Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2024-11-26Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals November 26, 2024 Present: Board Members David Squires, Chair; Chris Jung, Connor Terry, Kim Ritter, Matthew Minnig and Larry Sallinger Dana Magnason, Senior Code Officer; CJ Randall, Director of Planning; Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk; and Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town Mr. Squires opened the meeting at 6:00 p.m. Mr. Squires introduced the new board member Larry Sallinger and then asked for a moment of silence in honor of Bruce Bates. Mr. Bates retired as the Director of Code Enforcement five years ago. ZBAA-24-28 Appeal of Hospicare Foundation Incorporated, 172 King Rd. East., TP 44.2- 1-2. LDR; seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section 270-60 E(2) (Yard regulations)to be permitted to place an accessory building in the side yard where they are only permitted in the rear yard. Overview Kiersten Miller and Jay Salmons were present to answer any questions. Ms. Miller gave an overview, saying that the 12 x 24 shed is proposed to be placed on the western side of the parking lot near the dumpster to allow for easy access from the main building and to provide additional lighting for the parking lot in that area for security reasons. She added that due to the layout of the entrance and parking lot, the shed will be virtually unseen from the public roadway and partially shielded by trees. Discussion Mr. Squires asked how far the shed is from the road. Ms. Miller responded that it is approximately 50' feet, one-story, and because of the trees, a mix of evergreens and deciduous trees, it will only be slightly visible when the leaves are off the deciduous trees. The shed will be clad in the same materials as the main building and in the same color palette. Mr. Squires asked what would be stored in the shed. Ms. Miller responded that the plan is to store items used for the annual Woman's Swim event, archived documents and general storage. Ms. Jung said she was having trouble picturing the site and Ms. Miller shared her screen depicting the layout and live views from Google maps. ZBA 2024-11-26 Filed 2/14/2025) Pg. 1 Public Hearing Mr. Squires opened the public hearing; there was no one wishing to speak and the hearing was closed. SEQR—Type 2, Construction/placement of a nonresidential structure less than 4000 sq ft. Determination ZBAA-24-28 Area Variance 172 King Rd. East TP 44.2-1-2 LDR Resolved that this board grants the appeal of Hospicare Foundation Inc., from Town of Ithaca Code section 270-60E(2) (Yard regulations) to be permitted to construct an accessory building in the side yard where they are only permitted in the rear yard, with the following: Conditions 1. That the building be placed substantially as shown in the submitted photos and described at this meeting by the staking in the applicant's materials submitted to the board, and with the following Findings That the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community, specifically 1. That the benefit that the applicant wishes to achieve cannot be achieved by any other means feasible given that the location chosen will also allow for additional lighting from attachments to the shed to shine on the parking lot in that area and the dumpster; and 2. That there will not be an undesirable change to the neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that the shed is screened by trees and will not be visible from the road or the neighbors; and 3. That the request is substantial given that accessory buildings are only allowed in the rear yard; and 4. That the request will not have adverse physical or environmental effects as evidence by SEQR not being required, and 5. That the alleged difficulty is self-created in that the applicant desires additional storage in that location for lighting and accessibility from the main building. ZBA 2024-11-26 Filed 2/14/2025) Pg. 2 Moved: David Squires Seconded: Connor Terry Vote: Ayes - Squires, Terry, Jung, Minnig, and Ritter ZBAA-24-18 Appeal of S Roberts WC Land LLC, owner, 111 Wiedmaier Ct., TP 56.4- 1.22, Conservation Zone, Jared Lusk,Applicant/Agent; seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section 270-16 (Height limitations)to be allowed to erect a personal wireless service facility tower/structure that would exceed the 30' maximum height requirements for all non- agricultural structures. Overview Mr. Lusk went through a presentation describing the project, its approvals so far, and the need for the tower at this height. He also went through points from the Planning Board's findings in their approval resolution and Professor Johnson's report(independent contractor hired by the Town) Highlights from report and application materials The significant gap cannot be addressed through other solutions, such as alternate locations, shorter towers, or one or more small cells. 