Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2025-02-25TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS February 25,2025 MINUTES The video recording of the meeting is archived on the Town's YouTube Live Meeting Channel. Present: Board Members Connor Terry, Chair; Kim Ritter, Chris Jung, Larry Sallinger and Matthew Minnig Marty Moseley, Director of Code Enforcement; Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk; and Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town Mr. Connor called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. Item 1. ZBAS-25-1 Appeal of Cornell University, Owner of 170 McGowan Woods Rd; Cornell Precinct 7 Special Land Use District, TP 64.-1-2.2 Davies Orinda, Applicant/Agent; is seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section 225-3 (New buildings required to have sprinkler systems) for a proposal to construct a storage building without a sprinkler system. Davies Arinda and Mike Niechwiadowicz,representing the applicant. Mr. Orinda gave an overview and power point presentation. (In appeal file) Questions The Board asked Mr. Moseley why sprinklers are required in this type of building. Mr. Moseley explained that the Town code is more restrictive than the New York State code and requires a sprinkler system in any storage building larger than 400 square feet. New York State uniform code requires sprinklers in buildings larger than 12,000 square feet. PUBLIC HEARING-Opened and closed with no comments. The Board asked about flammable materials that may be in the building. The applicants responded that it would have normal landscaping equipment that may have gasoline etc. in them, but this is a drop off/pick up location with no people other than in or out. Mr. Sallinger asked if they looked for any alternatives to a sprinkler. The applicant responded that they did, but because the building will not be heated, other options are not available. ZBA 2025-02-25 (Filed 3/9) Page 1 of 19 DETERMINATION Ms. Jung stated she had no concerns as this is storage in a remote type setting. Mr. Minnig stated that the town has granted similar variances for similar uses, and he did not have any concerns. The request is Type 2 under SEQR- Construction of or routine activities of educational institutions including expansion of existing facilities by less than 10,000 square feet and the SEQR handbook specifically says pole barns and storage buildings are included. ZBA Resolution ZBAS-25-1 Sprinkler Variance Cornell University 170 McGowan Woods Rd., TP 64.-1-2.2 Cornell Precinct 7 Special Land Use District Resolved that this board grants the appeal of Cornell University, seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section 225-3 (New buildings required to have sprinkler systems) for a proposal to construct a storage building without a sprinkler system, with the following: Conditions 1. The storage building be built substantially as shown in the packet materials,with the elongated portion running east/west, and 2. No maintenance or fueling of machinery be done in the building, and with the following Findings That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community, specifically 1. The strict application of Chapter 225-3 will create a practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship in that the storage building will be unconditioned and therefore a wet sprinkler system cannot be installed. A dry sprinkler system would require a portion of the building to be heated in the area where the dry sprinkler system would be installed. There is no other reason to provide heat in the building, which aligns with the University's sustainability goals. Providing heat in the building would significantly add to the complexity of the building and provide an additional possible source of ignition, and 2. Omission of a sprinkler system will not significantly jeopardize human life in that the building is intended for equipment storage, not human occupancy. The open layout and proposed 3-man doors, 2 overhead doors and fire extinguishers will provide sufficient egress options and safety in the case of a fire. The longest travel distance to an exit will be 30' feet and the lack of installing a heating system will greatly reduce possible sources of ignition, and ZBA 2025-02-25 (Filed 3/9) Page 2 of 19 3. The use of the building is not for human occupancy and no fuel will be stored in the building other than what is in the equipment. Moved: Connor Terry Seconded: Chris Jung Vote: ayes - Terry, Jung, Minnig, Ritter and Sallinger Item 2. ZBAA-25-2 Appeal Cornell University, Owner; John Pillar,Agent: Low-Density Residential District Zone, TP 60.-1-9.2. Seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section 270- 254 (Residential and Conservation Zones) for a proposal to install a sign that would exceed 50 square feet for a single sign, exceed the maximum freestanding sign height of 6 feet, and such sign is proposed to be internally illuminated,where it is not allowed to be internally illuminated in the Residential and Conservation Zones. John Pillar and Leslie Schill gave a presentation. Modestly Sized Location is surrounded by Cornell property and well inside the perimeter 31 Acres and MDR/Conservation Photos from two locations on Pine Tree Rd showing minimal impact Battery powered Faces away from residences and approximately 520' feet away; 420' away from the East Ithaca Recreation way and not visible or barely visible from both Strawberry Circle and the Rec Way Lighting will not visible from roadway or residences Questions Mr. Sallinger asked if there was a grandstand, and the applicant responded that there is on the east side of the field. Mr. Minnig asked about the generator mentioned in the application and the applicant responded that the battery solution they found meets the needs of the sign so a generator will not be needed. PUBLIC