7575 Van Buren Road, Baldwinsville, NY 13027
April 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 present
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
Anthony Germano, Attorney
Ted Spencer, Attorney
MINUTES
Minutes were approved as written.
Motion
Ms. McBurney moved to accept the March minutes as written, seconded by Mr. Bowes. There was no further discussion. Motion carried; unanimously
HOUSE - PUBLIC HEARING
7034 W. Sorrell Hill Rd Tax Map Parcel Id# 049-04-01.1
Interpretation of Section 200-45 Height of an accessory structure
Mr. Thomas House was present to address the Board.
Mr. House and the Board discussed the new information that he had given to the Board that referred to the wind rating and height of the structure and he also stated that he has decided to move the windmill 68.3ft off of the property line so that the windmill will not fall on anyone else's property.
Mr. Virginia asked if there was anyone in the audience that wished to speak either for or against this matter.
No one spoke.
Mr. Virginia closed the public hearing.
Mr. Virginia proposed the following resolution:
Thomas E. House of 7034 West Sorrell Road, Warners, NY 13164 seeks approval under Section 200-42 of the Town of Van Buren Code related to the location of a proposed 60' wind tower. The property is located in an AR80 District and is identified as Tax Map parcel 049-04-01.1.
Mr. House spoke in favor of the application and described the proposed construction of a wind tower at the site. The proposed tower would be located approximately 68.5 feet from the side and rear yard line. Mr. House explained in detail to the Board the physical limitations of the property based on topography and existing improvements.
There was no objection to the proposal at ZBA's public hearing, which was held on April 21, 2008 pursuant to public notice.
In support of the application, applicant submitted an Application for Height Interpretation, Agricultural Data Statement, Notice to Surrounding Property Owners, location sketch and survey showing the location of the property and proposed tower.
Based on the foregoing, the Board resolves as follows:
1. This matter is unlisted under SEQR this Board is the lead agency for the uncoordinated review of this action. The Board, upon review of the application, finds no significant adverse environmental impact as a result of this application.
2. It is determined the requested tower falls within the height exception of Section 200-42 and will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood and will not be a detriment to nearby properties. The proposed height of the tower is based on the necessary height required in order for the facility to function as designed. Neighbors express no objection to the variance. Given the size of the lot and the principal structure location, there is no other apparent method to achieve the benefit applicant wishes to obtain other than locating the tower at the height of 60' with blades extending an additional 8.5'.
3. Approval is granted to allow the construction of a 60' wind tower located approximately 68.5 feet from the side and rear property lines. Any modifications to existing structures shall require additional review and approvals.
Ms. McBurney seconded the resolution, there was no further discussion. Resolution carried on a roll call vote that follows:
Roll Call Vote:
Aye Nay Other
John Virginia x ___ _____
Robert Cleverly x ___ _____
Laura McBurney x ___ _____
Ronald Abold x ___ _____
James Bowes x ___ _____
Mr. Virginia waived the readings of the published public notices.
ERNIE PYLE
7742 Seneca Beach Dr. Tax Map Parcel Id#030-03-29 R-10 Zoning District
Mr. Pyle was present to address the Board.
Mr. Pyle said that they would like to extend the rear of their house 14ft by 6ft and that is only a portion on the rear of the house to enlarge their dining room.
Mr. Virginia stated that this is not in the waterfront overlay district and that the applicant is going to need a variance of 12ft.
Mr. Virginia asked if there was anyone that wished to speak either for or against this matter.
No one spoke.
Mr. Virginia closed the public hearing.
Ms. McBurney proposed the following resolution:
Ernie Pyle of 7742 Seneca Beach Drive , Baldwinsville, NY 13027 seeks an area variance from Section 200-45 of the Town of Van Buren Code related to the rear yard setback requirements for a proposed addition to be located at his property. The property is located in an R-10 District and is identified as Tax Map parcel 030-03-29. Applicant proposes to construct an addition at the rear of the existing improvements. The Zoning Code requires 35 feet for the rear yard setbacks in an R-10 District. Mr. Pyle's proposal provides for a total of 12 feet from the rear yard lines.
Mr. Pyle spoke in favor of the application. He described the plan and the circumstances under which the addition is to be constructed.
In support of the application, applicant submitted an Application for Variance, Agricultural Data Statement, Notice to Surrounding Property Owners and a survey map prepared by J. Stephen Sehnert showing the location of the house and proposed addition.
