Van Buren, NY - July 2008 ZBA minutes

July 2008 ZBA minutes


	7/21/08 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: Vera Cavallaro, Secretary David Pringle, Code Enforcement Officer Brad Hunt, Attorney MINUTES Minutes were approved as written. Motion Ms. McBurney moved to accept the June minutes as written, seconded by Mr. Kiselica. There was no further discussion. Motion carried; unanimously Mr. Virginia waived the reading of the full reading of the public hearing notices. JACOBE/ROWE 103 Bent Tree Lane Tax Map Parcel Id# 31.6-02-14 PUD Zoning District Section 200-45 rear yard setback Ms. Carol Jacobe was present to address the Board. Ms. Jacobe said they need the setback variance so they can set the shed further back onto their property because the shed would be in the middle of their pool otherwise. The Board discussed the backyard of the applicant's home. Ms. McBurney asked the size of the shed. Ms. Jacobe said 8ft by 6ft. Mr. Virginia asked if anyone would like to speak either for or against this application. No one spoke. Mr. Virginia asked the Board to entertain the following resolution: Carol Jacob and Nancy Rowe of 103 Bent Tree Lane seek an area variance from Section 200-45 of the Town of Van Buren Code related to the rear yard and side yard setback requirements for a proposed 8' x 6' shed. The property is located in a PUD District and is identified as Tax Map parcel 031.6-02-14. Applicant proposes to construct a shed on the parcel. The Zoning Code requires a minimum of 15 feet for a rear and side yard setback. Applicants' proposal provides for a 3 feet setback on the rear (north) and side (east) of the property. Carole Jacobe spoke in favor of the application. She described the plan and the circumstances under which the shed 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 showing the location of the house and proposed shed. 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 shed will be located 3 feet from the rear and side property lines. Due to the lot's topography, existing improvements 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 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 a shed with a rear and side yard setback of 3 feet. Ms. McBurney seconded the resolution. There was no further discussion. Resolution passed on a roll call vote that follows: Roll Call Vote: Aye Nay Other John Virginia X ___ _____ Robert Cleverley X ___ _____ Laura McBurney X ___ _____ Joseph Kiselica X ___ _____ James Bowes X ___ _____ PERYEA TRANSPORTATION 7088 Interstate Island Rd Tax Map Parcel ID# 056-03-04 IND Zoning District Special Use Permit Section 200-21 D6 Light Vehicle Maintenance and Service Mr. Virginia stated that the Board could not act on this application tonight because it needs to be sent to Onondaga County for review. Mr. Patrick Peryea was present to address the Board. Mr. Peryea said they will be using the building to work on their trucks and the trucks will be parked on their other site on Northern Blvd, so this building will just be used for maintenance. Mr. Virginia continued the public hearing until 8/18/08 at 7:31pm. The Board discussed adding this to the application that is already in front of County Planning for site plan that the Planning Board had sent down. The Board decided to send Mr. Peryea to the Planning Board for site plan approval contingent on receiving the Special Use Permit at the Board meeting in August. 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, Coleman Burke, and Greg Hanley were present to address the Board. Mr. Virginia said this is the continuation for the special use permit for the communications tower on Button shores Rd. The Board closed the public hearing at the conclusion of the June meeting and since then the Board has received submittals from Verizon dated July 7, 2008, Ronald Graiff, the Town consultant dated June 26 and July 17th, 2008, and a letter from Mr. Kublick dated July 16, 2008. Board members have had an opportunity to review all materials and this evening the Board's plans are to go through the EAF and discuss the Board's evaluation and work to do a determination of significance. Once the Board gets through SEQR the Board will continue for consideration of a decision on the Special use permit application. Mr. Virginia said that he will lead the discussion on SEQR by going through the questions and giving his opinion and then the Board can provide input to either supplement his observations or note different opinions for discussion. Mr. Lusk said Mr. Graiff submitted a report based upon what had been submitted on June 26, 2008 and on July 7, 2008 and they responded to each of those and it came down to three issues in front of the ZBA and subsequently the Planning Board if it is approved by the ZBA. The first is whether co-location opportunities had been explored and as the Board recalls from the different letters Mr. Graiff incorrectly stated that they hadn't pursued co-location opportunities and Mr. Graiff corrected himself in the latest letter dated July 17th. At the last meeting Mr. Trew and Mr. Kublick had stated the issues regarding the historic issues as well as the visibility and the determination of whether the 850 MHz were required. Mr. Graiff supported their need for the 850 MHz antenna so the only remaining issues are the height and the antenna configuration. Mr. Lusk said visibility is the main issue that Mr. Kublick, the neighbors, and the Board have been describing