7575 Van Buren Road, Baldwinsville, NY 13027
Feb 2008 ZBA minutes
The Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Van Buren, held at the Town Building, 7575 Van Buren Rd., was called to order at 7:30 p.m.
All present joined in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
Roll Call: Robert Cleverly arrived at 7:40pm
James Bowes present
Joseph Kiselica present
John Virginia, Chairman present
Laura McBurney, Vice-Chair present
Also Present: David Pringle, Code Enforcement Officer
Vera Cavallaro, Secretary
Ted Spencer, Attorney
MINUTES
Minutes were approved as written.
Motion
Ms. McBurney moved to accept the January minutes, seconded by Mr. Bowes. There was no further discussion. Motion carried; unanimously
Motion
Mr. Virginia asked the Board to entertain a motion to waive the formal reading of the public notices. Ms. McBurney moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Cleverly. There was no further discussion. Motion carried, unanimously.
HOUSE - PUBLIC HEARING
7034 W. Sorrell Hill Rd Tax Map Parcel Id# 049-04-01.1
Variance from Section 200-45 Height of an accessory structure
Mr. Thomas House was present to address the Board.
Mr. House said that he would like to have a variance to put up a windmill to create energy.
Mr. House handed the Board material about the windmill that he is proposing.
Mr. House said that there are no guide wires on the windmill so there are no safety issues with that and it is structurally sound enough that is does hold the strength of the windmill.
Mr. House showed the Board two pictures of windmills that are currently on W. Sorrell Hill Rd. to show varying heights of different towers relative to the one he is proposing. He would like the windmill that he is proposing to be 90ft high and that where he is located is the highest point in Van Buren and most of the area around him is agricultural owned by Bob Cleverly and the house that is to the left of him has to be 370ft so there is no chance that the windmill could fall in any way and hit that house and Mr. Ventura's house is roughly 500ft away. There would be also little chance that it would hit his house because the 3 car garage is between there.
Mr. House said the reason that he would like variance to be for 90ft is because the higher the windmill, the higher wind current.
Mr. Virginia asked if the structure was 90ft high to the center of the propellers and what the diameter of the propellers is.
Mr. House said that it is 90ft high to the center and that the diameter of the propellers is 12ft.
Mr. Virginia said that the application states that they would like this 15ft off of the north and east property lines and if that windmill were to fall it may not fall on their neighbor's house but it will fall on the neighbor's property.
Mr. House said that the only way to do that would be to move his house because he only has an acre and a half.
Mr. Pringle said Section 200-45 is the dimensional requirements for setbacks but Section 200-42 determines the height of certain towers such as transmission towers but it doesn't specifically say a windmill. In order to go higher some of these structures just by their design have to be at a certain height and this windmill won't be any good unless it is to a certain height but that height has to be proven to the Board as necessary. The engineering outfit behind this generator should supply the Board with information showing that this needs to be 90ft tall. If the applicant can prove that they need 90ft that is 70 more feet taller than an accessory structure is allowed so they have to add 70 to the 15ft so now the Board has to work on a variance for the setback.
Mr. Virginia asked the applicant to supply that information to the Board.
Mr. House said that he would ask the company for that information.
Mr. Virginia asked if there was anyone in the audience that wanted to speak either for or against this application.
No one spoke.
Mr. Virginia continued the public hearing until March 17, 2008 at 7:31pm.
Mr. Bob Cleverly joined the meeting.
SYRACUSE SMSA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP - PUBLIC HEARING
O'Brien Rd Tax Map Parcel ID# 051-04-01.1 PUD Zoning District
Section 200-32 Telecommunications Tower
Mr. Jared Lusk, Ms. Jennifer Wright and Mr. Coleman Burke were present to address the Board.
Mr. Lusk said at the last meeting there were several comments and he has provided a written response to the questions and concerns that were raised at the last meeting. There was a comment about the Town code requiring a variance for the setback on the tower height and after speaking with Mr. Spencer they did apply for the area variance. Another comment was that the proposed site was not appropriate for location of a wireless telecommunications facility due to its proximity to residential structures and an elementary school and he would like to reiterate how they got to that site and that it was the Town Board and Planning Board that directed them to this area and that their first application was at the mini storage on Van Buren Rd. and the Town pushed them to this particular area because this site was preferred over the mini storage site.
