7575 Van Buren Road, Baldwinsville, NY 13027
September 2007
September 5, 2007
The Regular Meeting of the Planning Board of the Town of Van Buren, held at the Town Building, 7575 Van Buren Road, Baldwinsville, New York, was called to order at 7:00 pm.
Those present joined in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
Roll Call: Harold Crandon present
James Virginia present
James Ruddock present
Eric Knapp present
Fred Thomas present
Mary Frances Sabin present
Anthony Geiss, Chairman present
Also present: Brad Hunt, Attorney
Dave Pringle, Codes Enforcement Officer
Vera Cavallaro, Planning Board Secretary
MINUTES:
Mr. Virginia made a few corrections to typos in the August minutes.
Motion# 07-168 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to accept the July minutes as amended. Mr. Ruddock moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Thomas, there was no further discussion; motion carried unanimously on a roll call vote that follows:
Mr. Virginia yes
Mr. Thomas yes
Mr. Knapp yes
Mr. Crandon yes
Mr. Ruddock yes
Ms. Sabin yes
Mr. Geiss, Chairman yes
Motion# 07-169 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to accept the August minutes as amended. Mr. Crandon moved to accept the motion, seconded by Ms. Sabin, there was no further discussion; motion carried, unanimously on a roll call vote that follows:
Mr. Virginia yes
Mr. Thomas yes
Mr. Knapp yes
Mr. Crandon yes
Mr. Ruddock yes
Ms. Sabin yes
Mr. Geiss, Chairman yes
RIVERIDGE DEVELOPEMNT LLC - SUBDIVISION
River and Daboll Rd. Tax Map Parcel Id# 045-01-01.2
Mr. Joe Mastroianni was present to address the Board.
Mr. Mastroianni said that the changes that they have made to the plan were to reflect County Comments and Town comments. The main changes from the previous submissions are that some of the roads are now cul-de-sacs and they had them listed as private roads/driveways. Since that time the client has decided to make them all roads built to Town standards including full cul-de-sacs. One of the comments by the Town was where the road comes in across from Daboll originally there was a curve and if it is going to be a Town road it would have to come in at a perpendicular and have stop signs. The other concern was the lot that was at the corner since it had an odd shape and they have changed some of the lot lines further up but they are still maintaining the 80,000sf minimum. They have connected the corner coming out and divided it into two lots
which are more visually acceptable. The rest of the lots do still maintain the 80,000sf and it is going to be a Town road the whole way through with a hammer head at the end. They are also going to be requesting referral to the ZBA for lot variances because two lots do not have a 250ft depth required and also lots 1 and 3 fall under that category and then lots 22, 24, and 26 are in excess of the 2.5 to 1 ratio for frontage to depth and they can't really move the road way or anything to change that ratio because of steep drop offs on that side and it would make lots not suitable for building on that side. They have supplied their drainage report to the Town engineer for review and they have made a small modification to the SEQR to reflect the current number of lots.
Mr. Geiss and the applicant discussed the lots that need variances and decided that the lot numbers are lots 1, 3, 11, 12, 14, 19, 22, 24, and 26.
Mr. Thomas asked if the applicant has talked with the Highway Superintendent about cul-de-sacs.
Mr. Mastroianni said yes, they met with Mr. Parks about a week ago and Mr. Parks said that he doesn't have a feel for it either way because originally it was shown as a private drive and he stated as long as the roads are maintained by the Town or private and that Mr. Parks was going to write a memo to the Town.
Mr. Pringle said that nothing has come in writing but he knows that Mr. Parks met with Mr. Mastroianni.
Mr. Geiss asked Mr. Pringle if Mr. Billings finished any review on the drainage.
Mr. Pringle said that he didn't know if Mr. Billings was 100% done but Mr. Billings indicated that there were no issues with the drainage but he doesn't know how far into the report Mr. Billings is.
Mr. Geiss said that the applicant has depth to width ratios that need to be reviewed by the ZBA and the Board has a couple other things that need to be discussed. The public hearing on this project was done two meeting ago and it has been changed since then. Another issue is the Environmental Assessment Form for the project which is a Type 1 project. With a Type 1 project the Town Planning Board has the option of declaring a negative impact or a positive impact and with the positive impact the Board has the option of saying what might resolve that or the Board can go to an environmental impact statement basically listing the issues that the Board is concerned with.
Mr. Hunt said that if the Board determines that the project may have a significant adverse environmental impact then the Board should require an environmental impact statement. For a Type 1 action the Board is generally not permitted to say that it might have a significant adverse environmental impact unless they meet these conditions, the Board is not supposed to do a conditional, the Board can only do that for unlisted but not Type 1.