HEARING David Booker said he uses the Rec Trail a lot and asked if there were temporary or foldable options. The applicant responded that due to the distance from the trail they did not consider that necessary but added that they are looking at custom colors for the back of the scoreboard to have it blend in. A resident spoke, saying that she just heard it is 18' feet tall, and felt that it would be a jarring intrusion when walking on the Recreation Way and from the Eastwood Commons given the topography. ZBA 2025-02-25 (Filed 3/9) Page 3 of 19 Claire Nicoletti said she lives at Eastwood Commons and questioned why it has to be so big and tall. She was concerned about the wildlife and nature being disturbed. The public hearing was closed. DETERMINATION The applicant addressed the size proposed, saying that it is appropriate for the field size, distance across the field for spectators to read it, noting that it is not a solid structure and has to be at least 10' feet off the ground for the safety of the players and balls ricocheting off of it. It is smaller than the baseball and field hockey scoreboards and other sports with limited information or frills, just the Home/Visitor scores and the quarter of play. Ms. McGurk said she liked the idea of mitigating the impact by painting the back of the sign that would be visible from the trail. The applicant stated that the idea just came up today and they are pursuing it. ZBA Resolution ZBAA-25-2 Sign/Area Variance 210 Pine Tree Rd. TP 60.4-9.2 LDR Resolved that this board grants the appeal of Cornell University from Town of Ithaca Code section 270-254 (Residential and Conservation Zones) for a proposal to install a sign that would exceed the maximum 50' square feet area and the 6' foot maximum height and be internally lit in a residential zone, with the following: Conditions 1. The sign is installed substantially as shown in the application, and 2. That the back of the sign be of a color to blend in, and 3. That no generator be used to power the sign, and 4. The sign be operated only during day time hours (dawn to dusk), and with the following Findings That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh 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 height is needed for safety and the size is necessary for the distance from the viewers on the other side and the proposed sign is smaller than typical; the illumination is necessary to show the scoring numbers and without internal illumination, manual changing of the numbers would be necessary with external,upward lighting that would be more intrusive, and 2. That there will be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby ZBA 2025-02-25 (Filed 3/9) Page 4 of 19 properties in that walkers on the recreational trail will be able to see the sign, but due to the distance from the road and from nearby properties that view is mitigated, and given the distance again, the height is mitigated; there is no undesirable change from the illumination as the sign is facing away from the residences and the road and the distances from both; the sign is smaller than what is traditionally used for signage at athletic fields and is the least variance necessary, and 3. That the requests are substantial in height, size and illumination, and 4. That there will not be any adverse physical or environmental effects as evidence by the fact that SQER is not required and the sign will be placed on a field already in use for rugby and no excavation needed other than the post holes in previously disturbed land adjacent to the rugby field, and 5. That the alleged difficulty is self-created in that the applicants wish to have a scoreboard sign. Moved: Connor Terry Seconded:Matt Minnig Vote: ayes - Terry, Minnig, Jung, Ritter and Sallinger Item 3. ZBAA-25-3 Appeal of Jared Webb, owner of 412 Worth St; High-Density Residential Zone, TP 59.-1-10. Seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section 270-82C (Yard regulations), requires a side yard setback of 10',where a new house is proposed to be constructed and have a side yard setback of 0'. Mr. Webb gave a presentation. Two parcels adjacent to each other and adjacent to the Belle Sherman Cottages Straddles the Town/City boundary line Side yard setback requires 10' from the municipal boundaries and the line through the City/Town cannot be achieved. Questions Ms. Jung stated that this is exactly the type of unique situation the ZBA is here for. There Board agreed that this was a unique situation with no feasible alternative. Ms. Brock noted that the Town Board has approved the MOU between the City and the Town for building code purposes. PUBLIC HEARING David Booker spoke, saying that he is their neighbor and in favor of the project. Mr. Terry closed the public hearing. SEQR— Type 2, Single family residence lot line setback. ZBA 2025-02-25 (Filed 3/9) Page 5 of 19 DETERMINATION No further comments or discussion. ZBA Resolution ZBAA-25-3 Area Variance 412 Worth St. TP 59.4-10, HDR Resolved that this board grants the appeal of Jared Webb from Town of Ithaca Code section 270- 82C (Yard regulations), which requires a side yard setback of 10',where a new house is proposed to be constructed with a side yard setback of 0',with the following: Conditions 1. That the home be built substantially as shown in the application materials, and with the following Findings That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh 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 these are two separate parcels that cannot be consolidated due to the property straddling two municipalities, and 2. That there will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that the two lots are owned by the same person and several nearby built residences have had the same issue and been granted variances or built, and 3. That the request is substantial given that there will be