and Mr. Graiff stated that maybe only 6 antennas were needed but they have stated that they disagree with Mr. Graiff that only 6 are needed and they have provided the Board with the information and the justification document and the photo simulation that shows the Board the difference in the visibility because they have simulated the difference between the 6 antennas and the 12 antennas and it shows that anyone would be hard pressed to determine the difference between the two from a distance but there truly is a difference in the quality in the redundancy of the system that they are putting in and he is asking that the Board consider their request for the 12 antennas because it will make it more redundant for them to deliver the service and provide better service to the surrounding area. Mr. Virginia said the application is for a 12 antenna array. Mr. Lusk said they also believe the 160.5ft height works better and it provides better and farther quality coverage and he has provided that information to the Board previously. If the Board feels that the 140ft tower is all that they need because Mr. Graiff has said the difference in coverage between 160.5 and 140 is diminimus, they don't believe it is diminimus. They think that the 160.5 provides the better coverage and further allows other co-location in the future if someone were ever to come in they could provide more space which the Town does prefer in the Town's ordinance. Based upon that information he submitted to the Board that the information provided demonstrated that there is very little visual impact and the height of the tower proposed is the most reasonable. Mr. Lusk said that Mr. Kublick was quick to say that the 160ft versus 140ft issue is in violation of the code and he urges the Board to read that 200-32 C 2 provision that says the applicant shall demonstrate with a reasonable degree of certainty that the proposed location and height of the telecommunication tower is necessary to meet their frequency use and spacing needs of the system and provide adequate coverage of the town, so for Mr. Kublick to make the statement that their application is in violation of the Town code is just not true. This isn't an exact science but they have showed the Board the difference in the height and they believe if they are going to have a 140ft tower they may as well have 160.5 and provide that reliable coverage to the area that is most needed that they have demonstrated on previous submitted lost call data. The Board reviewed the EAF as follows: PART ONE Mr. Virginia said that he has reviewed part one as indicated by the applicant and he is only going to address the areas that he felt needed clarification or addition. Mr. Virginia said on page 9, item 3 - what is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning. The applicant stated the proposed site is subject to approval by the Town Planning Board and ZBA. He would like to add AR80 zoning regulations in the remaining parcel could accommodate 8 conforming parcels which could be residential or limited commercial use (see attachment number 1 of chapter 200 of the Town Code). Mr. Virginia said item 5 - what is the maximum potential development of this site as permitted by the Town zoning. The applicant stated that there are no proposed changes to the current zoning and he thinks it should state not applicable. PART TWO Question 1 - Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? The Board concluded that the answer to question 1 is yes, the examples are not applicable but the installation of a tower and accessory building and access road in a 100 by 100ft area will provide a small to moderate visual impact. Question 2 - Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? The Board concluded that the answer to question 2 would be no. Question 3 - Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? The Board concluded that the answer to question 3 would be no and for clarification appendix 8 of the FCC Land Use screening checklist prepared by Tectonic submitted July 7, 2008 should be referred to. Question 4 - Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? The Board concluded that the answer to question four would be no. Question 5 - Will proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? Ms. McBurney asked if there would be storage of petroleum or chemical products greater than 1100 gallons. Mr. Lusk said the tank is 250 gallons and it will be double lined, alarmed, and located inside an equipment shelter and has a concrete floor. The Board concluded that the answer to question 5 would be no. Question 6 - Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns? The Board concluded that the answer to question 6 would be no. Question 7 - Will proposed action affect air quality? The Board concluded that the answer to question 7 would be no. Question 8 - Will proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? The Board concluded that the answer to question 8 would be no. There was a report submitted June 17, 2008 as exhibit S submitted by Verizon and a report by Tectonic submitted on July 7th that refers to that question. According to the reports by the experts submitted to the Board it has been confirmed that the Indiana Bat which is endangered is in this area but there are no Indiana Bats within 2 miles of this site. Question 9 - Will proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species? The Board concluded that the answer to question 9 