Mr. Geiss said with a project of this size in this area which is a substantial change in use out in the agricultural area so it is the Board's option what the Board would like to do with this. If the Board goes with the Impact Statement the Board needs to list some reasons and show what the significant items are that the Board is looking at, some of them the applicant has already started looking at and has done some detailed work and drainage has been submitted and developed but hasn't been totally reviewed so drainage is one item and the other is the archeological which has been completed, traffic is another concern but there is also the potential for erosion and flooding but there is also the fact that they are doing a substantial change in the use of the land from agricultural to residential which he thinks is quite substantial out there
and this is the Board's first major project out in that area which does that and that is one of the primary reasons he looked at in looking at this project. Looking at the comprehensive plan one of the things that the Board is adhered to in doing this is that they have water but one of the other items looking at the comprehensive plan along the river that it would be a greenway system and how that would affect this as a green area that the Town wanted to maintain and in that the Town wanted to extend from the village going out but here still is the edge of the river.
Mr. Thomas asked if the Town engineer had a chance to review the EAF.
Mr. Mastroianni said that the engineer has looked at EAF and the only change is to number of lots.
Ms. Sabin asked if the number of lots that are actually on the river in phase 1 and then potential future phase 2 does the Board really know what the impact to the drainage into the river will be and is drainage into the river allowed.
Mr. Geiss said that the drainage report is addressing with retention basins and other things that no more enters the river or at the same rate enters the river as it currently does.
Mr. Mastroianni said the Seneca River is a class three waterway and being a class three waterway the rate that the water goes out is considered not significant as much as the water quality so therefore the detention basin on a project like this will be somewhat smaller because they are not worried about the rate going out and if it was next to additional open land then the basins would be quite a bit bigger because of the out flow rate because it is essentially the quality of the water that is the main thing. The drainage patterns are basically the same.
Ms. Sabin asked if this is going to be septic or sewer.
Mr. Geiss said septic, and that they are going to have municipal water but not sewer.
Ms. Sabin asked if the Board had the report yet on how that will impact this area.
Mr. Mastroianni said that each site is going to have its own system and they have gone through this with the County and they have done their deep holes and field work and have design done but until they get finished with any kind of road shifting or whatever they have to resubmit to County for final review. There will be a mix of conventional systems and a couple raised bed systems based on the soil types in the area.
Mr. Geiss said that if the Board does proceed the impact statement will be on the entire phase one and phase two; The Board would not segment the project they would do it as an entire thing and if the Board tried to divide it in half they would have to give reasons for that which would need to be justified.
Mr. Ruddock said that his feeling is that the Board is starting to set a precedent for the edge of the water and there is a little bit up tail in Harbor Heights but the Board is really now starting to stretch out into the Town in land that has been pretty much the same for many decades and he gets a little gun shy about what the Board is doing and he is tending to think maybe the Board needs something that really takes a closer look than what they already have and he does commend the applicant for the modifications and changes that they made and he thinks that some good progress has been made on the actual site plan itself but he guesses looking at the impact of the overall development there is not one big thing that jumps out at him but there are little ones that he needs to be reassured of.
Mr. Mastroianni said that his interpretation is that the Board would go through and review the part two of the SEQR which has the columns of small, moderate and potentially large impacts and if the Board is in dispute of whatever he wrote down the Board can include that and then based on that if there is something that is considered a major impact that needs to be addressed or something that is not being mitigated then the Board would specify specifically what the Board's concern is. For example if it was a gas station being built and there needed to be a determination of the fumes or something like that but to say maybe the wetlands because his interpretation of the SEQR because he talked to Mr. Billings today regarding this is that it has to be something specific because the EIS has to be geared towards that concern and a concern that might
not be mitigated if something isn't done. The wetlands issues on top of the development has to go through DEC and the Army Corps approvals and they can't do anything in there without their approvals so if the EIS is geared towards wetland that will be impacted, that is going to be dealt with by the DEC and Army Corp and they can't do anything about it but he hasn't come up with anything major and if they are going to be doing an EIS there has to be some viable concern that has to be researched in depth. They will do whatever the Board requires but he has seen some EIS's for residential which have been very few and far between which go as far as computing the residue gas emissions out of a gas burning furnace and how many particles per billion are put into the air in that area and will that disperse over time based on wind velocity and stuff that really doesn't ever come down to anything but they have to go into that detail but here it is only 38 houses total but that will be undue
stuff if they have to go to that extreme for what they have. He can appreciate the Board's concern for where it is located and as he has stated before most of the construction is going to be near the road because in the back it is very steep land and then it goes to trees and they are not looking to clear cut anything or remove anything at all.
Mr. Geiss said that they touched on some points and as the Board goes forward with an EIS one of the first items is scoping that they need to address and that would be next month and the applicant would need to develop a scoping statement of items and some of the items and he has listed some of the things that he thinks could be included already and then the draft scoping statement is submitted and the Board would then look at that and look at what is going on with each item and agree to the scoping and that would be something the Board would do in the next month and looking at things such as significant impacts, other involved agencies and have consultation with them, the extent and quality of information that the Board needs to have, mitigation measures, identification, alternatives to be considered and how to then proceed. The Board
would then go to a final scoping statement and vote on that and these are almost like month issues first being this month calling for the EIS, next month would be the draft scoping and November would be the final scoping and by January the Board could have a draft environmental impact statement and review that and make suggestions. Once the Board then gets that and accepts the draft and then publish notices for a Public Hearing and then have a Public Hearing and following that the final EIS put together and then the Board could vote on the final.