a zero setback, but there is no feasible alternative, and 4. That the request will not have adverse physical or environmental effects as evidence by the fact that SEQR is not required 5. That the alleged difficulty is not self-created in that the two municipalities bisect the property. Moved: Connor Terry Seconded:Larry Sallinger Vote: ayes—Terry, Salinger, Ritter, Minnig and Jung Item 4. ZBAA-24-18 Appeal of S Roberts WC Land LLC, owner of III Wiedmaier Ct.; Conservation Zone TP 56.4-1.22. Jared Lusk, Applicant/Agent; is seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section 270-16 (Height limitations), requires a maximum height of 30' for all nonagricultural structures, where the proposed personal wireless service facility tower/structure would exceed the 30' maximum height requirements. This itenn was conaroversiai, and a verbatinn transcription was done and filed wift'i the appeal file for informational purposes.. The full recording and web transcription is available on the Town's YOU Tcabe Live Meetings Town of Ithaca page, reachable via OUr website or by searching YouTube.. The Town produces sunnnnary minutes as the official record of nneetings.. ZBA 2025-02-25 (Filed 3/9) Page 6 of 19 Jarad Lusk, Brett Morgan, Wasif Sharif and Mike Crosby from Verizon were available for questions. Mr. Lusk went through the additional information the Board requested at the last meeting expanding on the other locations that were looked at for the pole site and dropped call data and how differing heights would affect the coverage rate. Questions from the Board. Mr. Minning: Exhibit Z has information regarding drop calls and access failures. It is labeled drop connections, voice calls, access failures voice calls. Can we confirm that each of these was a voice call and not any other type? Mr. Lusk: Mr. Wasif has confirmed this multiple times. All this data are voice calls. There are other failures happening but those are voice call failures. PUBLIC HEARING Mr. Connor opened the public hearing. A member of the public spoke and referenced an email sent by Mr. Molinar regarding the FCC map coverage data and the submitted map information from Verizon. Clear discrepancy and there is not a significant gap in this location. Also, the FCC rules are for residences and businesses, not coverage in moving vehicles. Caroline Alemany spoke against the variance, she felt alternatives have not been completely investigated and it has not been sufficiently demonstrated that a pole of this size is necessary. She was concerned about protecting the aesthetics and natural beauty of the area and wants them and the board to explore a more balanced approach that may include small cell towers. Pamela Wallace spoke, giving a national perspective to the appeal and the discrepancy between the FCC maps and reality of coverage levels are a concern and deserve a thorough review. She offered contacts for a third-party review regarding small cell options. Marilee Murphy spoke, saying that discrepancy may be a theme this evening. She stated that she lives and works in this particular area and has never had an issue with dropped calls and she hasn't heard anyone that has attended the multiple meetings on this pole say they have any issues. She also thinks the aesthetics and natural beauty of the area should not be marred by a mono pole of this size. Dennis Anello spoke, saying that he is a retired physics and math instructor, and he is concerned about the radiation exposure associated with this pole and has sent emails to the boards that have discussed this project. He said Verizon has not proved the need for this pole and this size. Bob Babjak said he lives at 106 Wiedmaier Court, which is the closest house to this proposed tower and it is a beautiful area, it has a gorgeous view and there would be nothing higher than this pole and it would be way out of character. This is not the least intrusive means to meet any ZBA 2025-02-25 (Filed 3/9) Page 7 of 19 gaps if there even is one. He felt the only gap that was demonstrated was in the woods/reservoir area. He was also concerned about the health impacts. Jerome Gagliano spoke, saying he is a longtime Ithaca resident and engineer. He said Verizon has not proven that this138 foot monopole is the least intrusive method of filling the small gap in service. They mentioned multiple times in the propagation maps and that service would be lost any height below 138 but used examples of 70, 90 and 110 feet but he felt that was misleading as the results are focused on the midband frequency range not the low band frequency range and low band is what is used for voice call service and the midband is used for data and streaming. Andrew Molinar spoke against the pole citing health issues and how the State and Federal governments have made it illegal to take those concerns into consideration. If it is safe, why can't we speak about it. He said that Verizon likely cannot claim effective prohibition since small cells would be a less intrusive means of filling the gap and they have not proven with evidence that this is untrue. He added that the Planning Board had misgivings about their vote and asked if they could change it, but counsel said they could not. He reiterated the prior comments regarding the FCC coverage maps and discrepancies between the submitted materials and that map and that there is 100% outdoor stationary coverage in just about the entire area and referenced a petition against this project with 169 signatures. Courtney Gerardi spoke about health effects that she has personally experienced from cell tower radiation in Pittsfield MA where they deemed the tower a nuisance and health hazard and made them turn it off. She then spoke to the beautiful area and how people do not move here to have such an intrusive structure that will harm their health, their property values and worry about