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 nearest residences and require removal of more trees than the proposed location. The facility is the least intrusive means to address the significant gap. The proposed height is the minimum height necessary to remedy the significant gap is shown by the propagation maps Mr. Lusk stated for the record, that Pursuant to the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, because the Planning Board finds that the proposed facilities are the least intrusive means of addressing this significant gap in the personal wireless services, the Planning Board must grant Site Plan approval and Special Permit, which they did. This project has gone through extensive public hearings and discussion at other meetings, and the Planning Board, after hearing all those comments and reviewing all of the application materials and independent reports, determined that the proposed tower, at its proposed height, was the least intrusive method of curing the significant gap. Mr. Lusk pointed out and reviewed certain sections of the materials to bolster his comments above, including court case references from the 4 h District. Ms. Brock responded, saying that Mr. Lusk is talking about a public utility standard, and referencing the Rosenberg case, which the highest court, the New York Court of appeals, decided a few years ago. That was a use variance case, and there, instead of meeting the extremely strict standards to get a use variance, the court relaxed the use variance standard for public utilities. ZBA 2024-11-26 Filed 2/14/2025) Pg. 3 We're going to follow your typical area variance criteria and then if, when you work your way through it, you think that it will yield a denial, then there is an additional analysis you'll need to do under Federal law. She added that it is her opinion that the courts sometimes do not understand municipal law, and the cases sited were for a use variance, and therefore do not apply here, and we will apply the area variance criteria. Ms. Brock added that the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 does have rules that apply to this Board, and one of them is that you cannot consider health impacts if the proposed facility meets the Federal Communication Commission's emissions standards, and the applicant has submitted evidence that the facility will meet those standards. So, to the extent that we've received public comments and will hear public comment here tonight, you are legally not allowed to consider comments asserting health impacts in your decision. That has to be very clear from the outset to you all. Mr. Lusk responded, saying that he wanted to preserve for the record that that it's been held by courts, that the public utility standard is applicable to area variances. Discussion Mr. Squires asked Mr. Lusk to show the correlation between the maps and the dropped calls and the green shadings, to justify the need or the gap in service. The dropped call data versus the coverage area and the alternatives looked at. Mr. Lusk went through and displayed the maps showing coverage areas and dropped call data. There is coverage to an extent from the Brooktondale and Ithaca towers and then a depiction of the coverage that would result from the installation of this tower as proposed. The maps showed the different bands of coverage; low band, which a large area is orange, which is unreliable. You can maybe get a phone call outside, but certainly not in a building or in a wooded area. Mr. Lusk explained the dropped call data gotten by doing a drive test. The standard for a significant gap is 1-3% dropped calls and we are at almost 13%. Ms. Brock asked him to show specifically where the gap boundaries are. Mr. Lusk turned to the Exhibit Tab Z in the application materials and described the data in them. The area is around Route 79, Burns Road, Coddington Road and German Cross Road, Southwoods and the South Hill Recreational Way,parts of which are also in the Town of Dryden because the municipal line crosses the coverage area. Ms. Brock asked Staff to explain the area in terms of residences, connector roads, main thoroughfare roads etc. ZBA 2024-11-26 Filed 2/14/2025) Pg.4 Ms. Randall responded that State Route 79 and Coddington Road are heavily traveled connector roads from other towns to Ithaca; Burns Road is a connector from Rte. 79 and Rte. 96; rural residential with some agriculture and some natural areas such as the Rec Way and the reservoir. Mr. Mining asked about the ratio of dropped calls, such as 1 in 10? Mr. Johnson responded that it is about 11% so that would be 11 out of 100. Both dropped calls and ineffective call attempts. Mr. Wasif added that the data at the exchange end shows these were all attempts at voice calls. Discussion and interpretation of the material continued, showing where the improvements would occur with the proposed tower. The Board asked the applicants to show why small cells or shorter towers would not cure the significant gap. Mr. Lusk responded that their engineer and the Town's consultant concluded that a smaller tower or multiple small cell towers would not work because of the terrain. This is a large geographic