Mr. Geiss said one thing that he feels the Board needs to do since there have been several iterations of this subdivision that the Board should have another Public Hearing on the subdivision since it has been changed twice since the Public Hearing and he believes the Public Hearing can be carried on concurrently with the Pubic Hearing that the Board holds on the EIS.
Mr. Hunt said that if they decide to require an impact statement then the Board should hold a Public Hearing and it could be one hearing.
Mr. Geiss said that if the Board is going to hold a Public Hearing on this again then the Board needs to decide if they would like to do the Impact Public Hearing statement as well or not but he thinks the Board should do a Public Hearing on this because there has been changes and the Board received a significant input at the previous public hearing.
Ms. Sabin said that the Board had a lot of people commenting that this is going against what the comprehensive plan was to keep it as agricultural and now they are trying to put a 35 unit housing development.
Mr. Mastroianni said that they are going with what is allowed there.
Mr. Virginia said that when he looks at this 25% of these lots in phase one require variances and if they throw in lots 11 and 12 they are almost up to 40% and then if they look at phase two lots 28, 30, and 32 that look like they are going to require variances for the 2.5 to 1 ratio. The Board has had the public come in and state their opinions on the use plan and he thinks it is the Boards obligation to ensure that they are effectively utilizing the land and make it a conforming subdivision. It is difficult for him to go out as a Board member and tell a community member who comes to him about this project and asks what his thought are on that and it is difficult when the applicant is in front of the Board saying that 30% of the lots aren't conforming to the Town Code so they would like to go to the ZBA for a variance.
Mr. Mastroianni said that this project technically kicked off two years ago and that was prior to the 1 to 2.5 ratio from front to back so his view would be that they are grandfathered in because they started with those regulations and the new regulations should not apply and if that was the case lots 22, 24, and 26 are ok because of the ratio and he believes the 250ft for the back originally before that time was an average of the two sides which would also knock off about half of the other lots but they are directed that they now have to comply to the new zoning regulations even though they did start before they were in effect which some may or may not see as being viable and that would reduce down the variance by probably two thirds at least.
Mr. Virginia asked if they are grandfathered in or not.
Mr. Hunt said that he does not think that they are grandfathered in and the new code applies because no decision was made.
Mr. Virginia said the reality is, based on the Town attorney, the applicant is not grandfathered in so almost a third of the lots are requiring a variance and he sees that as a problem and he knows that topography has alot to do with that and there is not a lot of area that they can build on when they look at the slope lines because it just runs off to the water and he understands that but at the same time he thinks if the Board moves forward he is worried personally about setting that precedent.
Mr. Mastroianni said with all due respect is that not the decision of the ZBA if they do that or not do that the ZBA would make the decision if they would be allowed to have the variances or not. The ZBA would review all of the same data and make a decision.
Mr. Geiss said yes it is but the Planning Board makes recommendation to the ZBA as well.
Mr. Geiss said that he is in favor of the environmental impact statement for the variances which is a very significant because the lots are nonconforming and need a variance, changing from the agricultural to the residential use, looking at the river and the greenway and how that impacts the Town Planning, traffic, noise, erosion, drainage, and also animal habitat that is on the property and how that is going to be affected. The Board has heard from some of the residents that there are eagles out there.
Mr. Mastroianni said that they have had Fish and Wildlife out there to do a complete inventory and there is nothing out there. Fish and Wildlife, Army Corp. and DEC have all been out there.
Mr. Geiss asked how long ago.
Mr. Mastroianni said a year the beginning of November but the animals could have moved in last week.
Mr. Geiss said that he asked that because the applicant is years into this project.
M. Geiss said that he sees those as significant impacts on this project that he thinks should be looked at and developed further and as the Board goes forward if the Board were to go forward with this the Board needs to list those specifically so that they have a starting point.
Mr. Mastroianni said Harbor Heights which is more on the water and have a higher density than this development with more traffic and everything have never been required to have an environmental impact statement done so he appreciates the river part but Harbour Heights is along the River and they are wondering about the comparison, why they may be required and the other ones were not required to do anything of that nature.
Ms. Sabin said wasn't the number of houses on the water substantially different.
Mr. Geiss said it was substantially different but Harbour Heights was almost like a phase two or phase three of the Harbour Heights development which was already envisioned as a residential area.
Mr. Mastroianni said that they are looking at a total of 38 lots in both phases and Harbour Heights is well over 100 lots.
Mr. Geiss said Harbor Heights was looked at and originally that was a development through there prior which was never carried on and this was today's expansion of the plans years ago for that area and if they look at it South Gate was already an entrance to there and right now as they drive into it for all the years that they have been there it is a funny type entrance because it was envisioned as that being the rest of the development over there and that is how he looked at it as they reviewed Harbor Heights.