Based on the foregoing, the Board resolves as follows:
1. This matter is Type II under SEQR as it involves an individual setback variance related to a single family residential use.
2. It is determined the requested variance will not produce any undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood and will not be a detriment to nearby properties. The proposed addition will be located 12 feet from the north property line. Due to the lot's size and topography and other physical limitations, there was no feasible method to pursue other than the area variance so that the improvements are located consistent with the site. The proposed variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Neighbors express no objection to the variance. The benefit to applicant outweighs any detriment to the neighborhood or community as a result of granting the variance.
3. A variance is granted to allow for the location of an addition (measuring approximately 6' x 14') with a rear yard setback of 12 feet.
Mr. Cleverly seconded the resolution. There was no further discussion. Resolution carried on a roll call that follows:
Roll Call Vote:
Aye Nay Other
John Virginia x ___ _____
Robert Cleverly x ___ _____
Laura McBurney x ___ _____
Joseph Kiselica x ___ _____
James Bowes x ___ _____
DONALD BETZ JR
7672 Seneca Beach Dr Tax Map Parcel Id# 030-03-08 R-10 Zoning District
The Board set the public hearing for May 19, 2008 at 7:31pm.
Mr. Donald Betz was present to address the Board.
Mr. Betz said he would like to add a 10' by 20' enclosed porch on the front on the house.
Mr. Virginia said that the applicant will need a front yard variance of 22ft.
Mr. Bowes said that the porch will not be changing the character of anything.
Mr. Betz said that the porch is needed for his parents to get them in an out of the house when he moves them up here.
Mr. Virginia said that there is a portion of the house that is currently 19ft from the river.
Mr. Pringle stated that was legal before the overlay district and this will not be blocking the view of the river and that this might be considered an addition more than a porch.
ACTION PRINTWEAR, INC
2566 Warners Rd. Tax Map Parcel Id# 053-07-09 RH Zoning District
Mr. Walter Strache was present to address the Board.
Mr. Strache explained what they do at his printing business to the Board and since this is already a non conforming building that they would stay in the same footprint and build up to give them a little more office space. They would be making the current building look more like a home to match the rest of the neighborhood and do some landscaping.
Mr. Virginia read the part of the Town code that states that non-conforming uses are not to be enlarged or extended.
Mr. Virginia asked what they planned on doing in the building.
Mr. Strache said that they would move all of the offices above and replace the offices below with bindery and embroidering equipment because right now they have no room and they are constantly moving boxes just to get around.
Mr. Bowes asked how long the business has been there.
Mr. Strache said 5 years and he does not want to move the business and he wants to keep the business there but it is to the point now where if he can't enlarge the building he will have to move the business and he also thinks that the business could be made into a house if they ever did grow and want to leave because by having the addition there would be enough room to convert this into a home with a large garage.
Mr. Strache said that after the improvements the building would look like most of the houses in the neighborhood.
The Board and the applicant discussed what type of equipment is in the garage and the dimensions of the lot.
The Board looked at pictures of what the building currently looks like and what the building would look like after the addition.
Mr. Pringle said that the code states that this is a non-conforming structure and he explained to the applicant that the Town does not allow additions or alterations to non conforming structures and their only recourse would be to apply for a variance.
The Board and the applicant discussed if the building could handle the addition.
Mr. Strache said that he would hire an engineer to check and design the building if he gets the variance but it is a concrete floor and he is assuming that it could support the weight of an addition.
The Board and the applicant discussed the possibility of the business being converted to a home after the addition in the future.
Mr. Virginia asked if there was anyone that wanted to speak either for or against this matter.
No one spoke.
Mr. Virginia continued the public hearing until May 19, 2008 at 7:35pm so the Board could further review the application.
SYRACUSE SMSA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
Button Shores Rd Tax Map Parcel ID# 038-02-7.2 PUD Zoning District
Section 200-32 Telecommunications Tower
Mr. Jared Lusk was present to address the Board.
Mr. Lusk said that they have responded to the public questions from the last public hearing in writing and the chairman also requested that they consider moving the tower to the north away from Ms. VanVliet's house.
Mr. Lusk showed the Board the original site for the tower and the new revised location which is now 164ft to the north and to the west and they are still in full compliance with the Town's ordinance with regard to setbacks and driveway width. The tower will now be 469ft away from Ms. VanVliet's house and 220ft from the nearest property line and 379ft from the property line to the east and 917ft to the north property line.