Mr. Lusk said that it is important to note that they need to place this tower in a location that provides the coverage for the gap in coverage that has been provided, demonstrated, and confirmed by the Town's RF consultant. The Town's own consultant said that this is a good site and appropriate for the use that they are providing. He has also provided certification from their radio frequency engineer which would be exhibit J to the original application; that states that they are operating well within the parameters set by the FCC and the radiation from the tower is well within the FCC standards and therefore as Mr. Spencer can advise the Board the health affects or the potential health affects from a tower is not something the Board can even consider in determining whether to approve or reject the tower site.
Mr. Lusk said the third category of discussion was the proximity to the tower to nearby property owners and he has provided the Board with an aerial photo and the comment was that the tower was going to roll down the hill and hit the nearby houses or roll up the hill to the houses in the reverse. The most important piece of evidence is the structural engineering letter that says that the tower will be designed fall within 52ft of its base.
Mr. Lusk explained to the Board the standard that the tower will be designed to and how the tower would fall in an extraordinary event.
Mr. Lusk said if the tower would completely come off of the bottom and start rolling that tower would have to roll through a strand of rooted trees down the hill across O'Brien Rd, across two lanes of Interstate 690 for a total of 1049ft before it hit a house.
Mr. Lusk said to the north which would be up hill, it would fall between 52ft of its base and fall down within that parcel but for some reason it didn't it would have to go uphill through the existing woods bounce over the trees and it would be 260ft to the nearest property line to the north to that residential neighborhood.
The Board discussed the contours of the land surrounding the proposed tower.
Mr. Virginia asked Mr. Pringle to explain the zoning requirements for this application.
Mr. Pringle said there is a certain height maximum that the code allows and to exceed that height the applicant has to prove that they need that height and for every foot that they are over the maximum that needs to be added to the setback.
Mr. Virginia said that the Town Board set a 52ft minimum and the code calls for a variance for everything over 40ft and 40ft is the maximum.
Mr. Virginia asked how high this tower is designed for structurally.
Mr. Lusk said 140ft.
Mr. Virginia said that they need a variance of 100ft for the height and they need a variance for the setback.
Mr. Spencer said with respect to establishing the height it is a combination of Section 200-32 under the zoning code with respect to telecommunications towers and as Mr. Pringle mentioned it also ties in with Section 200-42 relative to height regulations and the applicant having a responsibility in the first instance that the height is needed in this particular facility proposed.
Mr. Virginia said the Town consultant has agreed with that determination.
Mr. Spencer said the Board should have a letter that was provided by the Town's consultant named Ronald Graiff and Mr. Graiff was provided a package with the application material back in 2007 and the information provided was reviewed and a letter was issued dated November 29, 2007 with respect to the O'Brien Rd proposal and it was determined that the information establishes a lack of coverage and the O'Brien Rd location addresses that gap.
Ms. McBurney asked how tall the water tower is.
Mr. Lusk said that OCWA stated that the water tank isn't constructed to accommodate the co-location. This is a location that they were directed to by the Town and in regards to the 52ft setback he would just like to reiterate that the 52ft setback being sufficient without the need for a variance was established at the Town Board because the County Planning put that comment that they needed to have a larger setback as part of the condition of the re-zoning and the Town re-zoned it with the 52ft setback and for purposes of the record they spoke with Mr. Spencer and to accommodate the Town they have applied for a variance but he believes the issue was handled at the Town Board level when it was re-zoned. The Town Board contemplated this issue and re-zoned it.
The Board reviewed the minutes from the Town Board meeting.
Mr. Spencer said that he wasn't at the Town Board meeting so he doesn't know the context in which it was discussed and his interpretation was just based on a reading of what he was able to obtain from the minutes.
Mr. Virginia said that he has to check with the Town Board to see if the 52ft applies or if maybe the 52ft was maybe meant to apply to the Town property but he doesn't know that but if that is the case the rest of the setback requirements meet the code because they are well outside of those limits. The question in his mind is can the Board live with the 52ft or allow that and that is something the ZBA attorney has to tell the Board.