Mr. Ruddock said when the Board asks an applicant to do an EIS there is usually something big that jumps out to start with and then as it is scoped that gets looked at and perhaps anything that might be an off shoot of that or as someone looks at it a little bit closer and he is not sure right now if the Board can point to one big giant thing but there seems to be a number of smaller things that are bothering the Board and to be fair to the applicant he thinks he Board should hear some more comments from the Public Hearing so he is not so sure he is interested in getting started on an EIS and having it run concurrently with a Public Hearing and he is more interested in having a Public Hearing to see if there are things that over time people have become more concerned with to give the Board something more specific to then require if the Board
needs to require the EIS. He would kind of be against getting the EIS started at this point in time and he would be more preferred to have the Public Hearing again and then maybe make a determination then whether the Board needs to have more info and scope it out better.
The Board discussed calling a Public Hearing for subdivision.
Mr. Ruddock said that the Board was talking about if the Board did require an EIS it would be a joint piece but he is interested in getting some more comments from people to see if anything else has kind of bubbled up but the Board has to be more clear about the Board's concerns and he doesn't mean that the Board hasn't done their due diligence it is just that there are little things in the back of his mind that kind of bother him about this but he can't point out the one big giant thing out that comes up but obviously the change in other things that the Board has mentioned and Mr. Virginia's point about the character because building has a lot to do about the building and character of the land and although it is an allowed use the Board is also talking about the character here but that is a tough one because character to one person is a lot
different to other people so he would like a little more information and he would be more interested in talking to the Town engineer when they have completed more of their drainage studies and he knows the project is dragging out but before the Board burdens the client with the EIS he would like more info and then the Board can make a decision.
The Board and the applicant discussed sending the applicant to the ZBA for variances and it was decided to submit the application to the ZBA after the Public Hearing.
Mr. Mastroianni said that if they were to go to the ZBA after the Public Hearing and the ZBA does not approve one lot and they have to do somewhat of a reconfiguration are they then looking at a third Public Hearing because the lot has changed somewhat or two lots were combined because theoretically this could go on quite a few months potentially back and forth and then after that is done an EIS could be required which would be another 3 to 5 months or more because there is no time frame on an EIS it could take a month to 6 month to do it and this could get delayed out until next fall without much trouble at all.
Mr. Ruddock said that for himself he would say no, he doesn't plan to string them along for more and more Public Hearings.
Mr. Mastroianni said technically the Board should do another one if they had lot changes or lot combinations.
Mr. Ruddock said that if there are multiple lot changes and combinations then yes he thinks that the Board probably would but again he thinks that they are starting to tweak some of the pieces up for the current configuration and barring any real major changes if something had to be adjusted on one or two lots he is not so sure that he would feel personally that they would need to have another Public Hearing.
Mr. Hunt said that the Board doesn't have to hold a new Public Hearing every time anything changes.
Mr. Ruddock said that his intent tonight is the Board could either decide or not decide to burden the applicant with an EIS and he is not so sure of the major impact and he would like to talk to the Town engineer because when he goes through and he looks at what the applicant mentioned in the last part of the EAF it starts looking at the project impacts there are categories one, two, and three and that is a matter of opinion whether it is small to moderate, whether it is potentially large, or whether it's mitigated and there are a couple things in there that he has a few questions about.
Mr. Mastroianni discussed a different Board and that Board went through part two and made a joint decision on whether it was moderate, large or a mitigated impact and then the Board makes a statement or part two and discussed their findings on it and from there declared there would be an EIS based on their findings.
Mr. Ruddock said that is what he would be interested in because right now he is presented with what is the applicant's opinion and he doesn't feel comfortable until he has heard the engineer's opinion and when the Board does the Board can look at where the Board would be and which boxes needed to be filled in and when the boxes are filled in and he sees that they are all small and can be mitigated then he probably would not be interested in an EIS but if he starts to see more of them go over into the potentially larger impacts and they can't figure out exactly how they could be mitigated then that would key him into requiring an EIS.
The Board discussed making a recommendation to the ZBA and where the wetlands are.
Mr. Geiss said that he doesn't have a problem waiting until after the Public Hearing because some of the other questions that might be raised and the Board can see what happens but they have significant impact by the lot size and lot dimensions being significant also.
Mr. Mastroianni said that they would like to request consideration to obtain a referral to ZBA but also at the same time have a public hearing if at all possible.
Ms. Sabin asked if there are any other changes that would cause the lot lines to be changed.
Mr. Geiss said yes there could be, the Board wants to change or ask for variances on 9 out of 26 lots.
Ms. Sabin said for a new development she is not comfortable with that only because the Board had a problem with one other development where it had been approved at certain lot lines then they came back and asked for variances after the fact.
Mr. Geiss said that Mr. Virginia brought up a good point, 34.6% is a lot.