The Board and the applicant discussed how far this is away from the river and it was determined to be well over 500ft away from the river.
Mr. Virginia asked if the height is still proposed at 160ft.
Mr. Lusk said that this is still a 160ft tower designed to be extendable to 195ft in case there is a co-location in the future, it is a monopole tower unless the Town prefers different.
Mr. Lusk discussed the difference between the lattice and monopole tower and stated that they are prepared to do whatever the Town prefers.
Mr. Virginia asked if the Board had any questions.
Mr. Virginia asked if there was anyone in the audience that would like to speak.
Mr. Paul Church asked if this was a Planning Board issue.
Mr. Virginia said that the site plan is but the Special Use Permit is through the Zoning Board and the applicant applies for a Special Use Permit and the applicant has to go through quite a bit to verify that it meets the Town code's and once the special use permit is approved it goes back to the Planning Board and this permit would be contingent upon Planning Board approval and he had asked that Verizon look into moving the tower away from Ms. Van Vliet's home and he is glad that they took a good look at it and he commends Verizon for that.
Mr. Church asked if Verizon has to start over because the tower was moved and if the residents were going to be notified again, especially the property owner to the west because it is going to be considerably closer to that residence.
Mr. Lusk showed Mr. Church on the map that the tower was moved more to the north than to the west.
Mr. Church asked if Mr. Farrington, the property owner closest to the new tower location, would be notified.
Mr. Virginia said in all fairness, Mr. Farrington was here last month and the only concern was for Ms. Van Vliet's home.
Mr. Lusk said that the tower is about 100ft closer to that property.
Mr. Church said that he would like to know if the surrounding property owners are going to be re-notified and if the public hearing is going to remain open so that the people can be re-informed.
Mr. Virginia said that he is surprised that Mr. Farrington is not here tonight.
Mr. Church said that he thinks Mr. Farrington doesn't realize it was moved and he thought this was a Planning Board issue.
Mr. Virginia said it is a Planning Board issue and Mr. Farrington can address that at the Planning Board because whether Verizon gets there special use permit for that site or back 100ft, it is on that property and the only thing the Zoning Board does is give them the special use permit to allow the tower to be on the property but where it happens on that site is strictly up to Planning Board approval.
Mr. Church said that he can't understand why the public hearing is in front of the Zoning Board when the Zoning Board doesn't predict where that use is going to be.
Mr. Virginia gave Mr. Church an example of how the process between the Board's work.
Mr. Church said that he is surprised that the Board would consider an addition to someone's house a detriment to the community and the neighborhood but that issue doesn't fall into that category for a 160ft plus cell tower.
Mr. Virginia said yes it does and when the Board goes through SEQR tonight that will be looked at.
Mr. Ken Monica said that the property owner has a big steel barn that is not shown in the aerial photo that Verizon provided and asked how close the tower is to the property owner's structures.
Mr. Monica pointed out where on the aerial photo the barn should be.
Mr. Bowes stated that in all likelihood that aerial photo came off the internet and aerial photo's on the internet are about four or five years old.
The Board discussed the barn.
Mr. Monica said that there was something mentioned about a 20ft right of way down Button Shores for fire access to the tower.
Mr. Pringle said that is an access road to the tower that is shown on the applicant's map.
Mr. Monica said that Button Shores Rd residents have been trying to get the Town to maintain that road since he has been there for close to 30 years and now because Verizon wants to put a steel tower in, the Town is worried about fire access, there are probably 30 homes and there is no fire access down there now.
Mr. Pringle said that the Town is not maintaining this and the access that was discussed is not Button Shores Rd it is the access road to the tower.
Mr. Bowes said it is the driveway to the tower not Button Shores Rd.
Mr. Monica asked if Button Shores Rd would have to be widened to 20ft.
Mr. Pringle said no.
Mr. Monica asked why it has to be 20ft wide to the tower but not on Button Shores Rd.
Mr. Pringle said that Button Shores Rd existed before and this is a new application to the new code and Button Shores Rd has been there it is like a non-conforming use and the Town does not own Button Shores Rd and the Town can't make anyone widen it because it is a legal right of way for people that live there. The fire department does go down Button Shores Rd right now and the fire department has gone down there many times on emergencies, it is not easy but the fire department does get down in there.
Mr. Virginia said that Verizon will maintain the access from the property line down to the site and it will be gated and again these are Planning Board issues that are part of site plan approval.
