Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2024-11-19TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD Shirley A. Raffensperger Board Room,Town Hall 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca,New York 14850 Tuesday,November 19,2024 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.Consideration by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board of establishing itself as Lead Agency to coordinate the environmental review of the proposed Cornell Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field project on Game Farm Road, located immediately east of the existing Cornell soccer fields. The proposal involves constructing new field hockey facilities in two phases,with phase one including the conversion of the existing grass practice field into a synthetic turf field along with construction of a new driveway,formalized parking area,pedestrian amenities, and two small support facilities(a 1,700+/-square foot restroom/team room building,and a 480+/- square foot press box). The project also includes new lighting,landscaping, stormwater facilities,and other site improvements. Phase two involves the construction of a clubhouse for the field hockey team,with locker rooms,meeting rooms, physical therapy rooms,lounge,toilets, showers, and indoor synthetic turf training space.Phase two is projected to be constructed within five years of the athletic field installation.The project is a Type I Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review. Cornell University,Owner/Applicant; Kimberly Michaels,TWM,a Fisher Associates Landscape Architecture Studio,Applicant/Agent. 2.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' +1-chain link fenced area.The project is an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the Planning Board issued a negative determination of environmental significance for the project on October 29,2024. S. Roberts WC Land,LLC,Owner;Verizon Wireless, Applicant; Jared C. Lusk,Nixon Peabody,LLP,Agent. 3.Persons to be heard. 4.Approval of Minutes. 5.Other Business. 6.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.LFov/meeting-calendar-agendas/under the calendar meeting date. TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD November 19, 2024 The full recording of this meeting is available on the Town's YouTubeLiveMeeting page. Present: Fred Wilcox, Chair; Cindy Kaufman, Caitlin Cameron, Bill Arms, Gary Stewart, Kelda McGurk (remote), and Sara Reynolds CJ Randall, Director of Planning, Christine Balestra, Senior Planner; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; David O'Shea, Director of Engineering; Justin McNeal, Engineer; Dana Magnason, Senior Code Officer 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.) Mr. Wilcox opened the meeting at 6:34p.m. Item 1 Consideration by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board of establishing itself as Lead Agency to coordinate the environmental review of the proposed Cornell Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field project on Game Farm Road, located immediately east of the existing Cornell soccer fields. The proposal involves constructing new field hockey facilities in two phases,with phase one including the conversion of the existing grass practice field into a synthetic turf field along with construction of a new driveway, formalized parking area, pedestrian amenities, and two small support facilities (a 1,700 +/- square foot restroom/team room building, and a 480 +/- square foot press box). The project also includes new lighting, landscaping, stormwater facilities, and other site improvements. Phase two involves the construction of a clubhouse for the field hockey team, with locker rooms, meeting rooms, physical therapy rooms, lounge, toilets, showers, and indoor synthetic turf training space. Phase two is projected to be constructed within five years of the athletic field installation. The project is a Type I Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review. Cornell University, Owner/Applicant; Kimberly Michaels, TWM, a Fisher Associates Landscape Architecture Studio, Applicant/Agent. DISCUSSION: Kim Michaels from Fisher Associates showed a presentation introducing the project to the Board. Mr. Wilcox asked about the time frame for the project's completion. The applicant would like to have the field completed by the start of the 2025 women's field hockey season in the fall. Mr. Wilcox asked about the NCAA requirements for the field hockey field. Ms. Michaels replied that it must be watered turf or watered astroturf. This requirement is for regular season games and playoff games. PB 2024-11-19(Filed 2/20) Pg. 1 Ms. Cameron asked why this is a special use permit. Ms. Balestra answered that this is a low- density residential zone and Cornell educational uses always require a special use permit in the residential zones. Ms. Cameron asked if the other fields on the site will remain as they are. Ms. Michaels replied that the two fields currently on the site will remain natural grass. Mr. Arms asked the applicant about the differences between a historic 2015 land use plan from Cornell University regarding the site and what the applicant is proposing now. He asked if rerouting the electric lines and