Mr. Mastroianni said that their understanding was that lots 22, 24, and 26 with the 1 to 2.5 ratio would be that at some future date someone could potentially come in and attempt to do a lot behind there with a private drive or whatever and therefore there is the 1 to 2.5 ratio and he respects that. On lots 24 and 26 their detention basin is going to be in the back so they wouldn't be able to build anything back there because there is going to be a permanent easement back there for that reason and then lot 22 next to that they start to get into that drop off so it would be virtually impossible to have any kind of setback for anything required for a separate lot behind that so he can appreciate what the regulations are but why the regulations are in place to protect needs to be looked at so while they would be going for a zoning variance what
they are trying to minimize or eliminate from happening which would not be possible anyway because what is beyond there.
Mr. Geiss said that he is not ready to recommend to the ZBA that 9 out of 26 lots get variances without more input or maybe a Public Hearing or something and if he was to make a recommendation this evening it would be that the ZBA hold off on their recommendation until the Board has more information or he is not against going to the Impact Statement on this because he thinks there are issues; Mr. Ruddock brings up a point, are they super large ones like traffic that is going to stop all input and output here no they are not like that or like a Walmart over in Liverpool where traffic was the biggest thing but he thinks the Board has the fact that the Board is getting into a subdivision here that does need variances to comply. This is the third revision on lot layout so that it could meet the requirements that have been raised as they
have come along on this project and yet it still needs variances with their attempt to comply with the request and he acknowledges that they want a certain number of lots but does the Board want to give up on the number of lots when they should have the proper dimensions for this type of area which is AR-80. Therefore he is not ready to recommend anything to the ZBA at this time or if that had to be done he would send a negative recommendation at this time because here the Board is doing and redoing and it has taken years to get here so the Board is not rushing this so he is not against holding the Public Hearing for subdivision for more input that the Board would like from the public because the Board received significant input from the public as the Board went forward with this the last time. There was upwards of 15 people that talked at that hearing.
Mr. Mastroianni said that they had 26 lots before and they are still going to be presenting with 26 lots and he is having a hard time seeing how the public hearing could change the lot configuration.
Mr. Geiss said that it could well change it with all the variances; the variances are quite significant here. He acknowledges that there is a lot of acreage in all the lots that the Board is talking about even though the lots are not conforming shapes, the acreage is there and the lots are not quarter acre lots.
Mr. Mastroianni said with the original County Comments when this first went down for their review the County had no problem with their connection down there and the County also had no problem with driveways and there would have been at least 5 lots that would not have required variances at that point and there was a major shift at that point also.
Mr. Ruddock said he is not saying that judgment of whether an EIS is needed is going to be totally confirmed or denied by the Public Hearing and he thinks the Public Hearing like Mr. Geiss said originally that there have been enough changes to the site plan to where the Board owes the resident's that and he thinks the EIS decision is something between the Board, the Town engineer, and what the Board reads and sees with the Town's plan for development and the rest of those types of things and yes the Board may gain some more information about the EIS question but he doesn't see the Public Hearing holding the key to that and he thinks probably more the Town engineer and Board discussion holds the key to that one.
Mr. Geiss said that he doesn't disagree with Mr. Ruddock and what he does agree to is that the Board should go ahead with the Public Hearing on the subdivision for more information at a little more definition from the Town engineer on the EIS.
Mr. Ruddock said that he wants it scrutinized and the more he looks at it he goes to the last page of the EIS question number 19 which is impact on growth and character, community and neighborhoods and will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community and they circled yes, true and then they give some examples but just because they give an example that doesn't mean that is all inclusive and if someone reads down and see that they put a check box next to developmental creative demand for additional community services; schools, police, and fire, ok but also look at will it cause a change in density of land use and nothing is checked does that mean a small or moderate impact to get checked again that is an interpretation, does it conflict with officially adopted plans or goals, well he just heard from the person sitting to
his right that her feeling is yes it does and so again one person's interpretation of does it have an impact small to moderate or does she see it as stronger. He thinks the Board needs more discussion about that and the Board also needs more discussion about the blank lines at the end of each one of these questions which are other impacts not itemized by previous experience but things that might be particular and specific to the Town of Van Buren and that is why the Board needs the Town engineer. It isn't that the Board just checks off the boxes the Board gets to fill in other things on those lines if the Board thinks that they are significant and then the other thing is when the Board goes to part three and then part three shows that they have been identified but are they really significant or can they be mitigated and again he is not ready to sit here and do that and he thinks once the Board gets those things nailed down then the Board needs to talk to the engineer and his opinion
on what does he feel can be done or not be done and again it goes to try to give the applicant the targets that they need if they are going to do an EIS as opposed to having just shooting out in the air at a lot of little tiny things.
Mr. Mastroianni said that the SEQR review states that the Board has to identify the significant environmental impacts not minor or other things like that so they can have a scope.
Mr. Ruddock said that is what he is trying to do, from a certain extent the Board needs to indicate the Boards answers to these questions because it is drafted by the applicant but signed by the Board and the Board takes the responsibility of whether that impact is major or not major and that is why the Board goes through all this and that is why the Board would require the EIS because it is this Board and the office that sign off on that and the Board is not ready to go there for the responsibility what the land is going to be used for and what the Town is legally liable for. The Board needs more information.