Mr. Doug Trew said on page 2 of Part 1 of the EAF in the description box at the bottom of the page it gives a brief description of the tower and how tall it is with 12 panel antennas mounted on top of the tower with one GPS unit and then "microwave antennas as required for utility services" and that phrase seems to be quite vague and asked what utility services are they looking for and how many microwave antennas and where the locations are on the tower such as the number and the size.
Mr. Lusk said that there are 2 microwave antennas and how the tower works is that there are cables through that come in to the equipment shelter and are hooked to the utility lines and out to the telephone system and the microwave antennas will allow them to in lieu of relying solely on the underground utility line or telephone cables they would be able to connect this antenna to the next tower down the road by aiming that antenna at it and they can act independently of the telephone lines if necessary and that would be appropriate in the event of an ice storm, tornado or motor vehicles accident or something that knocks the wires down; that system would still act independent of the local utilities out at the road.
Mr. Lusk and Mr. Trew discussed the proposed locations that Verizon has planned and Mr. Trew stated that he thought that it was premature of them to show a proposed tower when they don't actually have that tower yet.
Mr. Lusk said that they would rely on the utilities until then and the dishes would just be data that is shooting to the next tower that would act independently from the utilities and they won't turn the dishes on until they have the system for them so they have that redundancy so that the emergency providers and the people can have access to their cell phones in the event of a power outage and if they didn't have that as soon as the power went out or the telephone lines went down the system would not work.
Mr. Lusk explained how the system works as opposed to land line technology.
Mr. Trew said in January 2008 Mr. Lusk stated that cellular telephone use in that area was adequate.
Mr. Lusk said that there are two different antennas here. There is 850 cellular coverage and 1900 digital PCS coverage and the 850 is fine in this coverage but the 1900 megahertz which is the digital telephone that everyone buys now is not and in order for them to provide the 1900 megahertz that they are licensed to provide for they need to provide the antennas because their system works on two frequencies that these antennas provide.
Mr. Trew said on page 3 question 6 it asks if the project is substantially contiguous or contains a building site or district listed on the State or National registers of historic places and Verizon has indicated that it is not and he believes it is substantially contiguous to the historic Erie Canal and Verizon is even calling this the Erie Canal site and in addition to that he can present other information about archeological sensitive areas that are provided through the NYS Office of Historic Preservation so he would argue that yes it is substantially contiguous to a district listed on the State and National register as historic places.
Mr. Trew said number 7 states is the project substantially contiguous to a site listed on a National natural landmarks registry and he doesn't know whether or not the Seneca River being the Barge Canal and the Erie Canal whether or not that would be listed because he couldn't find it on the internet and maybe this is something that maybe someone else can shed some light on but he questions that anyways.
Mr. Trew said on number 9 it asks if the site is located over a primary principal or sole source aquifer and directly across the Seneca River approximately north east there is a municipal well for the Village of Baldwinsville and he believes that is somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 to 3 hundred feet deep and that well has been there for he doesn't know how many years but they would not have put that there if it wasn't over a substantial aquifer and again he has tried to get on some websites and he has been unable to come up with a map showing the aquifers that are in the area but it wouldn't surprise him if this is over an aquifer and if it is he thinks that the foundation of this structure could affect groundwater hydrology.
Mr. Trew said on question 10 it asks if hunting, fishing, or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area and Verizon has indicated no. The current land owner Randy Shute avidly hunts that property and he doesn't let anyone else hunt that property, it is not open to the public but Mr. Shute hunts it and there is a question on the SEQR form that he figured should be answered correctly.
Mr. Spencer stated that would be interpreted as public hunting and not private property.
Mr. Trew said on page 4 number 14 it asks if the present site includes scenic views known to be important to the community and Verizon has indicated no and he believes that is certainly arguable because the Erie Canal runs east and west and that hillside where this site is proposed is clearly within view of the Erie Canal and Beaver Lake Nature Center which is a County Park and this is going to stick out like a sore thumb.
Mr. Trew said on number 15 it asked about streams within or contiguous to the project area and Verizon indicated no and he has a map from Onondaga County Soil Survey that indicates the location of a stream that is actually on that parcel and it is also indicated on Verizon's aerial photograph. The stream is also a tributary to the Seneca River that he thought was worth mentioning.