Mr. Pringle said that the Town Board is responsible for setting re-zoning and tasked with application before them for zone changes. The applicant came in for a zone change request and they needed this PUD to have a use for telecommunication towers not specifically Verizon's tower but anyone's tower and the Town Board also has to set up a minimum setback for this new district that was created which the Town Board did of 52ft. The Town Board can not give the applicant permission to put a tower there; the Town Board was simply re-zoning the property at the applicant's request. Anyone can come in with a tower request tomorrow and the minimum setback is 52ft. Now the applicant is before the Board and they have proven that they need 140ft and that is where the additional setbacks come in to play. If the tower only had to be 50ft tall then 52ft
works but the Town Board doesn't know that at the time, the Town Board is simply setting a use and a minimum setback.
Mr. Lusk said that he thinks that this whole thing needs to be looked at in context and when one reads the application that he drafted to the Town the last paragraph states accordingly please accept this letter and the following exhibits and enclosures as Verizon Wireless's application for modification of the existing PUD to specifically permit the proposed telecommunication tower. That same comment on the 140ft setback was made to the Town when the Town received the County comments back for the re-zoning and they addressed that at the Town Board level and he provided the Town Board with the same structural engineer's letter that the Board has in front of them and he specifically asked the Town Board to address this issue in the re-zoning to allow the 52ft setback to be sufficient for the tower in this case given everything going
on.
Mr. Lusk said that the Planning Board put them there and if the Board wanted them to be up next to the water tank to consolidate the visual impacts can the Board please specifically permit the 52ft and that is where the 52ft thing came from; it didn't come out of the sky, it was designed specifically so this tower could be put there at 52ft and be permitted. The Town Board specifically intended to allow this tower to be 52ft away from the property line and he just wants to establish in to the record their intent and the intent of the Town Board from being there and discussing it with them. The exact same comment of the 140ft setback was before the Town Board and the Town Board specifically decided the 52ft was sufficient and appropriate based on the evidence and the desire to consolidate those visual impacts but if this Board doesn't believe
that the Town Board intended that then the Board can decide that the area variance is appropriate.
Mr. Pringle said that the Town Board would have sent them to get an area variance; that would have been the Town Board's next step had the Town Board realized there is another section of the code that has to do with the height and he doesn't think that the Town Board realized that and the applicant is back before the Board for an area variance tonight and this is what would have happened anyway.
Mr. Lusk said that his application was to specifically permit the tower as proposed.
Mr. Pringle said that the Town Board can not supersede the Town Code.
The Board and the applicant discussed the Town Board minutes and came to the conclusion that Mr. Spencer would look in to whether the Town Board set the setback as 52ft or if the setback that was set was just a minimum setback.
Mr. Virginia explained to the audience how the public hearing was going to be conducted.
Mr. Tim Waverak said that his problem is not with the height of the tower but the health and welfare of his children and his neighbor's children. Over years of exposure to this; they are saying that it is not going to hurt them now but what happens ten years down the road because of this. Obviously it's proven cancerous with microwave and radiation and stuff like that. His kids have been playing in that neighborhood for years; even on that hill for years and is this really something that the people want going into their backyards.
Mr. Brian Dixson said since this is going to be abutting up against his property one of the concerns that he would like to bring to the Board is if this tower is erected a consideration for some sort of access to the tower that Verizon has some sort of liability of keeping vehicles and traffic from cutting through the properties on Hosmer Dr as the Town has with the maintenance and the access to the water tower with gated fenced areas so they don't have unwanted vehicle traffic behind their properties.
Mr. Virginia showed Mr. Dixon the plans that showed where the access would be.
Ms. Orlando said that she was listening to Mr. Lusk's answers to the questions and in response to concerns about residential area in proximity to McNamara School was answered by stating that the Planning Board suggested the site and she doesn't consider that a satisfactory answer and she is disappointed that the Planning Board suggested this site. In reading the Town code she believes that the setback for tower height is 1ft or 10% as she reads it and maybe she is misinformed but that is what she read and with the 52ft fall zone this tower could roll down the hill but it could also come down in a pointed way down the hill which would make it much easier to go through trees and if the Board looks at a topographical map there is very little area on the top of that hill that is flat and within that 52ft fall zone radius she thinks there is a lot
of down hill property which would make it easy for that to go down the hill should it fall in that way and she thinks that is a major concern for safety of residences. She also has a letter from Jim Johnson who is with Realty USA and this letter states that "after their conversation on Monday evening and after discussing it with some of his colleagues, including the manager, the overall consensus is that the placement of a cell phone tower in a residential neighborhood would have a negative effect on the property values in the immediate area. Although the scientific data is mixed on the health risks, the real estate ramifications are not in his opinion. If he were to bring a potential buyer to a home for sale that had a visible cell tower the majority of them would not buy that property." She feels that their properties are not going to be sellable and property values are going to drop.
