon's simulation software that it uses, which is
provided by their vendors and customized. He also commented that it is in their best interest not
to mess with the data.
The Board wanted to see other sites that are not so directly impactful on residential areas.
The board tabled the preliminary and final site plan approval and special permit.
Ms. Cameron opened persons to be heard.
There was no one wishing to speak.
Avenue-
item 3 and 4 Consideration of it Reeommendation to the To,vn Board Regarding
Proposed Rezoning for the Mttple,vood Phase 11 Projeet on Maple Pulled
There was one set of minutes for approval. No corrections or substantial changes were made.
Motion made for approval of minutes by Liz Bageant and Seconded by Sara Reynolds
Vote-Ayes Cameron, Kaufman, Reynolds,Bageant, and Arms
Nays—None
The Board went over what was to be on the next meeting agenda.
The meeting was adjourned upon a motion and a second; unanimous.
Submitted by
Monica Moll, Deputy Town Clerk
PB 2024-10-29 (Filed 02/21/2025) Pg. 9
TOWN OF ITHACA
NEW YORK
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
215 N.Tioga St 14850
607.273.1747
vw .w.townithacanv,us
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL AND POSTING & PUBLICATION
STATE OF NEW YORK ) SS.:
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS )
I, Abby Homer, Administrative Assistant for the Town of Ithaca being duly sworn, depose and say, that
deponent is not a party to the actions, is over 21 years of age with a professional address of 215 North Tioga
Street, Ithaca, New York.
That on the 281h day of October 2024, deponent served the within Notice upon the property owners within
500 ft. of the propertie and project identified below for:
The Planning Board will hold public hearings on Tuesday, October 29, 2024, starting at 6:30 P.M. on the following
matters:
Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for a personal wireless service
facility located at 111 Wiedmaier Court, off Slaterville Road/NYS Route 79. The proposal involves the
construction of a 138' +/- monopole tower with 9 antennas, two equipment cabinets, a generator, and other
equipment within a 50' x 50' +/- chain link fenced area. The project is an Unlisted Action under the State
Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review.S.Roberts WC Land,LLC,Owner;
Verizon Wireless,Applicant;Jared C.Lusk,Nixon Peabody,LLP,Agent.
Consideration of a Recommendation to the Town Board Regarding Proposed Rezoning for the Maplewood Phase II
Project on Maple Avenue, located between the Maplewood Graduate Student Apartment complex and the East Lawn
Cemetery. The project, which requires a rezoning from Multiple Residence and High-Density Residential Zones to a
Planned Development Zone(PDZ), involves consolidating four parcels and constructing six (6) five-story apartment
buildings,containing 615 units/800 beds in studio,one bedroom,and two-bedroom unit configurations.The project will
also include integrated amenity..'service spaces, parking areas, trails and pedestrian facilities, open spaces, stormwater
facilities, and other site improvements. The project is a Type I Action under the State Environmental Quality Review
Act and is subject to environmental review.Cornell University,Owner/Applicant;Michele Palmer,Whitham Planning,
Design,Landscape Architecture,PLLC,Agent.
By depositing same enclosed in a postpaid addressed wrapper, in a post office under the exclusive care
and custody of the United States Post Office Department within the State of New York, and that the attached
notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca on October 28, 2024, and
the notice has been duly published in the official newspaper,Ithaca Journal on October 29, 2024.
Abby Home Administrative Assistant
Sworn to before me on
cy_:i 2024.
ASHLEY COLBERT
Notary Public,State of New York
No.01 C06419580
otary Public Qualified in Tompkins County
Commission Expires July 12,2025
TOWN OF ITHACA
pn NEW YORK
Notice of Planning Board Action Near You
You are receiving this notice because you own or live on a property within 500'feet of the proposed action. This is an
effort to inform you and give you an opportunity to learn more and comment if you would like.
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
The Planning Board will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, October 29, 2024, starting at 6:30 P.M. on the following
matter:
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for a
personal wireless service facility located at 111 Wiedmaier Court, off Slaterville Road/NYS Route 79. The
proposal involves the construction of a 138' +'L monopole tower with 9 antennas, two equipment cabinets, a
generator, and other equipment within a 50' x 50' —i- chain link fenced area.The project is an Unlisted Action
under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review. S. Roberts WC
Land, LLC, Owner; Verizon Wireless,Applicant; Jared C. Lusk, Nixon Peabody, LLP,Agent.
Members of the public are welcome to attend in-person at Town Hall or virtually via Zoom. The public will have an opportunity
to see and hear the meeting live and provide comments in-person or through Zoom at httL)s:.-'.."us06web.zoom.us/l...183643764382,
Any person wishing to address the board will be heard.
If the public would like to attend the meeting for viewing purposes only, it is recommended to watch the livestream video on
YouTube(hhtt s .,www-youtubevcom/chaanneVUCC9v cXkJ6klVlibihCv7NC/five).
In addition,comments can be sent via email to tow nclerkRtownithacany_gov up to the end of business the day of the meeting
and all comments will be forwarded to the board. Additional information is available at www.townithacany.gov.
C.J. Randall, Director of Planning
Accessing Meeting Materials Online: Site Plan and Subdivision applications and associated project materials
are accessible electronically on the Town's website at https://,a-%-w.townithacany.gov/meeting-calendar-agendas/
under the calendar meeting date.
See full agenda on the reverse side
1
Ithacajournal
Public Notices
Originally published at ithacajournal.com on 10/23/2024
TOWN OF ITHACA
PLANNING BOARD
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
The Planning Board will hold public hearings on Tuesday, October 29, 2024, starting at
6:30 P.M. on the following matters:
Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for a
personal wireless service facility located at 111 Wiedmaier Court, off Slaterville Road/NYS
Route 79. The proposal involves the construction of a 138' +1- monopole tower with 9
antennas, two equipment cabinets, a generator, and other equipment within a 50' x 50' +/-
chain link fenced area. The project is an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental
Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review. S. Roberts WC Land, LLC,
Owner; Verizon Wireless, Applicant; Jared C. Lusk, Nixon Peabody, LLP, Agent.
Consideration of a Recommendation to the Town Board Regarding Proposed Rezoning for
the Maplewood Phase II Project on Maple Avenue, located between the Maplewood
Graduate Student Apartment complex and the East Lawn Cemetery. The project, which
requires a rezoning from Multiple Residence and High--Density Residential Zones to a
Planned Development Zone (PDZ), involves consolidating four parcels and constructing
six (6) five-story apartment buildings, containing 615 units1800 beds in studio, one
bedroom, and two-bedroom unit configurations. The project will also include integrated
amenity/service spaces, parking areas, trails and pedestrian facilities, open spaces,
stormwater facilities, and other site improvements. The project is a Type I Action under the
State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review. Cornell
University, Owner/Applicant; Michele Palmer, Whitham Planning, Design, Landscape
Architecture, PLLC, Agent.
Members of the public are welcome to attend in-person at Town Hall or virtually via Zoom.
The public will have an opportunity to see and gear the meeting live and provide
comments in-person or through Zoom (by raising hand icon) at
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/83643764382.
If the public would like to attend the meeting for viewing purposes only, it is recommended
to watch the livestream video on YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCC9vycXkJ6klVlibjhCy7NQ/live).
Any person wishing to address the board will be heard. In addition, comments can be sent
via email to clerks@townithacany.gov up to the end of business the day of the meeting
and all comments will be forwarded to the board. Additional information is available at
h++nc•1/+nu1nitha1-0rnr nn%d