Mr. Trew said on number 16 it says lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to the project area and Verizon has indicated no and the wetland area spikes his interest because he used to work for the Onondaga County Environmental Conservation and he was quite familiar with wetlands maps both National Inventory wetland maps and State freshwater wetland maps and he recalls looking up his own property and seeing some wetlands that were on Ms. VanVliet's property and also on the Gunbarrel Rd side of the property but he hasn't been able to come up with any maps on the internet which he was pretty surprised with but he believes there are maps that are on the Town website but currently that page is unavailable.
Mr. Pringle said according to his maps this is not on any State or Federal wetlands.
Mr. Trew said a few years ago the gentleman that owns the property wanted to construct a dam because they wanted a pond on the property and for some reason they were halted and he doesn't know if it had to do with wetlands or whether or not they obtained the proper permits to dig a pond.
Mr. Pringle stated that they did not obtain the proper permits and that is why they were halted but not because it was a wetland.
Mr. Trew said page 9 question 6 asks if the proposed action is consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans and Verizon has indicated that it is and he understands that it may be consistent with the Town code but the question that he has is it consistent with the Town's comprehensive land use plan.
Mr. Pringle said this was looked at by both the Planning Board and the Zoning Board and growth needs to be promoted in the Town and there is a lot of language that goes with providing public services and utilities certainly fall under that and Verizon is providing a public service.
Mr. Virginia said that it is one of the uses allowed in this district.
Mr. Trew said question 8 asks if the proposed action is compatible with surrounding land use within a quarter mile and Verizon has indicated that it is and he is curious to what Verizon is comparing it to as far as adjoining surrounding land uses because there are no structures that are 160.5ft tall within 2 to 3 miles of this area.
Mr. Lusk said that it is consistent with the AR-80 zoning district so that is why they say it is consistent because there is a multiple number of uses that are permitted within that zoning district and this fully complies with the zone and with the telecommunications law that is required that they have to comply with in order to place it.
Mr. Trew said on page 12, number 3 it asks if the proposed action will affect any water body designated as protected and he tried to find out whether or not the Erie Canal which is the Seneca River is protected and he was unable to come up with that information.
Mr. Lusk said regardless if it is protected they are over a half mile away from it.
Mr. Spencer said that this won't interfere with any activity on the canal and whether or not there is a visual impact is a separate issue.
Mr. Trew said that his question is whether or not that is a protected waterway and it doesn't seem like anyone can answer that question.
Mr. Pringle said that under erosion control of the Town's MS4 program it is protected and the Town has to protect the Seneca River from silt and erosion and stuff getting into the River.
Mr. Virginia said on that particular question he would probably say no because the action that is being done under construction will be taken care of by silt fences and stuff under standard construction because they have to protect not only the Seneca River but all waterways including ditches, culverts and storm sewers because it all eventually goes to the River.
Mr. Trew said on page 14, question 8 it asks if the proposed action will threaten any endangered species and it is indicted to be determined and that it has been recently filed with the Fish and Wildlife service and they are waiting for a response and he is wondering if they have received a response from DEC or Fish and Wildlife service.
Mr. Coleman said that they have received a response and it states there will be no adverse affect and they will give the Board that documentation.
Mr. Trew said on question 9 it asks if the proposed action will substantially affect non threatened or non endangered species and Verizon has indicated no.
Mr. Trew said on number 11 it asks if the proposed action will affect aesthetic resources and Verizon has indicated yes, visual impacts associated with the proposed telecommunications tower and they also indicate that it is small to moderate and if the Board looks at some of the examples; proposed land uses or project components visible to users of aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of the resource.
Mr. Lusk said that they can't say that this tower is not going to be visible so yes it is going to have an impact on aesthetic resources because they are going to see the tower.
Mr. Lusk explained why they chose yes and that everything, even a house, has an impact on aesthetic resources.
Mr. Trew said question 12 asks if the proposed project will have an impact on any sight or structure that has historic, prehistoric, or paleontological importance and Verizon has indicated no and if the Board looks at a couple of the examples such as archeological sites or fossil beds indicated within a project site or proposed action will occur in area designated in sensitive archeological sites on the NY site inventory and he has a map that he printed out from the NYS Historic preservation website that includes this area being well within an area that is archeologically sensitive and if Mr. Farrington were here tonight he could tell the Board that he has actually dug up some bones on his property but it is quite typical along the Seneca River being as old as it is and cultural resources in NYS dating back 12,000 years there is quite a bit
of archeological information and data that is along the Seneca River and this site falls well within those areas.
Mr. Lusk said that SHPPO has looked at the site and they will provide the Board with that documentation.