fires and fall zone safety. Rebecca Sydney spoke, saying she lives on Coddington Road and has great service. She moved here from Maui, Hawaii a couple of years ago because she had heard Ithaca was so environmentally conscious and she is finding that that is not true. She spoke about health issues and helping someone with EMF exposure by buying a simple meter that showed the high levels and they had rashes and headaches and sleep issues. Member of the Public spoke, stating that she agrees with everyone else that this is not the least intrusive means and felt the small cell alternative was never seriously considered and that option is a no brainer. Member of the Public spoke, saying that they have lived in this area for many years and drive regularly in this area and have not noticed any drop calls and urged the Board to deny the project. She was worried about home values, health and marring the natural beauty of the area and not put corporate profits ahead of our own priorities to preserve nature and beauty. ZBA 2025-02-25 (Filed 3/9) Page 8 of 19 Sam spoke, saying he lives at Weidmaier Court and agrees with all the previous comments and would like the Board to deny the variance. He has no issues with calls or texts and the height is 3-4 times taller than anything around it and allowing it would set a precedent for more. Member of the Public spoke, saying that they live on German Cross Road and have no issues, either at home or driving around in that area. She also asked her friend who drove Uber around the area and he said the service was solid. She stated that she lived near a cell tower before and was very sick and it destroyed her life. She is healthy now that she moved away from it. There are also effects on wildlife and fauna and birds and read a few quotes from studies done on birds and animals. She urged the Board to deny the variance. Michelle Tevis spoke, urging the Board to deny the variance, saying that he is a primary care physician for people with severe chronic illness like what has been described. He said there is no law that says you can't use your own critical thinking about health and environmental concerns and compared it to the advent of the tobacco industry who were able to cover up the effects for decades when they knew there were health effects. He was concerned about property values and echoed the statements from others that that is not why people move here; they move here for nature and beauty. He said even if he had service issues, he would not live near a tower. Daniel Seib spoke, saying that he has attended all the Planning Board and Zoning Board meetings and urged the Board to deny this variance. He said he lives within 500 feet of site and he has Verizon with no service issues. No dropped calls. There is no need for this. It would affect the look of the area and be god awful. He does not want this to be the first thing people see coming into Ithaca. It is not the least intrusive means. No one has advocated for this and at every meeting the community has shown up to speak against it. He said that if this is denied, Verizon will come back with a smaller tower plan because they want it, and with a smaller tower, they will make less money, but they will want it. Kelly Hook spoke, saying that during the previous appeal this evening, you had someone asking for a 10' foot variance and they presented a good case and showed the context of what and why they needed it and that it was not their fault. You saw the reasonableness and granted it. Now this appeal; You are not allowed to make a decision on health concerns, but you are certainly allowed to take the welfare of the community into concern. If you have doubts about that you can decide based on welfare. No one except for Verizon has asked for this and there is no proven need except what Verizon says. She said she hoped the Board would consider the safety and welfare of the community in making its decision. Mr. Terry closed the public hearing. ZBA 2025-02-25 (Filed 3/9) Page 9 of 19 DETERMINATION Mr. Lusk responded to the public's comments. The FCC maps—He asked that the FCC maps be brought up on the big screen. He said the maps are exactly what were submitted. Exhibit H in the application shows the green, yellow and brown coverages. The brown is the minimum coverage; you may be able to stand on the side of the road and get a phone call, you can't make a call from inside your car. We've never said there is no coverage, what we said is that it was ineffective coverage. If you go to service filters and select in vehicle mobile, it shows a lot of white. They are not different and if you scroll out, you see there is some coverage but also a pretty good white gap. Least intrusive method- We talked about this exhaustively on the record before both Boards. Small cells work in the right context, they are a supplement to the reliable macro network. He added that Verizon has applied for permits for small cells at Ellis Hollow Road near the Plaza. They are the correct installation there. Wasif Sharif read from the application regarding the review of small cells in this location. Summarized here: This is proposed as a macro telecommunication tower, designed to be the backbone network solution throughout the area. In a rural area like this which is subject to significant terrain, large geographic area and laced with foliage challenges, the small cell coverage capability is unsuitable. The macro tower will provide coverage throughout the target area and contiguous for several miles. Small cells are intended to cover a much smaller area, typically a few hundred feet and are better suited for dense urban environments or a specific location where their smaller footprint can be engineered to provide hot spot coverage or capacity enhancement complimentary to the area macro site. A macro site must be installed on a strategically and