would be no. Question 10 - Will proposed action affect agricultural land resources? The Board concluded that the answer to question 10 would be no. Question 11 - Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources? The Board concluded that the answer to question 11 would be yes, with a small to moderate impact. This is a visual impact but with reviewing the visual EAF addendum and the balloon test the Board believes that this will be a small to moderate impact mitigated by the existing trees and vegetation. Question 12 - Will proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric or paleontological importance? The Board concluded that the answer to question 12 would be no. The Board received no feedback from SHPO and Verizon submitted their report, exhibit T dated 6/12/08 addressing this and the SHPO package was provided on 4/12/08 and the Board is well past the 30 days response period required. This site is also 2500ft from the Erie Canal and that is a small impact given the distance to the Canal and the nature of the topography including trees and vegetation. Question 13 - Will proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? The Board concluded that the answer to question 13 would be no. Question 14 - Will proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area established pursuant to subdivision 6NYCRR 617.14(g)? The Board concluded that the answer to question 14 would be no. Question 15 - Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? The Board concluded that the answer to question 15 would be no. Question 16 - Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? The Board concluded that the answer to question 16 would be no. Question 17 - Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the proposed action? The Board concluded that the answer to question 17 would be no. Question 18 - Will proposed action affect public heath and safety? The Board concluded that the answer to question 18 would be no. Question 19 - Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community? The Board concluded that the answer to question 19 would be no. Question 20 - Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? The Board concluded the answer to question 20 would be yes with a small to moderate impact because there is some public disagreement but this Board has not found any potentially significant adverse environmental impacts based on the entire record of this application. Motion Mr. Virginia asked the Board to entertain a motion to find a negative declaration for the Verizon Wireless application. Ms. McBurney moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Cleverly. There was no further discussion. Motion carried, unanimously. Ms. McBurney proposed the following resolution: Syracuse SMSA Limited Partnership, d/b/a Verizon Wireless applies for a Special Use Permit pursuant to Town of Van Buren Code Section 200-32 to allow for a telecommunications tower at a leased location at Button Shores Road. This application is for a 160.5' tower with 12 total antennas attached. The property is zoned AR80 and is known as tax map no. 038-02-07.2. In the AR80 District, a telecommunications tower is a use allowed upon the grant of special permit by the ZBA. Applicant has submitted, and the ZBA has reviewed the following: (1) An application packet under cover letter dated May 24, 2007 from Jared C. Lusk, Esq. of Nixon Peabody which includes Exhibits A through Q detailing various aspects of the proposal. (2) Site Plan Project Maps, titled Project #2006185407 updated most recently as of December 11, 2007, consisting of seven sheets. (3) Response dated December 13, 2007 from Mr. Lusk regarding comments from Ronald E. Graiff, P.E. who had reviewed the application on behalf of the Town. (4) Submittal from Jared Lusk, Esq. dated June 12, 2008 responding to issues raised at the April 20, 2008 ZBA meeting. Attached to Mr. Lusk's submittal were additional exhibits related to the SEQR review including: (a) an updated Full Environmental Assessment Form dated June 12, 2008; (b) Endangered Species Field Study Survey results; (c) documentation regarding historic preservation review; and (d) analysis of need for 850MHZ antennas. (5) Submittal from Jared Lusk dated July 7, 2008 responding to issues noted in Ronald E. Graiff's report of June 26, 2008 which included Exhibit V (ZBA minutes of January 22, 2008), Exhibit W (RF plots comparing coverage at heights of 160' and 140') and Exhibit X (Visual Resource Evaluation revised as of July 3, 2008). In addition, the Board has been provided and reviewed the reports of Ronald E. Graiff, P.E., hired as the Town's Consultant, dated October 17, December 27, 2007, June 26, 2008 and July 17, 2008. The Board has also received and reviewed the resolution of the Onondaga County Planning Board dated June 19, 2007. The Town Planning Board has also performed a preliminary review of the application and this Board has reviewed those minutes. At this Board's request applicant conducted a balloon test March 8, 2008 to supplement its original balloon test of May 28, 2007 in order to provide Board members an opportunity to assess the visual impact of the proposed tower. The proposed tower is 160.5 feet in height. The proposed design would allow for future vertical expansion as an option but there is no plan or proposal for a facility exceeding 160.5 feet. Notice of a public hearing on the special permit application was duly published. Mr. Jared