Mr. Crandon said he supports what Mr. Ruddock has stated.
The Board discussed calling the Public Hearing.
Mr. Geiss asked the Board to finish the review of the EAF and he thinks the Board should charge themselves to each completing this and get a copy of it over to the engineer with input from each Board member because he has a couple other changes that he has noted as he went through it.
Mr. Geiss discussed with the Board what he had noted on the EAF.
Motion #07- 170 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to call a Public Hearing for the Riveridge Development Subdivision tax Map Parcel ID# 045-01-01.2 for October 1, 2007 at 7:05. Mr. Ruddock moved to accept the motion, seconded by Ms. Sabin. There was no further discussion. Motion carried, unanimously.
Mr. Geiss asked the Board members to have their EAF comments to the Codes Office by September 14, 2007 no later than 1:00p.m so the forms can be delivered to Mr. Billings for his review.
Motion #07-171 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to not send a recommendation to the ZBA and that any action by the ZBA for variances on this subdivision be held off until after the Public Hearing. Ms. Sabin moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Crandon. There was no further discussion. Motion carried, unanimously.
Mr. Virginia asked the applicant if they see any changes on the layout coming after the Public Hearing.
Mr. Mastroianni said no, that all of there changes have been to address Town comments and County comments basically and they don't foresee any other changes developing from their end.
Mr. Virginia asked if the Board feels that the Public Hearing might reveal some changes that the Board might ask the applicant for.
Mr. Geiss said yes, with the number of variances involved but maybe not and that is why he would like to hear from the public.
GLR - SITE PLAN
Jones & O'Brien Rd. Tax Map Parcel ID# 60-04-02.2
Mr. Ed Keplinger was present to address the Board.
Mr. Geiss read the County comments aloud.
Mr. Geiss said that they have complied with the 60ft access and that does give access to the lot to the west and he believes they did supply the engineering study.
Mr. Keplinger said they had a drainage report prepared and reviewed by the Town engineer and they also have had dialogue with Mr. Stelter with Onondaga County DOT and as the Board can see with their site plan there are no drainage facilities along the O'Brien Rd. right of way and O'Brien Rd is above their site so they are actually accepting run off from O'Brien Rd.
Mr. Keplinger said that they have spoke with Mr. Masterleo with the Water Environmental Protection Agency and the Seneca Knolls Sewage Treatment Plant has more than adequate capacity and can handle any development that occurs on this site and Mr. Masterleo actually deferred it back to the Town and he spoke with Mr. Billings about this and he agreed that there is adequate capacity.
Mr. Crandon asked if the Board should have a letter stating that or a report from Mr. Billings stating that.
Mr. Geiss said yes, normally for highway and a road boundary the Board does receive letters.
Mr. Keplinger said that they would provide a letter to the Board.
Mr. Keplinger said they have made some significant changes to the site plan and at the last meeting there were some concerns about fire access to the rear portion of the building and since the last meeting the building has been reduced in size of about thirty feet and they have provided a fire access road where before the fire access road came to the east side of the building and there was a hammerhead located in that same location but now they have provided an access road that comes down and around the back of the building and goes all the way the entire length of the building and they have provided a 60ft hammerhead type turn around.
Mr. Geiss asked Mr. Pringle if this meets the fire requirements.
Mr. Pringle said yes.
Mr. Keplinger said because they made this change it has impacted the drainage report so they updated the drainage report and have forwarded that to Mr. Billings and via telephone Mr. Billings has signed off on their changes of enlarging the basin a little bit.
Mr. Pringle said that he received a phone call from Mr. Billings and Mr. Billings specifically told him that there weren't any changes that really impacted the drainage and that it met all the conditions and Mr. Billing is satisfied with it.
Mr. Keplinger said that they reduced building size and they have added some pavement and they are treating all the water that comes off of the pavement and they have pulled the water down a swale and into the drainage basin so they are not actually discharging into the wetland buffer area.
Mr. Ruddock asked if this meets or exceeds fire access.
Mr. Pringle said exceeds because they have provided three sided accessibility instead of two.
Mr. Ruddock said that the applicant is making an effort to be on the super safe side.
The Board and the applicant discussed the fire access.
Motion# 07- 172 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to declare the Town of Van Buren Planning Board as lead agency, a single agency uncoordinated review for the unlisted action under SEQR for the site plan review for GLR at Jones and O'Brien Rd Tax Map Parcel ID#60-04-02.2. This is for the site plan for their proposed building for senior housing. This plan has undergone several changes and it now complies with all the requirements from a Town view, from a Planning view and from a fire department view and there is no significant adverse environmental impact with regard to this site plan. Mr. Thomas moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Crandon. There was no further discussion. Motion carried, unanimously.
Motion# 07- 173 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to approve the site plan as submitted by GLR for the Jones and O'Brien Rd Tax Map Parcel ID#60-04-02.2. That the plans that are signed and dated August 21, 2007 with revision number one noted with the conditions that the formal set of stamped and signed drawings be submitted to the office by noon Friday September 7, 2007 and with a condition that a letter from the waste water/water environment group be submitted to the Codes office and this approval does not include any approval for signs for this project. Mr. Ruddock moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Crandon. There was no further discussion. Motion carried, unanimously.