Ms. Darlene Carol said at the risk of being a little bit repetitious she is very concerned about the school because she has three young children that play in the woods around there and go to that school. They recently put a lot of money into that home to try and make it nice and the real estate as well is a concern.
Mr. Niles Minnow said that he is concerned about the proximity to the school and even though the retail values have gone down their taxes have gone higher the last couple of years and that is going to hurt them more if they try to sell their houses.
Mr. Jamie Bork said that he knows there is a concern with the radiation and everything coming off of it and he would like to know if anyone has ever done any checks on what this could do to the water tower that will sit right beside it and Mr. Lusk was saying earlier that the tower is structurally made to fall 52ft and people can get footage of towers that are made to fold that don't. It is not a perfect world; the towers don't always work that way and he doesn't think this is a proper spot in his neighborhood with a church, a school, and them in their neighborhood for the tower.
Ms. Susan Philips said that she lives immediately under where the tower is going to be placed and she is also extremely disappointed that this site was suggested and that it was re-zoned to accommodate it. The pictures that Verizon provided of the photo simulation are beautiful and they were taken last June when everything was green and the cover was pretty good but they have pictures of what it looks like 6 months out of the year and this is going to stick out like a soar thumb. That water tower has been there for 40 or 50 years and it is not as ugly as this.
Ms. Andrea Goodall said that she is across the road and this would be in her direct site from her back yard and she doesn't feel that she should have to look out her kitchen window every day and see this structure and most of the year you can see right through the woods and she thinks aesthetically this is not an acceptable place to put this and she is also worried about the radiation that it might cause and nobody understood 50, 60 years ago that asbestos was harmful or that lead pipes were harmful so who knows what is going to happen with the radiation and how much the children in the area are going to be exposed to it because there is a school and a church there and there are two neighborhood's that have children that play all the time outside. She would like the Board's consideration when the Board considers this matter.
Ms. Julie Rosen said that she still deeply thinks that there is health concerns in this area and she just wants to reiterate briefly that the research in this area is not well settled although the FCC has set certain guidelines at this point it is not a done deal and she asked the Board to consider some of the other substances that have been raised in the past; this by no way has been proven safe and she believes that the scientific method has not caught up with this kind of radiation. Every day they travel through millions of electromagnetic fields from things that they plug in to their walls, to cell phone towers, and electrical lines; no one can appropriately measure radiation that people are getting every moment of every day. The exact scientific method doesn't allow these kinds of radiation to be measured so she is asking the Board just
to consider that and she is not saying that is the reason why the Board should deny this tower. She thinks the Board has been extremely patient with the people and she thanks the Board for being here because this is an important decision to her because this is right in the middle of their neighborhood and their children are raised here, they go to school one quarter mile away from this tower and they can not guarantee their health and safety and she is just saying not in this specific site and she thinks that it is very important that the impact is considered because she doesn't think that any of them would want to sit together and 50 years from now and realize that everyone in their neighborhood has some form of cancer or leukemia. She does know that this form of radiation caused a disruption in the electrical system of the body and it damages genetic material and that is what the research has found but it hasn't been linked to a specific disease at this point.
Ms. Rosen said other things that she asks the Board to consider are reasons that the Board can deny this permit; the applicant is asking for things that the law doesn't currently allow, the setback requirements for this tower may require a variance and that is above and beyond what the Board has to do. If the Board looks at the minutes some of the other things that the Town's Planning Board raised was that this tower is proposed to be as close as possible to this water tower and she doesn't think that is a good idea because that is their source of water and there is a lot of problems with that and trying to make it look better by putting it next to a water tower that is only half it's size she doesn't think that has any real proper bearing.
Ms. Rosen said that the Planning Board also pointed out that there are slope issues with this specific site, as the neighbors have all told the Board that the Board should visit the site, it is a hill, so they are trying to put this on a hill and in the best case scenario she hopes the engineers are right and she hopes no one ever gets hurt from one of these towers but the real truth is that it is on the very crest of the hill at the top and if it falls it will likely fall down and it could hit one of the area houses if it falls down that hill and the fall zone may extend beyond the lease area of the property and all of these points were made at the Planning Board meeting.