centrally located tall structure relative to the objective area for several key reasons; clear line of sight, coverage footprint/service area. As height increases so does the site coverage capabilities. The antennas must be located above the area clutter in order to overcome physical obstruction such as buildings, trees and terrain features. Lowering the antenna center line will not solve the area's problems. Adding additional small cell sites is counter intuitive to minimizing community impact and would result in multiple sites that would not achieve objectives. In summary, an alternative deployment located on a new or existing smaller structure, including utility poles is impractical as they have too many limitations, including but not limited to, low antenna center lines, equipment space size,power constraints and structural limitations causing gaps in coverage and inability to achieve objectives stated in the justification document. Simply put, utility poles or other smaller towers or structures are not capable of supporting the equipment and coverage requirements needed for this project area. ZBA 2025-02-25 (Filed 3/9) Page 10 of 19 Mike Crosby from the Verizon team added that he works with Wasif and reviewed this project as a second set of eyes to understand the challenges. This tower location is a significant distance from the existing cells that serve this area. Complicating that factor is the severe terrain combined with foliage. Two of the three sites serving this area now are blocked by terrain and the signals do not travel through the dirt, they don't curve around hills and trees. Unfortunately, those sites are blocked physically from the project area. The site that provides most of the coverage for this area is about five miles away, which is a very significant distance even for the low band frequencies. The mid-band frequencies help with some of the voice loss calls that are occurring on the low band services, but they it is overloaded and the solution is a macro site in this area. The small cells would be a spot solution where you're just picking and choosing winners and losers throughout the intended project area. It would not result in even coverage or relieve the existing congestion that is occurring. Small cell solutions have a host of other challenges. The number of antennas, the size of antennas, the amount of equipment that's needed, no generator option, means that small cells are simply inappropriate to solve this coverage issue. In order for us to get where we can use small cells, we have to have the backbone anchor of the network. The network data that we have shown indicates extensive voice loss calls throughout this area. Mr. Crosby then commented on the FCC maps, saying that the FCC map is specifically intended for mobile and stationary broadband throughput signals. Depending on how far you zoom into to get increased granularity looking at the different layers and at the different levels that are provided on the FCC page, you will see that they are actually quite complimentary to the submission materials and he did not see the discrepancy that's claimed in that regard. The maps we use are specifically designed and intended to communicate the gaps in service that exist at the granular level necessary and the FCC maps are obviously a much wider viewshed area. Mr. Terry asked the Town's Consultant, Bill Johnson, to give a summary of the small cell argument. Mr. Johnson said he has given an in-between answer in the past because it isn't as simple as a yes or no. You could put a lot of small cells in but there many technical downsides to that, which Mr. Crosby just explained. You don't get full coverage, and the cells need to be spaced very closely together. Town Code requires small cells to be placed 1500 feet apart and a minimum of 300 feet from a residence. ZBA 2025-02-25 (Filed 3/9) Page 11 of 19 We can't discuss health impacts, but,putting a bunch of small cells throughout the community brings the radiation elements closer to more people. They'll be lower in height, and they'll be closer to locations where there could be people, so putting smaller cells throughout the community doesn't necessarily address any of the health concerns that have been expressed. He added that he has addressed the question of more shorter towers. Not small cells, but something between a small cell and a macro cell. It would actually be a small macro cell. Same problem, you'd be placing these throughout the community with the accompanying need for fall zones and setback requirements and he said he worked with Planning Staff to review the area and there were not a lot of options, and if those options were used, it would not be a pretty picture as you would then have multiple smaller macro sites. He said that he did not disagree with any of the information Mr. Crosby has presented and that he did not have time to review the online FCC maps compared to the ones submitted as that information came late today. Mr. Terry asked about the previous site plan approvals for this site and Ms. Randall gave a summary of the subdivision and associated DEC regulatory restrictions imposed on the site. Mr. Minning asked if the benefit sought was to reduce the dropped call rate to 1% (Verizon standard) versus thel1.84% quoted in the materials. Mr. Lusk responded that the benefit is to provide reliable coverage throughout the coverage area and that includes reducing the drop call rate. Because we cannot measure the dropped calls off the roads because we cannot go onto people's properties or into their homes, the 11.84% dropped call rate are on roadways and this project will alleviate much more beyond the roads. Mr. Minning said that if you look at Exhibit B, many of the dropped calls were not on the road. Mr. Terry asked if the 1% maximum dropped calls is a FCC legal requirement. Mr. Lusk responded that it