BITZ - SUBDIVISION
1198 Old State Route 31 Tax Map Parcel ID # 046-07-01
Mr. Ruddock recused himself from this discussion.
Mr. Mark Bitz was present to address the Board.
Mr. Geiss read the County comments aloud.
Mr. Geiss asked if Elbridge made any comments in regards to this.
Ms. Cavallaro said no.
Mr. Geiss asked if the remaining lands included the land in Elbridge and in Van Buren.
Mr. Bitz said yes, and that they have separate tax map numbers.
Mr. Geiss said that they have tax map numbers in each town but they are owned by the same person.
The Board discussed the remaining lands and came to a decision that the remaining lands is one parcel and has two tax map numbers for tax reasons in each Town.
Mr. Geiss stated that the remaining land does have access on to Route 31 and the remaining land is 49 acres because it is one deed. Therefore item 3 on the County comments is not needed because there is one parcel remaining so there is no need for a 60ft right of way. The comment about an existing or proposed septic system for lot one where it must be accepted or approved; there is an existing and approved septic system already in place so the Board does not need to work with that one. Item 2 says applicant must separate the existing commercial driveway from the existing residential and that is already separated and it is an agricultural driveway by Town definition not a commercial driveway.
Mr. Crandon said that both driveways are shown in the subdivision with lot one which is the residence and that is probably the problem.
Mr. Bitz said that it is existing and the barns are there so they have to get to the barns.
Mr. Geiss said that the driveways exist and the driveways are shown separately.
Mr. Pringle said that he thinks the County thought that the applicant was proposing to put the driveway in because they are making lot one a new lot that it would require another driveway to get to the barns.
Mr. Geiss said that leaves comment number 1 which is the parcel up at the bend where Plainville Rd. comes in that the County wants a written agreement from the owner of the adjacent parcel to the west and the hotel owns that and that parcel is their parking lot and he can't understand what the County is trying to do because the Board is not changing any driveways in that area and the Board is not changing anything in the area.
Mr. Pringle said that it would only make sense if they think the applicant is putting in a new driveway because with a new driveway line of sight comes into play.
The Board discussed the County comment on driveways.
Motion# 07- 174 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion in regard to SEQR in that the Board has previously taken lead agency on this unlisted action. This is a subdivision which will subdivide 5.96 acres with remaining land being 49 acres and that the property is in both the Town of Elbridge and the Town of Van Buren and the subdivision of the 5.96 acres is to subdivide out the existing buildings on the property which already have both an agricultural and a residential access. There is no significant adverse environmental impact with regard to this subdivision. Mr. Thomas moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Crandon. There was no further discussion, motion carried on a role call vote that follows:
Roll Call Vote:
Mr. Virginia yes
Mr. Thomas yes
Mr. Knapp yes
Mr. Crandon yes
Mr. Ruddock recused
Ms. Sabin yes
Mr. Geiss, Chairman yes
Vote: 6 yes, 0 no, 1 other
Motion# 07- 175 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to approve the subdivision at 1198 Old State Route 31 Tax Map Parcel ID#046-07-01. This is as presented on the applicant' s map entitled "Final Plan Somes Farm Property" dated August 1, 2007 with no other revision date. This is for creation of lot 1 which is 5.96 acres and remaining lands which are 49 acres. It should be noted that the County had several comments; the Board believes it is significant to state that there are existing driveways to lot 1. Lot one has access to Route 31 being an agricultural driveway and a residential driveway which addresses County Comment number one. The County also asked that these driveways be separated and again these are existing separate driveways on the applicant's map. Item 3 on the
County comments the County asked that there be a 60ft access through the Town of Elbridge land to Old Route 31 and it should be noted that all this land is under one deed and the remaining acreage is not 33.09 acres but 49 acres which includes the land in Elbridge as well as the remaining land in Van Buren therefore the remaining parcel has access to Old Route 31. In regards to item four there is an existing operating septic system for lot one and with regard to the comment of notification, Town of Van Buren has notified Elbridge of the action that was pending on this property and did not receive any comments and this action will also be sent to Town of Elbridge so that there files will be updated. Mr. Thomas moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Knapp. There was further discussion, motion carried on a roll call vote that follows:
Roll Call Vote:
Mr. Virginia yes
Mr. Thomas yes
Mr. Knapp yes
Mr. Crandon yes
Mr. Ruddock recused
Ms. Sabin yes
Mr. Geiss, Chairman yes
Vote: 6 yes, 0 no, 1 other
Mr. Ruddock re-joined the meeting.
PRAY - SUBDIVISION
West Sorrell Hill Rd. Tax Max Parcel ID # 033-06-01.2
Mr. Lee Pray was present to address the Board.
Mr. Geiss read the County comments aloud.