connecting to the Town sewer are part of the current plan. Ms. Michaels indicated they are not part of the current plan. She further explained that the 10-year- old plan has evolved based on changes in what could be done on the site. Mr. Wilcox indicated that a discussion of the 2015 plan versus what Cornell would like to do today will be part of the next meeting. Ms. Michaels agreed. Ms. Kaufman asked the applicant about the infill on the new field. The applicant responded there will be no infill on the turf just a pad underneath the turf. Ms. Cameron asked staff about phased projects and the time limit of approvals. Ms. Brock answered that time limits would be part of the approval as a condition. Ms. Cameron went on to ask about sound and light emanating from the field and the impact on the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant did provide that information in the packet and will summarize it in a presentation at the next scheduled meeting. PB RESOLUTION 2024-022: Lead Agency—Declaration of Intent Cornell Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field Project Tax Parcel No.'s 62.-2-4, 62.-2-5, 62.-2-6 Game Farm Road WHEREAS: I. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, at its meeting on November 19, 2024, considered a Sketch Plan for the proposed Cornell Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field project on Game Farm Road, located immediately east of the existing Cornell soccer fields at the Game Farm Road Athletic Complex(also referenced as the Ellis Hollow Athletic Complex). The proposal involves constructing new field hockey facilities in two phases,with phase one including the conversion of the existing natural grass practice field(McGovern Field 3) into a synthetic turf field along with construction of a new driveway, formalized parking area,pedestrian amenities, and two small support facilities (a 1,700+/- square foot restroom/team room building, and a 480+/- square foot press box). Phase two involves the construction of a clubhouse for the field hockey team,with locker rooms,meeting rooms,physical therapy rooms, lounge,toilets, showers, and indoor synthetic turf training space. Phase two is projected to be constructed within five years of the athletic field installation. The project also includes new lighting, landscaping, stormwater facilities, and other site improvements. Cornell University, Owner/Applicant; Kimberly Michaels, TWM, a Fisher Associates Landscape Architecture Studio,Applicant/Agent; 2. The proposed project,which requires Site Plan approval and Special Permit by the Planning Board, is a Type I action pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR Part 617, and Chapter 148 of the Town of Ithaca Code regarding Environmental Quality Review, because the proposal involves an activity, other than the construction of residential facilities,that PB 2024-11-19(Filed 2/20) Pg. 2 involves the physical alteration of 10 acres (6 NYCRR 617.4 (b) (6) (i)), and parking for 100 vehicles (Town Code 148-5.0 (3)); and 3. A Full Environmental Assessment Form, Part 1,has been submitted by the applicant, along with a report containing a narrative and studies titled"Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field, Site Plan Review Application Report,"dated October 3, 2024, prepared by Fisher Associates, drawings titled"Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field, Cornell University," dated 09-27-2024,prepared by Sasaki, and other materials; NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby proposes to establish itself as Lead Agency to coordinate the environmental review of the proposed actions, as described above, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby requests the concurrence of all involved agencies on this proposed Lead Agency designation, said concurrence to be received by the Town of Ithaca Planning Department by December 19, 2024. Moved: Bill Arms Seconded: Cindy Kaufman Vote: Ayes—Arms, Wilcox, Cameron, Reynolds, Kaufman,McGurk, and Stewart Item 2 Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for a personal wireless service facility located at Ill 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 the Planning Board issued a negative determination of environmental significance for the project on October 29, 2024. S. Roberts WC Land, LLC, Owner; Verizon Wireless, Applicant; Jared C. Lusk,Nixon Peabody, LLP, Agent. DISCUSSION: Mr. Wilcox asked Mr. Lusk if he had any comments. Mr. Lusk replied that there have been two submissions from the applicant since the last meeting. This was in response to Mr. Johnson's third report. Mr. Johnson requested more information from the applicant regarding potential alternate site locations. Mr. Lusk submitted a document to the Board outlining the 12 potential sites for the tower with regard to issues with the other potential tower sites. Ms. Brock and the Board discussed the changes to the draft resolution for approval of the Final Site Plan. Ms. Cameron asked the Town consultant Mr. Johnson what determines the geographic boundary of potential tower sites. Mr. Johnson replied the geographic boundary was determined because it is in the center of the area where there is insufficient coverage. The search area is then