area with foliage and changes in terrain that would inhibit coverage. Small cell sites are intended to cover a much smaller area, typically a few 100 feet, and are better suited for dense urban environments or specific locations where their smaller footprint can be engineered to provide hotspot coverage or capacity enhancements complementary to the area macro site. Macro sites have the structural capability of deploying Verizon's numerous license bands, a spectrum through the more capable macro antennas where small cells are limited in antenna, size, number, weight, etc. Your cell phone has to be able to see the antennae, a clear line of sight. Small cells are used in places like a mall, or say Wegman's, where high usage is expected and constant and they enhance the signal from the macro tower. Small cells can't shoot through obstructions such as trees and buildings, and they will result in more visual clutter. More smaller towers would increase the community impact and still provide less of a solution and effectiveness than the one taller tower. Telephone poles and/or smaller towers cannot support the type of equipment needed to cover the significant gap in coverage. Mr. Johnson agreed with Mr. Lusk's summary, adding that the "small towers" are not 30' ft tall but would be in the 80'-100'foot range. As stated, small towers are appropriate for commercial office parks or the like, with maybe 100'feet in each direction being covered by service. He said multiple smaller towers are not the best option for covering the gap. Even on a roadway, the smaller cells would have to be connected by wires,probably fiber optic cable, and if a tree came down or a pole went down, everyone would lose service. ZBA 2024-11-26 Filed 2/14/2025) Pg. 5 Mr. Minnig asked about the alternative sites that were looked at and the reasoning behind them being rejected. Mr. Lusk responded that Mr. Wasif receives a circle of the coverage area needed and without knowing zoning or residential density etc. makes a determination of where and what is needed. The Town has a very definitive siting hierarchy and then an site engineer travels to the location and reaches out to various land owners to gauge their interest in leasing land for a site. Each site that has some interest shown is then run by Mr. Wasif and of the 12 sites, one was a NYSEG owned property, but it wasn't large enough to meet the Town's fall zone requirements and many of the others were residential properties whose owners were not interested and would again not meet the fall zone requirements. Mr. Lusk added that details of the complete analysis of each site is in the application materials and were discussed at length at the Planning Board meetings, but he could go through them individually if the Board wanted him to. He added that they went through the process of evaluating some sites that no interest was shown on and analyzing if they would meet the fall zones and what coverage outcomes would be if a tower were to be placed there. Not one of them provided the coverage of the significant gap identified except for the 134' foot tower proposed here. One of them, the second best, although it wasn't, would have needed a 178' foot tower and still would not have provided the coverage needed, and, more importantly, the other sites would have been much closer to residential houses. Mr. Johnson agreed, saying that it's probably fair to summarize that the technical level of performance would not be very good, even though the coverage might be able to be provided to some extent. But it just wouldn't be a good site, and multiple towers throughout the community to address the need where one tower will do is counterintuitive. Public Hearing -Mr. Squires opened the public hearing. Daniel Siev spoke, saying that he lives right there on Slaterville Road and he will see this tower from his house. He was thankful that the community was speaking up and said that they do not want to see this tower erected, and they do not like the height and the fact that once it is up, attachments will make it even larger. It will be an eyesore, contrary to what the applicant is saying, and it will affect his property value. He felt that they could keep looking for a different location and he felt that if it gets denied here, there is no doubt they would find another location. He asked the board to listen to this community that has come out in strong opposition to this installation. ZBA 2024-11-26 Filed 2/14/2025) Pg. 6 Brit spoke, saying that she has served on many boards and committees and appreciates the time and attention this Board is spending on this topic and urged them to deny this variance. She said it was important to talk about the last Planning Board meeting where the Chair of that board was bullying people to vote for the project. 