Mr. Trew said on page 17, question 13 it asks if the proposed action will affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreation opportunities and Verizon has indicated no. This site is located within a County Certified Agricultural district and according to NYS Ag and Market laws one of the reasons for having certified agricultural districts is to promote open space or green space and as he is sure everyone is aware this site is on the fringe of suburban sprawl and it has been before the Town in the past and before Lysander as far as trying to preserve open areas and green space. Most recently it was before the Planning Board regarding the cold springs peninsula in the Town of Lysander and representatives from the Planning Board came to speak in front of the regular Town Board to try to promote some of the ideas that
they had in that meeting. This would qualify as an open space or a green space and if it has a 160ft tower on it, it would not qualify. This would also affect the quality of other open spaces because Beaver Lake Nature Center is one mile from this site and that is listed as an open space for recreation.
Mr. Virginia asked how it affects Beaver Lake.
Mr. Trew said that it is visible from Beaver Lake and people go there for scenic walks on the multiple trails and nature walks where they are looking at wildlife and at the scenic vistas and when they look across that valley which the Erie Canal runs through they will be looking at that hillside on the south side of the River and he believes that would be a negative impact from an aesthetic standpoint.
Mr. Trew said on page number 19, question 18 asks if the proposed action will affect public health and safety and he understands that the Telecommunications Act prevents the Board from denying this type of structure based on health concerns but there undeniably is chronic low level discharge emission of radiation even though it meets FCC requirements so he believes that it should at least be checked small to moderate.
Mr. Trew said number 19 asks if the proposed action will affect the character of the existing community and Verizon indicates no; he would say that it certainly would. This is a rural area with residences here and there and this tower is certainly out of character within a mile or two of the location.
Mr. Trew said on page 20, question 20 it asks if there is or there is likely to be public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts.
Mr. Virginia said that should be marked yes.
Mr. Trew said on appendix B which is the SEQR visual EAF addendum on the third bullet which asks if the project will be visible from a site or structure listed on the national or State registers of historic places and Verizon has indicated no and he would argue that it is. If someone is on the highest point on Gunbarrel Rd which is about 555ft in elevation Wig Hill can be seen which is in the Town of Lysander and there is a historic building that is on the registries. Another thing that he dug up is that there is a location in the Village of Baldwinsville that includes Onieda St and Oswego St and apparently that location is historically significant and that is also on the registers. If someone were to travel to the western end of Onieda St that would be down close to the canal and the Seneca River they would certainly be able to see this
tower.
Mr. Trew said the ninth bullet asks if the project will be visible from Rivers designated as National or State scenic or recreational and Verizon indicates that it is not. The Erie Canal, the Barge Canal, and the Seneca River are all the same thing and if it is not wild it is certainly scenic and recreational and this tower is within a half mile.
Mr. Trew said the next bullet down asks if this will be visible from any transportation corridor or high exposure such as part of the interstate system or Amtrak and Verizon has indicated Interstate 690 and he would like them to add the NYS Route 370 and the Barge Canal because that is also a travel corridor in his opinion for transportation because there are a lot of people that use the Barge Canal to get from Cross Lake and all the way from Buffalo to NYC.
Mr. Trew said a few bullets down it asks if this is visible from a County road and Verizon has indicated that it is not but Gunbarrel Rd is a County road., it is not a Town road it is maintained and snowplowed by the Town through contract but it is maintained by the County.
Mr. Trew said on the last page it states from each item checked in question one, check those which generally describe the surrounding environment. Designated open space is indicated as a no and that there is nothing within a mile and he would say that is incorrect because Beaver Lake is within a mile and as far as the open spaces go this site is on a certified agricultural district according to NYS Ag and Markets laws and as he has said before one of the many purposes certified agricultural districts is to preserve green space and open space so he would say this certainly falls within a quarter mile because it is actually right on top of the district.
Mr. Trew said the Town hired Mr. Graiff to respond to Verizon and Mr. Graiff had a number of questions to the original proposal and Verizon responded back with responses to Mr. Graiff's concerns and he was wondering whether not those concerns were met and it there documentation.
Mr. Virginia said that Mr. Graiff did respond and recommend this site.