given to the applicant's real estate acquisition personnel to discover potential sites for the new tower. All PB 2024-11-19(Filed 2/20) Pg. 3 potential sites identified were essentially collocated and would pose the same view-shed issues that the public is concerned about. Mr. Johnson made some other suggestions for alternative sites to the applicant. The applicant looked at all the alternate sites and concluded the site proposed was the best site to provide service to the area and be least intrusive. Ms. Cameron asked Mr. Johnson if any of the other proposed sites would fill the gap even if it is not as good as the proposed site. Mr. Johnson replied one site was feasible, but the tower would have to be 170 feet tall. Other sites would work but would require two tower locations versus the one site proposed. Mr. Stewart asked if all the proposed alternative sites are within the Town. Two alternative sites (six and seven) proposed are in the Town of Dryden. Mr. Lusk responded these sites would not work for coverage, real estate, and environmental reasons. Ms. Kaufman asked Mr. Johnson to explain alternative approaches to cover the gap such as small cell antennas. Mr. Johnson explained that using small cells to cover the area would be feasible but would not be practical. There are financial considerations. Verizon has proposed a single site to service the area versus many small cells to cover the same area. Ms. Kaufman replied that financial considerations are not at the forefront of her decision making; it is the impact on the community. She would like more information on small cell option. Mr. Lusk responded to Ms. Kaufman's request stating Mr. Sharif has already submitted documentation on why small cells would not work in this instance. Small cells will work in a densely populated small area. The area where coverage is needed is not the right place for small cells. Mr. Wilcox discussed the fact that the location is in a Conservation Zone. The alternative is construction of a house with an accessory apartment on this lot. The tower may be more unsightly than a 35 foot building but it may be more protective of the land. There will be no pesticide applications or runoff from the tower. Ms. Cameron asked about a negative finding by the Board. Ms. Brock explained that if the Planning Board denies this tower, Federal law would come into effect. The Town standards would be superseded by the Federal Telecommunications Act which requires municipalities to approve cell towers if there is a significant gap and the tower is the least intrusive means to close that gap. Ms. Kauffman asked the applicant if there were any complaints to Verizon from the community about the loss of coverage in the area. She would like to know how the project originated. Mr. Sharif, the RF Engineer from Verizon answered this question. He explained that Verizon was getting complaints from customers in this location regarding dropped calls. He indicated that this was a significant number of complaints. Mr. Lusk explained that not only do customer complaints trigger this need for additional coverage, it is also automatically monitored by Verizon. Ms. McGurk asked about the determination of significance. Ms. Brock explained the criteria. Ms. Balestra told the Board it is also on page 8 of the resolution. PB 2024-11-19(Filed 2/20) Pg. 4 Discussion occurred by the Board regarding concerns and changes to the draft resolution; regarding the site disturbance and how intrusive the tower will be; regarding the aesthetic impact of the tower and how it would impact the neighboring properties. Ms. Cameron expressed that this will have an adverse impact for the neighboring properties, stating that she was basing her belief on several public comments. Ms. Brock stated that the courts have said that public opinion is speculative. Ms. Cameron went on to say that the adverse aesthetic impact is due to the character of the neighborhood and the site itself. It's not just linear distance to the homes but height factor. Discussion ensued regarding changing the resolution to state that there is an adverse aesthetic impact upon properties located adjacent or in close proximity to the site. The resolution was modified as such. Ms. Balestra spoke about the existing no-disturbance zone. The area that cannot be disturbed on the site is based on the 2008 Planning Board decision from a previous application. The current applicant is proposing additional landscaping along the site, but not inside the no-disturbance zone. Ms. Balestra added this condition for approval. The board agreed with this condition. They also clarified what would be expected in a landscaping plan for the site before a building permit is issued. PB RESOLUTION 2024-023: Preliminary & Final Site Plan & Special Permit Verizon Wireless Personal Wireless Service Facility 111 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 111 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; 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, on October 29,2024, acting in an uncoordinated environmental review with respect to the Verizon Wireless Personal Wireless Service Facility proposal,made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a