C. Lusk, Esq.; Ms. Jennifer Wright and Mr. Coleman Burke appeared and spoke in favor of the application on behalf of applicant. Several individuals spoke with concerns in opposition to the proposed tower at the public hearing held January 22, 2008 and April 20, 2008 as detailed in the minutes of those meetings. Additionally, the Town has received written submittals in opposition to the application which have been reviewed by the Board and made part of the file including correspondence from Attorney Jan Kublik dated June 13, 2008 and July 16, 2008. The public hearing was continued to June 16, 2008; at this hearing applicant provided an explanation of it's submittals under the transmittal letter dated June 12, 2008. Additionally, Mr. Doug Trew spoke in opposition to the application and discussed the issues of necessity for the tower, impacts on cultural and historical resources, visual and aesthetic impacts, wetland issues, the effects of radiation and co-location possibilities. Mr. Trew's attorney, Jan Kublik, Esq. has also addressed the Board and discussed SEQR issues and potential adverse impacts. The Onondaga County Planning Board reviewed the application pursuant to General Municipal Law Section 239-M and by resolution dated February 26, 2008 determined that there would be no significant adverse inter-community or county wide implications from the application. The Board has reviewed in detail the applicant's submissions which provide data regarding current coverage, gaps in existing coverage and proposals to reduce existing gaps in coverage. Reference is made to Exhibits F of applicant's 5-24-07 submission packet, Exhibit P of its December 13, 2007 submission and Exhibit V of its 6-12-08 submission with respect to the coverage issues. Additionally the Town has retained an independent consultant, Ronald E. Graiff, P.E., to review the application packet. In reports dated October 17 and December 27, 2007 Mr. Graiff noted that the Button Shores site would address existing gaps in coverage at tower heights ranging from 120' to 160' and noted issues regarding antennae array, 850MHZ service and area coverage which Verizon has addressed in its subsequent submittals. At 160.5 feet the tower will maximize coverage for Verizon services and provide space for additional carriers to co-locate. In reviewing the application the Board is cognizant of its review authority pursuant to the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 and has considered the submissions and testimony presented accordingly. Exhibit R of applicant's 06-12-08 submission is a Full Environmental Assessment Form with a Visual EAF Addendum attached. Applicant has also submitted a Visual Resource Evaluation. The Board has reviewed the submitted forms, reports, maps and photographs in its consideration of the application as well as the testimony presented during the public hearing. Based on the above referenced documents, and proof received by the ZBA at the public hearing, the Board finds and resolves as follows: 1. That matter is subject to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The matter is unlisted. The Board appoints itself lead agency for the uncoordinated review of this matter and finds that based on its review of the Full Environmental Assessment Form and application submittals there will be no significant adverse impact on the environment as a result of this action. The basis for this determination is that upon a review and consideration of the Full Environmental Assessment Form, the subject property, located in an AR80 zone, has adequate space to locate the proposed telecommunication tower while minimizing adverse environmental impacts. Additionally the proposed project poses no significant impacts on water, air, agricultural resources or community character and growth and there will be minimal noise associated with the proposal. Archeological, historical, natural and cultural resources will not be subject to any significant adverse environmental affect. Regarding visual impacts the Board has reviewed applicant's submittals which include the Visual EAF Addendum attach to the EAF dated June 12, 2008, the View Shed Analysis Map dated June 12, 2008, Visual Resource Evaluation (Exhibit G to application submitted May 24, 2007) as revised July 3, 2008 (Exhibit X of July 7, 2008 submittal). Additionally balloon test flights were conducted May 8, 2007 and again on March 8, 2008 to allow Board members an opportunity to view the balloon test. As a result of the balloon tests, Applicant has agreed to relocate the tower approximately 164 feet to the northwest to reduce the visual impact to the nearest neighbor, Mrs. Van Vliet. The Visual Resource Evaluation includes a topographic map analysis of the visual impact and photographs from ten different locations within a two mile radius of the site. Additionally, the Board has reviewed photographs submitted in the course of the public hearing and the testimony of the applicant and those in opposition to the proposal regarding visual impact. Based on the location of the site, the topography of the area, existing vegetation and trees the Board finds that the visual impact of the proposed tower is adequately minimized and is not significant. With respect to its impact on cultural and historical resources because of its vicinity to the Erie Canal and Beaver Lake Nature Center, the Board has considered the applicant's submissions from Tectonic Engineering & Surveying Consultants P.C. (Exhibits 5 and 7) and testimony from both proponents and opponents. It is the Board's opinion that this impact is minimal as a result of the site's location and design. 