Mr. Trew said a couple of years ago a property owner went to Verizon and that property owner was looking to see whether or not it was feasible to have a telecommunications tower put on their property and at that time they were told that service in the area was adequate and that location was geographically, aesthetically and topographically superior than the current site. It would have been on the south side of Gunbarrel Rd at 565ft of elevation as opposed to 504ft of elevation which the proposed site is so from a topographic standpoint he is not an RF Engineer but he would think the higher the location the more reasonable it would be.
Mr. Lusk asked whose property is at the 565ft elevation.
Mr. Trew said Scott Warner.
Mr. Trew said from a geographic standpoint it would have been setback considerably superior to this site because it would have been back up on the hill away from the roads and away from houses.
Mr. Virginia stated that what is being said is Mr. Trew's opinion and the Board has a professional, Mr. Graiff, that looked at this and the Town has a letter from Mr. Graiff stating that this was the best suited site.
Mr. Virginia said that he is not a cell site expert and he doesn't think anyone in this room is.
Mr. Trew asked if Mr. Graiff stated that this is the best suited site and did Mr. Graiff look at all the other sites in the area.
The secretary stated that Verizon chooses the site and Mr. Graiff reviews that site to see if that site is suitable for what Verizon is proposing to do but the Town can't ask Mr. Graiff to look at sites that are not proposed.
Mr. Trew said that it is arguable that this is the best site.
The secretary stated that she is sure it is arguable but that is with any application.
Mr. Trew asked if Verizon has shown that this is the best or appropriate site.
Mr. Virginia said yes, for their needs and according to the maps that were provided to the Town's consultant.
Mr. Trew said that the search ring showed his property but he was never notified at 560ft of elevation.
Mr. Spencer said that he is not sure what the process is, Verizon contacts owners within the search ring and until they find a suitable place.
Mr. Lusk explained how they approach land owners about leasing.
Mr. Trew said the previous land owner, Scott Warner contacted Verizon numerous times and they did not return phone calls and that just shows him Verizon's lack of effort to look at all of the prospective sites that are in the area.
Mr. Trew said the only other thing that he asks to add is that he would like the Board to issue a positive declaration for the SEQR determination.
Mr. Monica said that there are fresh water springs that run down the side of Gunbarrel Rd that do feed NYS wetlands and the water runs right down the side of Gunbarrel and feeds the wetlands behind the highway barn to the River and they were going to dig the springs out and put a pond in there a couple years ago and that is where his water feeds from.
Mr. Virginia asked where the springs are in relation to that site.
Mr. Monica said south on Gunbarrel Rd. and showed the area on the map to the Board and stated that the stream runs heavy all year round.
The Board and the audience discussed where the stream is located.
Mr. Virginia said that Mr. Pringle checked and there are no State wetlands and to the residents it may be a wetland but it is not recognized.
Mr. Monica said that the DEC came up there with a van and a tall tower with a scope on it and they pulled it up and said that it was a NYS wetland and DEC said that they could not dig it.
Mr. Virginia said that is on the other side of the road from this site.
Mr. Trew said NYS freshwater wetland maps and National wetland maps are approximate and the maps are not very precise and they are open for discussion and as Mr. Monica just mentioned they need to be delineated so if there is a site that is in question the DEC will come out and delineate the boundaries.
Mr. Kublick said in listening to the testimony tonight in the hearing it appears that important information from SHPPO as well as information from fish and wildlife or DEC is not available to the Board and that fact combined with the identification of the site as one in a potentially archeologically significant area as indicated by the map from SHPPO suggests that the information does need to be available and so in his opinion would be the response from the engineer retained by the Town. He has reviewed Mr. Graiff's letter of October 17, 2007 and Verizon's response to it and he doesn't have the opportunity to look at or respond to what is allegedly Mr. Graiff's response to their answer but he knows that Verizon's response did not address the monopole and did not address the straight cell phone coverage and in Mr. Graiff's letter Mr. Graiff
indicates that " in the countless applications that this engineer has reviewed for all carriers including Verizon Wireless he has always seen and evaluated cellular as well as PCS coverage" . He has seen their response and he is not aware that their response provided cellular coverage data yet he is told that Mr. Graiff is satisfied. He is certainly not suggesting that this letter was being mischaracterized but it is an important element because this is the expert that the Town retained to review expert stuff that anyone in this room except for Mr. Lusk can speak to authoritatively and the Town code makes a very big deal about proving necessity and adequacy of coverage and without those findings the special permit should not be granted so that letter is extremely important. He is not clear whether or not the lower frequency, the 850 megahertz data transmission that will result in the panels on the array are modeled either and he thinks only PCS coverage is
modeled.