completed Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted and prepared by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3 prepared by staff, 3. The Planning Board, at a public hearing on October 29,2024,reviewed application materials dated November 13, 2023, 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-1, C-lA,C-lB,C-2,C-3,C-4A,C-4B,C-5, and ECS-1 through ESC-7, prepared by Tectonic,dated 02/16/24 and revised 10/21/24; additional application materials dated October 28,2024, including Exhibits HH and II; consultant report prepared by William P. Johnson and Steven Ciccarelli,dated October 21,2024 and November 4, 2024 follow-up document; and other plans and materials; PB 2024-11-19(Filed 2/20) Pg. 5 4. The Planning Board, at their meeting on November 19,2024,reviewed and accepted additional application materials, including a letter from William P. Johnson(RF Engineering Consultant to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board), dated November 4,2024, a letter with Exhibits JJ,KK, and LL from the applicant, dated November 14,2024, and a letter with Exhibits MM and NN from the applicant, dated November 18,2024; and 5. Project plans, and related information,were duly delivered to the Tompkins County Planning and Sustainability Department per New York State General Municipal Law §§239-1 et seq., and such Department responded in a September 13, 2024,letter from Katherine Borgella,Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning,pursuant to §§239-1,-m, and -n of the New York State General Municipal Law,determining that the proposed action will have no significant county-wide or inter-community impact; NOW,THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Special Permit for the project, finding that the Special Permit standards of Article XXIV Section 270-200, Subsections A— H,of the Town of Ithaca Code, have been met, specifically that: A. The project will be suitable for the property on which it is proposed,considering the property's size, location,and physical site characteristics. The property is 12+/- acres in size,whereas the facility and all appurtenances will only encompass .46+/-acres. The proposed facility will be located on an existing cleared, previously disturbed, flat portion of the property; B. The proposed structure design and site layout are compatible with the surrounding area. The site layout will not change.Access to the cell tower will utilize an existing gravel drive. The tower will be constructed on an existing cleared site. The closest residence is 578 feet from the proposed tower. Parts of the facility will be screened from most vantage points by existing and additional new vegetation; C. Operations in connection with the proposed use do not create any more noise,fumes, vibration,illumination, or other potential nuisances than the operation of any permitted use in the particular zone. During operations,the facility will not emit noise,fumes,vibration,illumination (other than one safety light)or other potential nuisances. D. Community infrastructure and services, such as police,fire and other protective services, roadways, schools, and water and sewer facilities are currently, or will be, of adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed use. There are no needed changes to existing infrastructure and services.All infrastructure to accommodate the existing use is in place and is of adequate capacity. E. The proposed use, structure design, and site layout will comply with all the provisions of the Town Code and with the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan. If the Zoning Board of Appeals grants an area variance for height,then the project will comply with all provisions of Chapter 270, Zoning, with the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan, and,to the extent considered by the Planning Board, all provisions of the Town Code. F. The site layout,with proposed vehicular,bicycle and pedestrian access,traffic circulation, and parking and loading facilities,is sufficient for the proposed use and is safely designed for emergency vehicles. PB 2024-11-19(Filed 2/20) Pg. 6 There is no bicycle or pedestrian access permitted or associated with the proposed tower. There is no public access associated with the project—the existing gravel drive, slightly widened to accommodate the project,will provide appropriate access for emergency vehicles. The project includes a small parking area and turnaround area for such vehicles. G. The project includes sufficient landscaping and/or other forms of buffering to protect surrounding land uses. Existing vegetation is preserved to the extent possible. There will be no loss to existing trees and vegetation. There is a very large no disturbance area of trees and vegetation surrounding the project site that will remain in natural growth in perpetuity as required by an existing deed restriction mandated by the Planning Board for a previous unrelated matter. The project includes additional landscaping around the base of the tower to screen equipment from adjacent residences. H. To the extent deemed relevant by the Planning Board,the proposed use or structure complies with all the criteria applicable to site plan review set forth in Chapter 270,Zoning. 