Ms. Rosen said that if the Board reads the Planning Board minutes she would like to point on page 5 on the second line where Mr. Geiss said that in the past he thought that the applicant was required to lease the fall zone area and there was a discussion about the fall zone and then Mr. Pringle said part of the site plan review is the fall zone setbacks and it does talk about the height of the tower and adding ten percent to what is called the fall zone and it does apply to these towers. She stated that Mr. Lusk said that the code doesn't require them to meet the fall zone it requires them to have an adequate fall zone and with the site plan that Verizon provided it shows that there are no houses and the tower is not falling outside of the property boundary and she would like to point the Board's attention to the following sentences. Mr.
Geiss said that they are limiting the land owner to ever building in that fall zone which is not implied in the lease and Mr. Lusk said as a condition of the Board's approval the Board can make anything that they build in the fall zone get approval with a site plan and if someone wants to put a utility shed and take the risk that the tower will fall on it then.
Mr. Virginia said that they are comments that applied to a tower but Ms. Rosen is citing from the Button Shores Rd tower and said that he understands her point but he wanted to point out that when Ms. Rosen is citing minutes to cite the correct minutes.
Ms. Rosen said that she thinks that they are general ideas that apply to both towers and she thinks that if they are even thinking that these towers might fall and impact another property owner maybe perhaps one of the industrial or commercial zones would be more appropriate and she doesn't think that Verizon has done enough to show that they have found an appropriate place and she thinks that this is the first probable site but there are many such as Rt690 and there is no compelling reason for the Board to decide that this has to be implemented right in the middle of a residential neighborhood and right down the street from a school and that is what she would like the Board to consider.
Mr. Paul Church said that there are towers that are visible from this site and asked why those towers can't be used. The Board can see one towards the west and there is actually two on the hillside; one has a flashing light on top of it and there is another one that is clearly visible from Van Buren Rd.
Mr. Virginia said that he personally doesn't know what those towers are and the Board's engineers or Mr. Lusk can address that.
Mr. Lusk said the one on Van Buren Rd already has their antenna on it and this issue has been addressed by their RF Engineer and the Town's RF engineer and has determined to be the right site.
Mr. Virginia said that the Board has to go by what the Town's consultant has said based on is this the best location or not but all these matters are being taken into consideration by this Board.
Mr. Church said that the Town's zoning book says that the applicant must show proof that they have applied for shared use on existing towers and there are existing towers in the area.
Ms. Orlando said that she did look through the application and in the application it states that 3 cell towers were looked at for co-location but she has a map that shows 9 cell towers in the area so she questions whether everything has been done to look at co-location on existing sites to put this cell tower on. FEMA is scrambling right now to get people out of trailers in New Orleans that FEMA said were safe and now FEMA can't get people out fast enough.
Ms. Philips said that it is unfortunate that this is the first time that they have heard about this because this has obviously been going on for a couple years and now it is dumped in their laps and it is probably to late to do anything about it. As a taxpayer she reads the Town Board minutes and she didn't realize she had to read the Planning and Zoning Board minutes and she assumed that by reading the Town Board minutes she would know what was going on.
Mr. Virginia said that this application came to the ZBA two months ago and the first public hearing was last month.
Mr. Virginia explained how the public is notified and that the public can always check with the Codes Office.
Ms. Philips said that Verizon's pictures were from June 4th of last year and she doesn't know what the date of the lease agreement was with Camex Realty but this has been going on for a while and Verizon has been allowed to lease this land and then have everything go backwards from that.
Mr. Virginia said that Verizon leases the land at their own risk.
Ms. Philips said the land will not be developable for housing because there is no water up there and if this goes through and Verizon gets their tower what is to say that is the only tower that is going to end up on that hill; what is going to happen when Verizon brings their digital TV up are they just going to fill that hill with towers because that is the only way the Cappucilli's can make money on that hill now.
Mr. Virginia said that he asked if this tower was designed for additional heights and the reason the Board asks those questions is if a tower goes in the Board wants to make sure things can get co-located on it and he is sure the audience has heard conversations about the Town insisting that the tower be designed structurally to go higher and the reason for that is that no one in this Town wants to see towers all over the place. His personal opinion would be that he sees a higher tower and co-location with three people on it then 3 individual towers sitting on a site.