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." and proceeded to take a straw poll and asked other members to state why they were opposed and after seeing how many were opposed, he worked off of the draft resolution to approve it rather than the one to deny it. She said she asked a Board member after the vote if they had approved of the tower and he told me no, that was just for landscaping, so they didn't even know what they were doing. She said she believes the gap can be filled with small cells and she has no issues with her service. She is a nanny, and she drives all around the area and the only place is the dip in Burns Rd and that could be solved by a small tower. She turned to the Code and said that it requires that the Board grant the least intrusive remedy, and this is definitely not that. She said she doesn't understand the data they are putting forward to prove a gap. Our home values will do down and this is a conservation area and definitely doesn't fit the area. This is the last thing that Ithaca needs. We are at a point legally where the FCC and the telecommunications industry have yet to prove their outdated safety limits from 1996 are safe in court. The FCC lost in court in 2021, and the Appeals Court because the FCC didn't"record evidence that exposure to RF radiation at levels below the commission's current limits may cause negative health effect unrelated to caner," and the agency demonstrated a"complete failure to respond to comments concerning environmental concerns caused by RF radiation. The report found that the FCC ignored numerous organizations' scientists and medical doctors who called on them to update the limits and found that the FF failed to address the issues of impacts of long-term wireless exposure impacts to children." The testimony by people injured by wireless radiation impacts and impacts to the wildlife and environment has yet to be addressed. She said she knows we are not supposed to take health concerns into account, however, the safety limits in place are being shown to be inadequate in court right now. A member of the public spoke in person. Her interpretation of the need for the cell tower is for people driving on Route 79. She works from home and has no problem with service. She described a small cell tower as a low tower cellular base station that covers a much smaller area compared to a large cell tower. She goes on to describe that these small cell towers are placed all over cities where there are many obstructions to the signal. She is skeptical of the claims that a small cell tower would not work in the case although she admits she is not in the field. She mentions the subjective nature of undue burden. She states that most trees in the area are about 40 feet tall, a small cell tower 50 feet tall would be able to clear any tree obstructions to provide signal. It doesn't make sense to her to put a tower in a conservation zone. She also claims the ZBA 2024-11-26 Filed 2/14/2025) Pg. 7 applicant has not shown that a small cell tower would not give adequate coverage. She would like proof that the large cell tower is absolutely necessary. She says that a company that makes 33 billion per quarter, it should not be an undue burden to research more than just 12 alternate sites for this tower. Bob Babjak spoke via zoom. He began by mentioning his is the closest house to this tower on Wiedmaier Court. He thinks the tower should be denied for several reasons. Reason one: Town Code chapter 270-219 states that the bar for approval is the least intrusive means. He refers to what Professor Johnson stated in this meeting that although not the most effective, small cells would be a viable way to fill the gap in coverage. He argues that the Town Code says the least intrusive means, not the most effective. A tower 134 feet in height at the apex of the canopy around 30 and 40 feet tall would be over 100 feet higher than anything within a 100 foot radius of the surrounding area. This is completely out of character with the surrounding area. The viable alternative (small cells along Route 79)will not be as effective but will fill that gap in a much less intrusive way. He would like the ZBA to follow the Town Code and deny the tower in favor of a less intrusive solution. A member of the public spoke via Zoom. She spoke regarding the site itself. She noticed that the tower would be very close to residences on Wiedmaier Court. The alternative plots of land were large enough to put the tower father away from the residences. Using an alternative site would still have the tower be significantly above the area clutter and be seen but it would not be as intrusive, and it would not be in a conservation zone. She would like to see a balance between slightly less coverage but have the tower not be in a conservation zone. Andrew Molnar spoke via Zoom. He expounded on Daniel Siev's comment. A 2012 federal law allows Verizon to increase the height of an approved tower by 15%. This tower could be as high as 158 feet. He states that Verizon's claim that denying the tower would be effective prohibition is false. They have not shown any proof that this tower is the least intrusive means to fill the gap in coverage. When Susan Brock pressed them on this prohibition claim the Verizon representatives stated out of the 12 options