2. That the Planning Board further finds that not all of the requirements of§270-219.R(1) have been met, specifically: a) The proposed personal wireless service facility complies with all relevant federal statutory and regulatory requirements,including all applicable Federal Communication Commission,Federal Aviation Commission,National Environmental Policy Act, and National Historic Preservation Act requirements. Subject to condition 4.g.below,applicant's exhibits show compliance with these laws,including Exhibits P,MM,and NN,and letter from GSS,Inc.,dated November 19,2024. b) The applicable standards in Chapter 270 (Zoning), Article XXIV(Special Permits and Special Approvals), § 270-200(Considerations for approval)are met. See#1 above;and c) All of the following additional standards are met: 1] Public utility status. Services provided by the proposed PWSFs are considered public utility services, and the provider of such services is considered a public utility,in the State of New York. Application materials Exhibit C provide information supporting this finding. 2] Need. The applicant has proven a compelling need to address any significant gaps in the applicant's personal wireless services(the ability of wireless telephones to make and receive voice calls to and from landlines that are connected to the national telephone network)through the proposed facilities and not through any other solution, and the facility presents a minimal intrusion on the community. a] To determine whether a gap is significant,the Planning Board shall consider, among other things,dropped call and failure rates, whether a gap is relatively large or small in geographic size, whether the number of the applicant's customers affected by the gap is relatively small or large,whether or not the location of the gap is situated on a lightly or heavily traveled road or in a sparsely or densely occupied area, and whether the applicant's customers are affected for only a limited period of time. A significant gap cannot be established simply because the applicant's personal wireless services operate on a frequency which is not the frequency most desired by the applicant. An applicant's claim of need for future capacity does not constitute evidence of a significant gap. b] In making the finding of compelling need,the Planning Board shall consider the evidence of a significant gap,the applicant's consideration of other sites and other means PB 2024-11-19(Filed 2/20) Pg. 7 of addressing the gaps, and the feasibility of addressing the gaps through the use of other sites or other means. The following information shows a compelling need to address significant gaps in the applicant's personal wireless services through the proposed facilities and not through any other solution,and it shows the facility presents a minimal intrusion on the community: The consultant report prepared by William P.Johnson and Steven M. Ciccarelli dated October 21, 2024,and November 4,2024, follow-up document support this finding. Some of the report and document statements that support this finding include: 1.From October 21, 2024, report,page I of 5: "Need. The applicant has proven a compelling need to address any significant gaps in the applicant's personal wireless services(the ability of wireless telephones to make and receive voice calls to andfrom landlines that are connected to the national telephone network)through the proposed facilities and not through any other solution, and the facilitypresents a minimal intrusion on the community." 2.From October 21, 2024, report,page 3 of 5: "In addition to the existing low-band RF coverage shown in Exhibit Hpages 15 and 17,Exhibit Zslides 10 and 11 shows "dropped connections"and access failure"locations for all frequency bands discussed in the exhibit.Low-band signals propagate with less loss than mid-band signals, but low-band spectrum represents only about 10%of Applicant's bandwidth. These data are collected by the LTE controller using GPS data reportedfrom the user's mobile device. We note that the maps are titled `Dropped Connections"and `Access Failures"which,from an LTE perspective, may not be only voice call dropped connections or access attempts.However, the fact that LTE sessions were dropped or could not be initiated implies generally that voice calls in progress could also be dropped or attempts to dial out may not be successful. Based on the map locations markers, the dropped connections and access failures were in a mix of outdoor, in-vehicle and in-building locations along and between area roads and demonstrates the potential inability to place and receive phone calls for convenience and emergencies. The wireless communication environment is such that when unavoidable `fading" occurs, connections may be dropped, but it does not mean that every existing connection or access attempt willfail as long as conditions provide at least minimal signal strength and user capacity at the PWSF serving the area. The issue in either case is predictable reliability. The data shows that reliability is poor in the test area. We therefore conclude that Applicant has shown a "compelling need"since wireless reliability in the targeted improvement area is poor." 3.From October 21, 2024, report,page 3 of S: "Based on the