Ms. Philips said that she is curious to know how close Mr. Lusk is to a cell tower.
Mr. Lusk said that last month he gave the audience his home address and he has a 5 and 7 year old and there is a cell tower the distance from here to Van Buren Rd at his house so everyone that has been talking about the value of their homes he paid top dollar for his home and his kids sleep in the house the same as everyone else that has children and if he thought that this was hurting his children obviously he wouldn't be living there.
Mr. Lusk said that he wanted to respond to the co-location; He was asked if the tower could be designed to extend and it is designed to accommodate co-location and it can be designed to extend and they are ready, willing, and able to allow co-locators on the tower and it can be extended higher to allow additional co-locators and to fall within that 52ft.
Mr. Tim Waverak said a number of years ago RPS and Fedex went in there and there are tractor trailers running all night long over there and when the wind it right it blows the fuel soot on to their houses and they have to wash their houses a couple times of year because if they were to walk up and touch the house black stuff comes off on to their hands and someone else stated that the taxes have been continually increasing the last couple of years which is pretty dramatic and his has increased immensely and that was dumped in their laps and now this is being dumped in their laps and his property is basically his retirement down the road and if he can't get what it is worth out of his house who is going to be responsible because everyone struggles and this is not the right thing to do.
Mr. Ron Rosen said that he was very upset the last time he was here and very poorly prepared he might add and he would like to thank the Board for giving the people another chance to get everyone down here to express their opinion and be aware of what is going on and he may be repeating some of the things that he said last month but he wants people to be aware that 3 ad-on's can go on to this tower. There is also a generator on this tower and he doesn't think everyone in this room knows that and it will turn on at random.
Mr. Lusk said that the generator will be exercised every Tuesday at 10am.
Mr. Rosen said peace and tranquility of the neighborhood is at stake and he knows safety and health is not the main issue that the Board can use not to grant this permit but however they know that their home equity is also going to be affected and he has lived there over 30 years and he has built a lot of equity and he is going to lose a lot of it because this tower is going to be there as everyone knows and the real estate people will say nobody is going to buy a house when they see that tower. He has been in health and safety for over 30 years and he is kind of new at the radiation thing but he does wear a badge and he gets paid to wear that badge and get exposed to radiation; that badge gets sent in once a month to be tested to see if he has received something bad so now he is going to get this exposure free of charge and he doesn't know
if he should pay someone for this or not but anyhow the community is at stake and they are asking for the Board to deny this permit and he thanks the Board for the Board's attention and letting him speak again.
Ms. Philips asked what decibel level the generator is and stated that it is going to sound like a commercial lawn mower.
Mr. Pringle said that the generator is a piece of emergency equipment and is exempt from the noise ordinance for residential however Verizon has stated that the generator will be inside a residential enclosure with a residential exhaust muffler and the Board can also ask the applicant to aim that exhaust away from the residential area and the Board can also dictate when this generator is programmed to run but the Town can't do anything about power outages; this would come on any time the power would go out. With the exercise time the Board can ask the applicant to be run it times where people aren't sleeping such as weekends or something like that.
Mr. Bork asked the type of fuel the generator will run on.
Mr. Virginia said diesel.
Mr. Bork said he is wondering if they want diesel stored beside the water tower.
Mr. Lusk said that Verizon Wireless is concerned with environmental contamination and the diesel will be stored in a double wall tank inside a shelter with an alarm.
Mr. Virginia said the interstitial space on that tank is monitored with an alarm.
Mr. Virginia explained how the tank is built and how the tank functions.
Ms. Orlando said that this is winter break and a lot of people are on vacation and there are a lot of seniors that are not here because they don't go out at night and they spent a couple of hours going through the neighborhood and they have three pages of signatures of people that are against this.
Mr. Virginia asked if there was anyone that wanted to speak either for or against this matter.
No one else spoke.
Motion Mr. Virginia asked the Board to entertain a motion to close the public hearing. Ms. McBurney moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Cleverly. There was no further discussion. Motion carried, unanimously.
Mr. Virginia said that he is going to continue this matter for consideration by the Board until March 17, 2008 at 7:35pm.
The Board discussed Verizon flying the balloon at Button Shores Rd on March 1st weather permitting.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Cleverly made a motion to close the February Meeting, seconded by Mr. Bowes; motion carried, unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 8:52 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Vera Cavallaro
Zoning Secretary
| ||