we looked at this large tower is the least intrusive means to fulfill their project goals. No one from Verizon could explicitly say that this is the least intrusive means to fulfill the gap in coverage. He states that Verizon continues to use evasive language. They never explicitly said that small cells could not fulfill the coverage gap. He believes Verizon's obfuscation is misleading and has never shown that small cells would not fulfill the needs of the coverage gap. He mentioned their claim that small cells could not go through the tree foliage and other objects only are true for high frequencies. Mid to low band frequencies can penetrate those obstructions just fine. A majority of the Planning Board indicated in a straw poll that they wanted to deny the tower. He believes Verizon's misleading statements caused the Plannng Board to change their mind and vote yes. He would like the ZBA to vote no. Robert Berg, attorney retained by Ithacans for Responsible Technology spoke via zoom. He specializes in representing citizens who oppose the inappropriate sighting of cell towers and other wireless facilities. He stated at the Planning Board meeting last week he was not allowed to speak even though new evidence was presented from Verizon. He would like to question Mr. Johnson, Mr. Sharief and Mr. Lusk to create a public record for this evidentiary proceeding. ZBA 2024-11-26 Filed 2/14/2025) Pg. 8 Susan Brock explained this is a public hearing not an evidentiary proceeding. She continued that he is welcome to ask questions of the board or Verizon he is welcome to ask those questions. Questions: 1) For Mr. Lusk: Has he prepared any small cell analysis for Highway 79 showing the actual gap in coverage. How have they demonstrated there is a gap and how long is the gap. Is there any analysis for placing small cells on the existing utility poles to alleviate that gap in coverage and at what distances these small cells need to be. He states they have not provided this information. He would like this study done for Route 79 and other roadways where this a gap in coverage. He would also like Mr. Johnson to do his own analysis of whether putting small cells along the route can be a less intrusive solution. 2) For Mr. Lusk: Regarding alternate site selection. What are the dimensions of the search area. He believes the search area was contrived to be as small as possible so that the only available site turns out to be the site on Wiedmaier Court. He would like to know how they determine the dimensions of the search area and what is the basis for doing so. Also why the search area could not be expanded to include other sites. He states that Verizon sent out letters to the property owners and the property owners did not respond so they wrote off the site. What other efforts were made to contact those landowners at alternative sites. He continues to state that Verizon has the burden of proof that there is a gap in coverage and that this is the least intrusive site and way to meet all of the criteria. He believes the board is not asking the right questions and he would like to ask the right questions. His 3 minute time expired and he wanted noted for the record his objection that this whole proceeding has not allowed the residents to actually have their lawyer cross-examine the witnesses and ask all the questions I'd like since this is an evidentiary proceeding. Marie Skweir spoke via Zoom. See written comments submitted. She states that we do not need a tower this height and size to remedy a small gap in service. There are less intrusive ways via shorter cells and small cells to fill the gap in service without the aesthetic intrusion of such a monstrosity in our beautiful area. If you consider smaller cells you open up other site locations. The previously rejected sites could be use for a smaller cell tower. Verizon has refused to consider the less intrusive options because it does not fulfil their project goals. Not fulfilling coverage goals does not mean they cannot fill the coverage gap. She believes the language is not clear. The maps provided are predictive maps not hard data. The way she sees it the only beneficiary of such a large tower is Verizon. She believes the larger tower will Verizon to add multiple antennas for multiple carries for which Verizon collect rent. She believes a large tower would be an eyesore. She is concerned that Verzzon gains at citizen costs. There is no added benefit to the town, is a blight and is not necessary to remedy the gap. If the board votes yes, she would like the board to specifically state their reasons for voting yes. Stephanie Preising spoke via Zoom. She lives very close to the proposed tower site. She states that no one has spoken out in favor of the tower. She continues to say that the ZBA 2024-11-26 Filed 2/14/2025) Pg. 9 citizenry has come out in favor of small cells instead. The only people that want this tower are people profiting from in aka Verizon. They are not part of the community and any money that they will make will be funneled out of the community. She feels that it has been made very clear that the public is against this tower and they want a denial of the height variance. Jenn Feingold spoke via Zoom. She read an article from the Cornell Chronicle that was published September 21, 1999 by Roger Segelken entitled " Birds vs. Towers: Ornithologists fear growth of communications industry" httl s://news.cornell.ede/stories/1999/f19/communications-towers-killin - bird s4:--:text--%22'Ibex/o20m ore%20towers%2C%20the%20ni..oreAvian'/o2OMortality%20a t%2fJComnie nications%2fJTowers.