information in Exhibit Hfor low-band, we would anticipate that low-band mobile device connections inside vehicles and inside buildings may be unreliable for in-vehicle and in-building users since penetration of vehicles and structures reduces signal strength.Applicants'Exhibit Zpage 9 states that the Dropped Call Rate(DCR)for the proposed service area is 11.84%compared to their standard DCR of I%. The stated DCR is for both low-band and mid-band operation. If a call is in progress in mid-bandfrequencies when a user transits into an area the mid-band call will drop.If a user is already in an area that lacks mid-band service and there are either low-band capacity limitations or insufficient low-band signal strength e.g., in-vehicle or in-building locations) it is likely that access will be denied or, if initiated, the connection may drop." 4.From November 4, 2024, document,pages I and 2: "Our revised preliminary report hesitated to acknowledge a "significant gap"as we interpreted Town Code§279-219 R(1) (c) in a manner that was, on review by town counsel, narrower than intended.Applicants'propagation plots for low-band 7001850 MHz)showed usable signal strength in some of the target improvement area. We therefore concluded that, if there is a gap, it may not be a "significant gap."By contrast the dropped call data shows more than 11%dropped calls which exceeds the I% national goal. While there are likely several factors that are causing such a high dropped call rate, one of the causes is due to lack of mid- band RF coverage in the target improvement area. Calls in progress using mid-band spectrum will drop when a mobile user enter the area where there is no mid-band RF coverage.As a result,part of the 11% dropped call rate is due to an RF coverage gap in mid-band.Mid-band spectrum accounts for about 90%ofApplicant's licensed spectrum and is necessary to avoid dropped calls as mobile users enter the coverage gap area. Given the high dropped call rate, it is arguably reasonable to then conclude that there is a `significant gap"in mid-band RF coverage. That gap is confirmed by the PB 2024-11-19(Filed 2/20) Pg. 8 propagation plots in application materials Exhibit H.By way of explanation, our over-interpretation that was corrected by town counsel derivedfrom the statement that [a1 significant gap cannot be established simply because the applicant's personal wireless services operate on a frequency which is not the frequency most desired by the applicant.An applicant's claim of needfor future capacity does not constitute evidence of a significant gap.'Town Code§279-219 R(1) (c)[21[a]. Therefore, based on town counsel's explanation of the meaning of the section quoted above in light ofan excessive dropped call rate, as is the case here, results from some form of a coverage gap. Whether the gap is the result ofweak low-band signals in building or vehicles as noted in our last report, or whether it is the result of mid-band calls-in-progress dropping as a mobile user enters the target improvement area, the results point to a `significant gap"regardless of reference to a preferred frequency band. The remedy for the "significant gap"requires a new base station or other hybrid solution in the vicinity of the target improvement area that can provide sufficient low-band and mid-band RF signal strength to initiate, maintain and hand-off voice telephone traffic. Sufficient signal strength and capacity will also facilitate availability of data services since both the transmission and reception use the same LTE technology to allow two-way exchange of information." Application materials Exhibits Z,AA,and BB contain drive test results and dropped call records. Applicant's October 28,2024, submission notes that,as stated at the October 1,2024,Planning Board meeting,the dropped call data provided as Exhibit Z is for voice calls only.Wasif Sharif,Verizon RF Engineer who prepared these exhibits,reiterated on the record at the October 29,2024,Planning Board meeting that the 11.84%dropped call rate experienced for the proposed service area,noted on page 9 of Exhibit Z,was for voice calls. Application materials Exhibits H and HH provide propagation plots and analysis showing coverage gaps in significant portions of the area to be served by the proposed facility.There are coverage gaps along portions of heavily traveled NYS Route 79/Slaterville Road,and in a number of locations where there are residences. Application materials Exhibits GG and 11,and applicant's supplemental submission dated November 14, 2024(including Exhibits JJ and KK),show that the significant gap cannot be addressed through other solutions such as alternate locations, shorter towers, or one or more small cells.These materials also show that the facility presents a minimal intrusion on the community. Some of the alternate locations that are large enough to host the facility would require a higher tower,and many of these alternate locations would be closer to the nearest residence and require removal of more trees than the proposed Wiedmaier Court location and facility.The analysis in Part 3 of the Full Environmental Assessment Form section 9 Impact on Aesthetic Resources),and the application materials on which the analysis is based,show that the project will be visible only from adjacent residences and by those travelling along NYS Route 79E/Slaterville Road or Burns Road.One would need to deliberately look for the tower in order to see it while traveling in a vehicle on those roads. 