is a condition of Verizon's license which grants them the public radio spectrum and their obligation under that license is to deliver reliable wireless telecommunication service to their coverage area. He added that every so often Verizon is required to report back to the FCC that the public airwaves have reliable coverage. He said that he can assure the Board that if they didn't need this site, they wouldn't be building it. They build about 75 or 100 sites in upstate New York every year and the trigger point is the ability to provide reliable coverage to the license area and to do your best to provide coverage. Mr. Terry asked if it be fair to say that Verizon's permit with the FCC is subject to this imperative to reduce this dropped call rate and close the gaps. Mr. Lusk responded that it is a couple of steps removed, but yes, we have to deliver reliable coverage to the license area or risk losing our license. ZBA 2025-02-25 (Filed 3/9) Page 12 of 19 Mr. Johnson added that he agreed completely with what Mr. Lusk has said, saying that he has tried to research this 1% standard for quite a while now and it seems to be a holdover from landline days where that was the goal and standard used for landlines. He was not aware of any federal regulation or law that requires the 1% standard be met, however, there have been court cases that have recognized the 1% standard. Mr. Terry asked about SEQR and Ms. Brock responded that the Board made a negative declaration at their November meeting. Mr. Minning wanted to clarify that the list of dropped calls provided are calls over the same period of time. Mr. Lusk responded that, to be clear, it is either dropped calls or calls that are attempted and not able to be made. Mr. Terry turned to the balancing test. Ms. Brock wanted to make a statement before they began their review. She said that a couple of people made characterizations about the recent Planning Board meeting and she summarized what happened. The Planning Board granted the site plan and special permit contingent on several things, including any necessary variances from the Zoning Board. At subsequent meetings,people spoke during persons to be heard and submitted written comments urging the Planning Board to reconsider their decision. I was asked what the criteria would be to be able to do that. She researched it and there is nothing in New York Town law that addresses reconsideration by a Planning Board, unlike for the Zoning Board Appeals where there is a process to reconsider and appeal. She said she then researched the question and gave them the information about what criteria could possibly be used; new information, misrepresentation and a couple of other things. The Chair of the Planning Board polled the members to see whether they would like to reconsider the decision, and none of the five members present felt the situation met the criteria. Mr. Terry began the balancing test discussion, leaning towards a denial, knowing that there would be another process if this were denied. Ms. Brock reviewed the additional process to determine whether the denial would be an effective prohibition. Mr. Terry asked if an effective prohibition is determined, would that bring us back to an approval motion? ZBA 2025-02-25 (Filed 3/9) Page 13 of 19 Ms. Brock responded, yes, if you find that there would be an effective prohibition, then you have to approve the application. Mr. Terry asked if it could be approved with conditions? Ms. Brock responded that it could, but the conditions by themselves cannot be an effective prohibition themselves. Mr. Terry polled the Board on pursuing this as a denial and all members agreed. Mr. Terry moved -the benefit could be achieved by other means feasible. The maps showing the lower heights are feasible, but of course you would lose some coverage as you drop the height. He felt that the dropped call areas would be in the heavily wooded and hillsides and the rivers, that are not populated and some small sections of neighborhoods that he didn't think represent the community as a whole in terms of numbers. There would be an undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. This is the most significant test. This is a particular property that has a large viewshed of a conservation area with heavily wooded hillsides and streams and because of the way the road fronts at the corner of Route 79 and Burns Road, there's no or very little vegetation on the roadside and you can see all the way down the hillside into the valley. It's a significant viewshed that everyone driving by can see and all the neighbors would see this tower. It is much tall than the 40'-60' foot trees surrounding it, at least double their height and will be seen from every angle. The request is substantial because our limit is 30' feet and they're asking for 138' feet. There would be no adverse physical or environmental effects as evidenced by our negative declaration from SEQR. The alleged difficulty is not self-created because Verizon's permit with the FCC is subject to providing coverage to the gap areas and giving significant coverage to everyone. On balance the benefit to the applicant is not outweighed by the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community. Effective prohibition criteria. The proposed facility is not the least intrusive means of addressing a significant gap in the applicant's personal wireless services. Ms. Brock noted the standards for defining a significant gap from the Town Code, with criteria to consider. Whether the proposed site is the least intrusive location at which a personal wireless service ZBA 2025-02-25 (Filed 3/9) Page 14 of 19 facility that remedies an identified significant gap maybe located and the applicant has reasonably established a lack ofpotential less intrusive sites and lack ofsites available for co- location. I believe that this is not the