%22 Public Hearing Closed. SEQR ZBAA-24-18 SEQR 111 Wiedmaier Ct., TP 56.4-1.22, Conservation Zone Resolved that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental impact based upon the information in Part 1 and for the reasons stated in Parts 2 & 3 of the assessment form. Moved: David Squires Seconded: Connor Terry Vote: Ayes - Squires, Terry, Jung, Minnig, and Ritter Determination on Height Variance for Verizon Cell Tower Discussion: Connor Terry asked Bill Johnson whether small cell technology would be a feasible alternative to the large cell tower. Bill Johnson answered that from a technical point of view small cells work in a city because they can handle a lot of capacity but in a very small area. The Town of Ithaca is not a city and has a lot of rolling terrain and vegetation. Small cells are made to serve the immediate sidewalk and roadway areas. To get over the tops of the terrain and foliage you need elevated antennas to accommodate that. The claim by a member of the public that that signals propagate just fine through trees at low band and midband is categorically incorrect. You lose approximately 75% of power for each tree canopy you go through. Technically you can cover the area with a multitude of small cells yes, but it is not practical to do so. The string of small cells could go offline when a tree falls across the top of the cables or during a power outage and people can't make emergency phone calls. A lot of people no longer have landlines and rely exclusively on wireless communications. It's technically feasible but not practically feasible. ZBA 2024-11-26 Filed 2/14/2025) Pg. 10 Connor Terry asked Mr. Lusk the Verizon representative if he has an mapping to show what coverage would look like if small cells were used. Mr. Lusk responded that a map was not prepared because small cells are not an appropriate design for the coverage area. Verizon would like to cover more than just a highway. They want to cover trails, roads and inside people's homes. Where small cells are appropriate they are used. There are several sites in the area where small cells are used but it is not appropriate for the amount of coverage they need. Therefore they have not prepared a map. He stressed that this is the least intrusive and only available location to deliver coverage to the area. Mr. Terry goes on to say that the public appear to be in acceptance of small cell technology. Verizon has not provided any evidence that small cells would not work. Mr. Johnson says it would not be practical. He summarized that the board is voting on the height of the tower and feels that a taller tower will be able to spread coverage over the area. However, how many people will this tower serve? The area is rural with not many people. The extra coverage the tower will provide is in areas that are not populated. The height of the tower seems reasonable to increase coverage, but he is not convinced it will serve anyone that does not already have coverage. He is unconvinced that you need perfect 5g coverage in the woods or at the reservoir. He also goes on to say the viewshed is important in this part of the Town. The tower being built does not belong in a conservation zone. Chris Jung spoke about the wealth of beauty in the conservation zone. She believes that this tower is substantially in the viewshed. She believes her responsibility is to the people of the Town of Ithaca and there are many unhappy people regarding this project. Susan Brock asked Marty Mosely how many people live in the area and how many people pass through the area. CJ Randall acquired DOT information to answer that question. On Burns road between Coddington Road and New York State 79 Sees between 2300 and 2400 cars per day. State Road 79 between Brooktondale Road and Pine Tree Road sees between 8000 -9000 cars per day. This is data collected between 2019 and 2023. The area is fairly sparsely populated, but no solid numbers can be determined. Discussion surrounding the dropped connection data ensued. Verizon provided information regarding 11.84% of dropped calls. Using rough math, it was determined that approximately 80,000 total calls were attempted and approximately 8,000 were ineffective during the time period of July 16 through July 31, 2024. Connor Terry stated that some of those calls were made on trails where he does not believe consistent cell service is necessary. If cell service is inconsistent going through the tree canopy the new tower will not help someone on a trail. Verizon responded that if you