3] Compliance with Chapter 270(Zoning)and other Town Code requirements. Complies with all requirements of this § 270-219,with all other requirements of this Chapter 270(unless expressly superseded by this § 270-219), and all other applicable Ithaca Town Code requirements. See#1 E above. 4] Co-location on proposed towers. For non-SWFs,when construction of a tower is proposed, such a tower is designed to accommodate future shared use by at least two other PWSF providers. Tower is such designed,per application materials Exhibit L. 5] Aesthetic impacts. The proposed PWSFs will inflict a significant adverse aesthetic impact upon properties that are located adjacent or in close proximity to the proposed site(s) or upon any other properties situated in a manner that such properties might reasonably be expected to sustain adverse aesthetic impacts. Because of the site-specific characteristics of the property,the terrain,lack of vegetation,and direct sight lines from the public way and adjacent residential properties,the project will inflict a significant adverse PB 2024-11-19(Filed 2/20) Pg. 9 aesthetic impact upon properties that are located adjacent or in close proximity to the proposed site. See Exhibit Q,figure S-1.The significant adverse aesthetic impact cannot be mitigated by site landscaping or other visual screening. 6] Impacts upon real estate values. The proposed PWSFs will not inflict a significant adverse impact upon the property values of properties that are located adjacent or in close proximity to the proposed site(s). This finding is based on application materials Exhibits Y and CC. 7] Impact upon the character of the surrounding community. The proposed PWSFs will not be incompatible with the use and character of properties located adjacent or in close proximity to the proposed site(s),or with any other properties situated in a manner that the PWSFs might reasonably be expected to be incompatible with such properties. This finding is based on the information and analysis in the Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 3 Attachment,and per Special Permit findings in resolved clause#1 above. 8] Mitigation.The applicant has mitigated the potential adverse impacts of the proposed PWSFs to the greatest extent reasonably feasible through siting, location, and design. Although immediately-adjacent properties on Wiedmaier Court,Bums Road,and NYS Route 79E/Slaterville Road will be impacted by the project,the applicant has mitigated potential adverse impacts to the greatest extent reasonably feasible.The closest affected property is 578-feet from the proposed tower. Parts of the facility will be screened from nearby properties and vantage points by existing and proposed new vegetation.The facility is located on property that does not require clearing of trees or other vegetation and is not on a significant steep slope that requires significant grading. The facility is also situated as far from existing residences as is feasible on the property and at the shortest possible height to achieve the coverage needs of the applicant.Camouflaging the proposed tower as a stealth"tree would increase potential adverse impacts rather than mitigate them. This is further explained in the application materials Exhibit Q. 3. That the Planning Board further finds that§270-219.R(2)below has been met, as follows:If the applicant asserts that a denial would constitute an effective prohibition, and the denial is based on a failure to comply with any of the standards in Subsection R(1)(b) or (c)above, then pursuant to federal law, the Planning Board must consider whether the proposed facilities are the least intrusive means of addressing a significant gap in the applicant's personal wireless services the ability of wireless telephones to make and receive voice calls to and from landlines that are connected to the national telephone network). A significant gap is not established simply because the applicant's personal wireless services operate on a frequency which is not the frequency most desired by the applicant.An applicant's claim of needfor future capacity does not constitute evidence of a significant gap. a) The Planning Board shall consider, among other things, a) whether the proposed site is the least intrusive location at which a personal wireless service facility that remedies an identified significant gap may be located, and the applicant has reasonably established a lack ofpotential alternative less intrusive sites and lack ofsites available for co-location, b)whether the specific location on the proposed portion of the selected site is the least intrusive portion of the site for the proposed installation, c) whether the height proposedfor the personal wireless service facility is the minimum height necessary to remedy an established significant gap in service, d)whether a preexisting structure can be used to camouflage the personal wireless service facility, e)whether the installation mitigates adverse impacts to the greatest