Mr. Lusk said that is accurate and expressed on the record and expressed to Mr. Graiff that this site is not for the 850 it is for the 1900 digital services. That is what they have expressed that the 850 is not a problem.
Mr. Kublick said the PCS is the 1900 and that has been modeled and the 850 cell phone service is adequate and the data transmission is simply augmenting the cell phone service.
Mr. Lusk said the 1900 is phone service, digital phone service. Cellular is cellular and digital is digital and most phones today are digital and cellular so if the 850 frequency is not available the 1900 can be used because most phones are dual band phones and this site is modeled for 1900 service that is lacking in the area. They have never said that the 850 service isn't available or isn't adequate in this system; they are issued and licenses for two service frequencies, the 1900 and the 850 and they never said the 850 was the issue here in fact they told Ron Graiff the 850 wasn't the issue and Mr. Graiff questioned that so they provided Mr. Graiff with models because they have adequate coverage with the 850. That is not the issue.
Mr. Kublick said that it seems as though part of the visual impact for this site are the flat panel arrays related to the 850 service which apparently beyond discussion is adequate, in other words he's not sure that the Special Permitting scheme allows additional and visually significant 12ft arm panel antenna to piggy back on the PCS analysis of adequacy. This is a dual purpose tower with justification for only one and apparently the justification can't be provided for the 850 because it is adequate.
Mr. Lusk said it will improve the 850 service but that is not to say there is a gap in coverage for the 850 services, so it is improving service but the PCS coverage is what they re seeking.
Mr. Kublick said that he also recognizes that some significant percentage of the visual impact for this tower is related to the 850 antennas, this tower is providing the platform for both the 1900 megahertz PCS and the 850 cellular service that is transmitting data and so he would recommend that being an issue for the Board to consider. There was a reference to a written response to the issues raised in a prior hearing and all he can say is that his client doesn't have that and he guesses the public needed to FOIL it.
Mr. Lusk asked if Mr. Kublick wanted him to send a copy to Mr. Kublick's client.
Mr. Kublick said that there was ample public interest in this hearing and in the interests of a fully informed public it probably would have been helpful.
Mr. Kublick said that his understanding is that this application contemplates the possibility of an extension of 195ft even though the EAF and application and balloon analysis was done at 160ft.
Mr. Virginia said that if they go to 195ft they need to go through this whole process again, the foundation is being designed so it can be extended in the future, because people look for co-locations and the Town doesn't want a bunch of towers all over the Town and the Town wants it as minimal as possible and that is the reason that the Board has asked for these towers to be structurally designed foundation wise to go to 195ft but if that happens they would have to start all over again just as if that tower was not there.
Mr. Kublick said that does point out however that the very reason that the Town code favors co-location was aptly described by the chairman just now that no one wants these popping up all over Town because they have an aesthetic detrimental affect on surrounding area which leads him to his final point which is that the EAF part 2 should lead to a finding of a positive determination and that standard is the potential for at least one adverse environmental impact, that is the bar and SEQR regs set that bar fairly low because there is a preference or at least there is a requirement that such projects that might have that potential receive the fuller treatment under SEQR.
Mr. Virginia asked if that one adverse impact would be major or minor.
Mr. Kublick said that the major minor tool by the DEC helps Board's reach that conclusion.
Mr. Spencer said typically the focus is on significant impacts and if the Board looks through the form that is part of the application that they have been through previously in SEQR and the Board will see repeatedly the word significant impact or affect through it so obviously every project has some form of impact.
Mr. Virginia said that it states that if any impact is potentially large in part two then part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the impact is actually important.
Mr. Spencer said that the focus is for significant impacts. The determination is in respect to the significance of the impact and the fact that there is some impact doesn't automatically trigger a significant impact so when the Board reviews the information available the focus on whether or not the impact is going to be significant and those are the items that cause the Board to take a step back and determine whether or not they are going to be mitigated and made acceptable or if not go through the positive declaration procedure.
Mr. Virginia asked the applicant to provide the reports from SHPPO, DEC and or Fish and Wildlife.
Mr. Virginia asked Mr. Kublick if the Board could have a list of his concerns in writing.
Mr. Kublick said that he would be happy to provide them.
The Board continued the public hearing for Verizon until next month.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Cleverly made a motion to close the April Meeting, seconded by Mr. Kiselica; motion carried, unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 9:54 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Vera Cavallaro
Zoning Secretary
| ||