are out on a trail and break your ankle and need to make a call it is important to have consistent service on a trail. If you are in one of those homes within the gap of coverage and do not have a landline, you would not be able to make calls to emergency services when necessary. Verizon has an obligation to provide coverage to the entire coverage area,not just the populated areas. Bill Johnson explained that it's not just the foliage it is also the terrain that a signal has to overcome. When the signal hits the top of the trees the signal defracts and dives towards the ground. If you are going parallel through the trees you will lose 75% of the power for every canopy. It makes the signal practically unusable by tree 4. Having the signal ZBA 2024-11-26 Filed 2/14/2025) Pg. 11 higher will help the signal cut through the canopy and get to those areas where the terrain is challenging. Susan Brock asked Verizon to explain their license with the Federal Communications Commission and what does that means. Mr. Johnson explained that spectrum is a limited resource, and the FCC allocates that resource by giving out licenses. More recently they have been selling those licenses at auction. Those licenses purchased from the FCC allow systems to be built so that spectrum could be used for the purposes that the US Congress designated. This purpose is to have ubiquitous wireless service coverage. If Verizon were not able or unwilling to fulfill that purpose they would be in violation of that agreement. The FCC looks to see how well wireless providers cover their areas. The FCC has sent out independent teams in the past to determine if certain areas were being served properly. He states that the demand is consumer driven which is driving the FCC to make sure the infrastructure is there. Low frequency band is the bandwidth the very first cell phones used. Once technology advanced a midband spectrum was allocated to handle all the subscribers that were wanting to get online. Verizon does not have midband coverage in this gap area. Midband spectrum is 90% of their usable licensed bandwidth. The other 10% is lowband. There is adequate coverage at lowband for Route 79. His interpretation of town code that as long as there is adequate coverage at lowband you don't get to use a different frequency because you want to. He stated that there was an over interpretation on his part. He further explains that 90% of the bandwidth that Verizon has a license to is not on the map in this coverage area. This is referenced in Exhibit H pages 19-22. Connor Terry reiterated that the coverage Verizon would obtain with such a large tower is excessive for the area it services. Mr. Lusk explained that the coverage currently provided to residents along route 79 is not adequate for people in their houses. Discussion ensued regarding how the height of the tower impacts the coverage area. Wasif went on to explain how the applicant arrived at the 130 foot minimum height. Page 24-25 exhibit H was discussed. It is the shortest tower that would maximize the coverage in the targeted area required. Evidence was shown both utilizing the coverage maps provided and google earth images. Clarification questions were asked by the board. Discussion whether a 110 foot tower would be adequate to cover the targeted areas. Connor Terry would like coverage map for 90 feet, 70 feet and 50 feet to see how coverage changes at different tower heights. He would like to grant the minimum height necessary to cover the gap in coverage. Minimize the impact on the view shed and maximize coverage area. The applicant agreed to provide more specificity justifying the 130 foot tower as long as the board agrees to extend the shot clock. Agreement to reconvene at the December 16t' meeting. Information from the applicant will be provided showing 20 foot coverage increments from 130 foot tower down to a 70 foot tower in an overlay map. The board would also like dot data of the number of cars that travel down additional roads in the area. Further board discussion resulted in a confidence of a vote at the next meeting after additional information is provided. Matthew Minnig would like clarification if the tower would be camouflaged as a pine tree. The monopole would not be camouflaged. The tower could also be a co-locating tower where other carriers could use it. Camouflaging the tower would prevent that. ZBA 2024-11-26 Filed 2/14/2025) Pg. 12 Determination Resolved that this board agrees to extend the shot clock through December 16'', 2024. Motion: David Squires Second: Connor Terry Vote: Ayes - Squires, Terry, Jung, Minnig, and Ritter Jarrod Lusk also agreed to the waiver. Susan Brock explained to the board the rules surrounding effective prohibition and the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Other Business Resolved the board approve thes 2025 meeting schedule. Moved: Connor Terry Seconded: Chris Jung Vote: Ayes - Squires, Terry, Jung, Minnig, and Ritter Meeting Adjourned at 10:02 pm. Monica Moll, Deputy Town Clerk ZBA 2024-11-26 Filed 2/14/2025) Pg. 13