least intrusive location based on the viewshed and there are other sites that they demonstrated would be more difficult or would cause problems for installing a tower. I think that due to the significant intrusive means of this particular location, those other locations could be revisited or looking at other new locations. Whether the specific location on the proposed portion of the selected site is the least intrusive portion of the site for the proposed installation. Mr. Terry asked for the site plan maps to be shown. Ms. Randall noted the location of the non- disturbance area. Mr. Lusk noted that the site plan shows the project is intentionally placed in the middle of the small buildable area. Mr. Terry said that would mean that this specific location on the proposed portion of the selected site is the least intrusive portion of the site for the proposed installation. Whether a gap is significant. Ms. Brock stated that our Town Code says you shall consider among other things: drop 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 applicants' customers are affected for only a limited period of time. Mr. Terry said he felt the gaps are not significant between the two heights described. They've asked for a certain height; they are saying there is a gap, but the tower could be shorter and there would still be gaps but they would not be significant. Whether the height proposed for the personal wireless service facility is the minimum height necessary to remedy an established significant gap in service. Mr. Minning went through his evaluation of the dropped call data in evaluating whether there is a significant gap, noting that the wording we were given was the ability of wireless telephones to make and receive voice calls to and from land, which did not distinguish the location of the person trying to make the call. He wanted clarification on counting people moving in a car, versus standing on the side of the road. Ms. Brock responded that all calls should be considered; people who are in cars,people who are in buildings and people who are outside. Mr. Minnig responded that in that case, he felt the evidence provided in exhibit EB, which is a cross-section of actual drop call data from the applicant, represents a cross patch of calls that ZBA 2025-02-25 (Filed 3/9) Page 15 of 19 were made in vehicles while moving as well as ones that were clearly from a stationary hiker, unless someone was driving their car in the reservoir that particular day, which is a good representative sample of what we would expect for potential inability to make a voice call. In the supplemental maps that were provided highlighting the eight areas, counting those dropped calls that were in the highlighted areas used to justify the height, the dropped calls are just under 2%. Mr. Minnig explained how he came to that conclusion in detail by expanding the maps to count the individual dots representing dropped call. Overlaying the two maps on coverage and dropped calls, I counted that of the 748 just the drop calls not the access failures, 121 of those were within. Which is less than 2%. So, it seems at least looking at this both the maps and the actual data, that if the goal was to decrease the drop call rate focusing on so few areas that cover so few of the drop calls is not the least intrusive means to eliminate the drop calls. Mr. Terry said this would support the idea of having a shorter tower and would not have a large effect on the coverage area as a whole and that there is not an effective prohibition. You could have a shorter tower that would reasonably fill the gap and the gaps that persist with the shorter tower are not significant. Whether a preexisting structure can be used to camouflage the personal wireless service facility? There is no pre-existing structure around, so it is not applicable. Whether the installation mitigates adverse impacts to the greatest extent reasonably feasible through the employ ofstealth design, screening, and use ofcolor and noise mitigation measures. There is no stealth design that can cover up a tower of this height, especially considering the surrounding landscape. Whether there is a feasible alternative to remedy the gap through alternative less intrusive substitute facility, such as the installation ofmore than one shorter facility instead ofa single facility. I can't speak to more than one shorter facility because we don't have evidence of what that would look like, but it could be an option because it hasn't been proven, and it is not the least intrusive measure for the reasons already stated. Mr. Lusk spoke, saying that they has written a letter saying standards for the variance was that of the public utility standard. Ms. Brock and I spoke about it, she indicated that the case law is modeled, we believe it isn't modeled. It's clear that based on what I've heard here tonight the board is following the wrong standard for it. We would have significant difference in analysis of whether or not we comply with the Code. I need to say it for the record to be clear. Mr. Terry responded that he had talked to Ms. Brock about that and based upon that discussion, he felt the Board was following the correct criteria. ZBA 2025-02-25 (Filed 3/9) Page 16 of 19 Ms. Brock and the Board reviewed the resolution. Mr. Sallinger stated that he wanted it to be clear that this is not nullifying the Planning Board's action and this is a separate undertaking. ZBA Resolution ZBAA-24-18 Area Variance -Height 111 Wiedmaier Ct. TP 56.4-1.22, Conservation Zone Resolved that this Board denies the appeal of S Roberts WC Land LLC, owner of 111 Wiedmaier Ct., seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section 270-16 (Height limitations)to be permitted to erect a personal wireless service facility tower/structure that would exceed the 30' maximum height requirements, with the following Findings 