extent reasonably feasible, through the employ of stealth design,screening, use of color, and noise mitigation measures, andf)whether there is a feasible alternative to remedy the gap through alternative, less intrusive substitute facilities, such as the installation of more than one shorter facility instead of a single facility. PB 2024-11-19(Filed 2/20) Pg. 10 b)If the Planning Boardfinds that the proposed facilities are the least intrusive means of addressing a significant gap in the applicant's personal wireless services, then pursuant to federal law, the Planning Board must grant site plan and special permit approvals. There are significant gaps in the applicant's personal wireless services,as stated in Section 2(c)[2]above. Application materials Exhibits GG and 11,and applicant's supplemental submission dated November 14, 2024(including Exhibits JJ and KK),show that the significant gap cannot be addressed through other solutions such as alternate locations, shorter towers, or one or more small cells.These materials also show that the facility is the least intrusive means to address the significant gap. Some of the alternate locations that are large enough to host the facility would require a higher tower,and many of these alternate locations would be closer to the nearest residence and require removal of more trees than the proposed Wiedmaier Court location and facility.The analysis in Part 3 of the Full Environmental Assessment Form section 9(Impact on Aesthetic Resources),and the application materials on which the analysis is based,show that the project will be visible only from adjacent residences and by those travelling along NYS Route 79E/Slaterville Road or Burns Road.One would need to deliberately look for the tower in order to see it while traveling in a vehicle on those roads. The specific location on the proposed portion of the selected site is the least intrusive portion of the site because there is nowhere else on the site to place the proposed facility. The proposed height is the minimum height necessary to remedy the significant gap,as shown by the propagation maps and Applicant's November 14,2024,submission,including Exhibits KK and LL. No pre-existing structure can be used to camouflage the facility. The installation mitigates adverse impacts to the greatest extent reasonably feasible. William P. Johnson's report did not recommend stealth design,and screening is being required to mitigate impacts at the base of the tower.There is no feasible alternative to remedy the gap through alternative,less intrusive substitute facilities,as shown by,among other things,Exhibit GG and Applicant's November 14,2024, submission,including Exhibits KK and LL. Pursuant to the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996,because the Planning Board finds that the proposed facilities are the least intrusive means of addressing a significant gap in the applicant's personal wireless services,then pursuant to federal law, the Planning Board must grant site plan and special permit approvals. 4.That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary& Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed personal wireless service facility located at III Wiedmaier Court, off Slaterville Road/NYS Route 79, as described in Whereas#3 above, subject to the following conditions: a. Before issuance of a building permit, receipt of any necessary variances from the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals, b. Before issuance of a building permit,submission of revised landscaping plans with a planting schedule satisfactory to the Director of Planning,that show additional plantings of evergreen and deciduous trees along the south side of the access drive, c. Submission of revised fence details; any proposed fence slatting or boards(and other buffering materials)installed in fencing shall be made of wood or other natural materials, and shall be regularly maintained with natural coloration and surfaces, d. Before issuance of a building permit,approval of the Basic Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan(SWPPP)by the Town of Ithaca Engineering Department; e. Before issuance of a building permit,submission of the required documents,permits,and fees listed on the"Town Code Enforcement Department Comments"list, dated 8-14-24; PB 2024-11-19(Filed 2/20) Pg. 11 f. Per the requirements of Town Code, §270-219 P(2),prior to the installation of any personal wireless service facilities, execution and filing with the Town Clerk of a bond or other form of security or undertaking which shall be approved as to form,manner of execution, and sufficiency for surety by the Attorney for the Town and the Town Engineer; and g. Completion of the National Environmental Policy Act process with use of a categorical exclusion, or if an Environmental Assessment is required to be prepared,issuance by the Federal Communications Commission of a Finding of No Significant Impact. Moved: Fred Wilcox Seconded: Bill Arms Vote: Ayes-Wilcox,Cameron,Arms, and Stewart Nays-Reynolds,McGurk, and Kaufinan Motion passed,4 to 3. 4, Pefsens to be heard. n pp- t l f n fins es Othe-Business. Meeting Adjourned 10:01pm Submitted by: Monica Moll , Deputy Town Clerk PB 2024-11-19(Filed 2/20) Pg. 12