2. The property is zoned AR80 and, upon the issuance of a Special Permit, telecommunications facilities are permitted. 3. Applicant has submitted several documents and maps demonstrating existing gaps in wireless coverage in the area between Baldwinsville and Plainville and the suitability of this proposed site to remedy the gaps. Additionally the reports document the absence of existing towers in the affected area that could be utilized to remedy the existing gaps. 4. The reports of Ronald E. Graiff, P.E., hired by the Town to review applicant's submittals, concur with Verizon's position regarding the current lack of wireless coverage and suitability of the proposed location to provide relief. 5. The analysis submitted by Millennium Engineering, P.C. dated May 21, 2007 indicates the proposed tower complies with applicable FCC exposure guidelines and limits with respect to radio frequency electromagnetic fields. 6. The proposed tower will be suitable for co-location of additional facilities to accommodate other providers, in conformity with Section 200-32 D (2). The tower at 160.5 feet provides space to allow for up to 3 additional providers (Exhibit N of Application). 7. The Visual Resource Evaluation dated July 3, 2008; prepared by Tectronic Engineering and supplemented by the View Shed Analysis Map dated July 3, 2008 provides information for the proposed location regarding the visual effect on the surrounding environment. 8. A special permit is required pursuant to Code Section 200-32 for the proposed use, which the Board finds is a telecommunication tower. 9. Pursuant to Section 200-32 of the Code, the Board finds the proposed special use satisfies the Town standards of review as follows: (a) As the proposed use is allowed in the zoning district by special permit, it is in compliance with the applicable intent and regulations of the Zoning Ordinance; (b) The proposed use is consistent with the long term development objectives of the area and is serviced by utilities necessary for its operation; (c) The scale and design of the site and proposed use minimize the effect on the surrounding area; it will be conducted within an area of 100' by 100', is in compliance with Town requirements and will be developed to be visually compatible with conditions of the site and surrounding properties. The submitted site plan complies with Section 200-32 D. (1) with respect to its detail of information. (d) The design of the site provides for adequate vehicular movement and there is adequate space for the facility and for internal traffic. (e) The site is adequately served by public utilities; (f) Drainage on the site will not be significantly affected by the proposed use; (g) Regarding aesthetics, on site vegetation is preserved as much as possible and improvements are located and designed to minimize the visual impact of the improvements consistent with the existing conditions; (h) Emissions from the site will be minimal. (i) The proposed site plan application enclosures adequately demonstrate the layout of the proposed facility, the proposed use and capacity of the facility and ability to accommodate a tower. The plan provides for an access road and parking layout to minimize disturbance to the site. Utility connection will be located underground. (j) The application demonstrates that shared use of any existing towers, facilities or structures is not feasible to address the Verizon coverage gaps and that its proposed tower provides needed coverage for existing gaps and will accommodate additional users at the proposed height of 160.5 feet. (k) As noted previously, the proposed location isolates the visual impact and provides for a minimal adverse visual effect on the environment while providing coverage for existing gaps in service. (l) Applicant has provided photographic simulations for the 160.5 feet tower that depicts both 12 and 6 antennae arrays. Additionally Ronald Graiff has suggested the possibility of stealth antennas for the tower. This Board's approval is based on its review of the submittals for the 12 antennae array but acknowledges the Planning Board's authority to require modifications under its Site Plan review as to tower height and antennae configuration. (2) The Special Permit is granted pursuant to Code Section 200-32 and all other applicable provisions of the Code, so as to allow for operation of a telecommunication tower facility not to exceed 160.5' in accordance with the parameters outlined in applicants' submissions in support of its application. This Special Permit is conditioned on and subject to the applicant obtaining site plan approval for the project. Any future expansion of the facility would require compliance with the Town Code. Mr. Bowes moved to accept the resolution. There was no further discussion. Resolution passed on a roll call vote that follows: Roll Call Vote: Aye Nay Other John Virginia X ____ _____ Robert Cleverley X ____ _____ Laura McBurney X ____ _____ Joseph Kiselica X ____ _____ James Bowes X ____ _____ ADJOURNMENT Mr. Cleverly made a motion to close the July Meeting, seconded by Mr. Bowes; motion carried, unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 8:26 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Vera Cavallaro Zoning Secretary