1. That the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve can be achieved by other means feasible; with the maps they have shown, there are lower heights that would still be feasible for this area. Obviously as you drop in height the map gets more scarce, but the areas in which it gets more scarce are heavily wooded rivers and hillsides that are not populated, and some small sections of neighborhoods that do not represent the community as a whole in terms of numbers. The benefit can be achieved by other means feasible in that the tower can be shorter, and 2. That there will be an undesirable change in neighborhood character and detriment to nearby properties; this is a very significant one. This would have a rather large undesirable change in neighborhood character. This is a particular property that has a large viewshed of a conservation area, heavily wooded hillsides and streams, and because of the way the road frontage is at the corner of 79 and Burns, there is very little vegetation on the road front; but then as you get back you can see all the way down the hillside into the valley. It's a significant viewshed that everybody driving by sees. All the neighbors would be able to see this tower because it's so much larger than the trees surrounding it; our tallest trees could be 40-60 feet. This is at least double the height, so it will be seen from pretty much any angle. The negative declaration under SEQR is made to determine whether an Environmental Impact Statement will be required and the ZBA looks at a bigger area of the community than just the immediate area; for the 5-factor area variance criteria, the ZBA looks at the immediate neighborhood area and the immediate adjacent properties, and there is clearly a significant visual impact on the properties in the immediate area because of the tall tower that cannot be shielded effectively, and 3. That the request is substantial because the limit is 30 feet and they are asking for 138 feet, and 4. That there will be no adverse physical or environmental effects as evidenced by the Negative Declaration from SEQR., and ZBA 2025-02-25 (Filed 3/9) Page 17 of 19 5. That the alleged difficulty is not self-created, because Verizon's permit with the FCC is subject to providing coverage to the gap areas and giving significant coverage to everyone. On balance, the benefit to the applicant is not outweighed by the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community. That this does not constitute an effective prohibition, specifically: 1. This is not the least intrusive location based on the viewshed, and there are other sites that they demonstrated would be more difficult or would cause problems for installing a tower, but due to the significant intrusive means of this particular location those other locations can be revisited or potentially even look at other new locations, and 2. This specific location on the proposed portion of the selected site is the least intrusive portion of the site for the proposed installation, and 3. The height proposed for the personal wireless service facility is not the minimum height necessary to remedy an established significant gap in service. The evidence provided in Exhibit BB, which is a cross-section of actual dropped call data from the applicant, represents a cross-hatch of calls that were made in vehicles while moving as well as ones that were clearly from a stationary hiker unless someone was driving their car to the reservoir. That's a good representative sample of what we would expect for a potential inability to make a voice call_ In the supplemental maps that were provided highlighting the 8 areas, counting the dropped calls that were in the 8 highlighted areas that were used to justify the height of the tower, they represent dropped calls that are only just under 2%, compared to the 11.84%that were quoted for the entire dropped calls. These are in the circled areas that the applicant was representing would be the locations most affected by a shorter height of the tower. Exhibit BB shows longitude and latitude for dropped connections and failed attempts. Exhibit Z has maps showing a graphical representation of where those occurred. They are also referenced in the updated provided maps that are Exhibit 00, with missed calls that are overlaid on those areas that would be most affected by the height of the cell tower as determined by Verizon. Having a shorter tower would not have a large effect on the coverage area as a whole, and 4. That the proposal is not the least intrusive means to address a significant gap in coverage; you could have a shorter tower that would reasonably fill the gaps, and the gaps that persist with the shorter tower are not significant, and 5. A preexisting structure could not be used to camouflage the facility, because there are no preexisting structures around, and 6. Re: 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,there is no stealth design that can cover a tower of this height, especially considering the surrounding landscape, and ZBA 2025-02-25 (Filed 3/9) Page 18 of 19 7. Re: whether there is a feasible alternative to remedy the gap through alternative, less intrusive substitute facilities, that includes the same tower of a shorter height. For the reasons stated above, there is no effective prohibition because the proposal is not the least intrusive means to address a significant gap in service. Moved: Connor Terry Seconded: Chris Jung Vote: ayes —Terry, Jung, Minnig, Ritter and Sallinger Unanimous That concludes all of the items on the agenda tonight. Thank you all for your time. Do we have anything to discuss before we adjourn? Mr. Moseley confirmed a quorum for the march 1 Ph meeting. Mr. Terry moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Ms. Jung, unanimous. Submitted by Paulette Rosa Town Clerk ZBA 2025-02-25 (Filed 3/9) Page 19 of 19