Mr. Geiss said that they have lot 1 coming off of the 52.07 acres and lot 2 still has frontage on West Sorrell Hill Rd. of 530ft and a single driveway has been approved for lot 1. The County would like a 60ft right of way for the remaining lands and he thinks what the County is saying is that on the remaining lands what they are asking for is the applicant to dedicate an area for that 60ft should they subdivide it in the future but the Board doesn't have the full build out to know where they would want to put that with regard to anything else.
Mr. Crandon said that this application is under Lee and Carolyn Pray and they don't own that land.
Mr. Pray said that Steve Crego owns the land.
Mr. Crandon said that the applicant can't reserve 60ft on that land without permission.
Mr. Geiss said that is immaterial and this is something they have been asking for but the Board doesn't have a development planned for this and he doesn't know if he wants them to dedicate 60ft as the area that comes off the road and County is also asking that the residual lot be labeled this parcel has not been reviewed by the County Health Department for residential development.
Motion# 07- 176 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion with regard to SEQR that the Board has previously taken lead agency on this unlisted action for the Pray subdivision for West Sorrell Hill Rd. Tax Max Parcel ID # 033-06-01.2. This is for the subdivision of 4.07 acres out of 52.07 acres and the remaining land is not for residential use at this time. There is no significant adverse environmental impact with regard to the subdivision. Mr. Knapp moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Thomas. There was no further discussion. Motion carried, unanimously.
Motion# 07- 177 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain the following motion:
WHEREAS Town Code Section 175-5 (C) establishes the criteria for the reservation of parkland on residential subdivision plats or the imposition of a sum of money in lieu thereof; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of such a provision is to prevent deterioration in the quality of park and recreational services to residents in the Town of Van Buren as a result of a new residential development; and
WHEREAS, based on the present and anticipated future needs for park and recreational facilities in the Town relative to the projected population growth in the Town to which the Pray subdivision will contribute, a proper case exists for requiring that a park or parks be suitably located for playground or other recreational purposes within the Town; and
WHEREAS, a suitable park or parks of adequate size to meet the Town's requirements can not be properly located within the Pray subdivision, nor is there a need for such additional facilities in the immediate neighborhood,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that a proper case exists regarding the Pray Subdivision development for requiring the developer pay a park fee of $150 per lot.
Mr. Virginia moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Ruddock. There was no further discussion. Motion carried, unanimously.
Motion# 07- 178 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to approve the subdivision on West Sorrell Hill Rd. Tax Max Parcel ID # 033-06-01.2 which is the creation of lot 1 which is 4.07 acres and the remaining lands being 48 acres with the following conditions that recognizing that there is 530ft of frontage remaining on W. Sorrell Hill Rd. for the remaining acres there is not a need or a way that the Board can designate a 60ft right of way at this time for the future development also that the residual lot must be labeled this parcel has not been reviewed by the County Health Department for residential development meaning the 48 remaining acres. Mr. Ruddock moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Crandon. There was no further discussion. Motion carried on a roll call vote that
follows:
Roll Call Vote:
Mr. Virginia yes
Mr. Thomas yes
Mr. Knapp yes
Mr. Crandon yes
Mr. Ruddock yes
Ms. Sabin yes
Mr. Geiss, Chairman yes
Vote: 7 yes, 0 no, 0 other
PALMER SUBDIVISION AMENDED
Pottery and Herman Rd. Tax Map Parcel ID# 55-08-14.1
Mr. Arnold Schmidt was present to address the Board.
Mr. Schmidt said that he has a large piece of property and that he would like to split into two parcels so someday he can possibly sell one or both of them.
The Board had a discussion about the auction that the applicant bought the property from.
Mr. Knapp said that there are two parcels labeled lot 2.
Mr. Reith said that he believes on the lower lot two it is labeled Palmer subdivision map filed.
The Board discussed which lots are new and which lot existed previously.
Mr. Geiss asked if that is a drainage easement at the top of the drawing.
Mr. Reith said that was taken by the County and is owned by the County and the applicant owns around it.
Mr. Geiss said lot 2 is 12.306 acres and lot 1 is the remaining 32.41 acres.
Motion# 07- 179 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to declare this as a minor subdivision. Mr. Thomas moved to accept the motion, seconded by Ms. Sabin. There was no further discussion. Motion carried, unanimously.
Motion# 07- 180 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to declare the Town of Van Buren Planning Board as lead agency a single agency uncoordinated review for the unlisted under SEQR for the Palmer subdivision at Pottery and Herman Rd. Tax Map Parcel ID# 55-08-14.1. This is the subdivision of a large parcel into lot 1 which is 32.41 acres and lot 2 which is 12.306 acres. Mr. Thomas moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Virginia. There was no further discussion. Motion carried, unanimously.
Mr. Ruddock asked if this was an amended Palmer subdivision or a new subdivision named Palmer subdivision amended because he is still having trouble with two Lot two's.
Mr. Geiss said this is a new subdivision of the parcel that was remaining when the Board first subdivided the property; not an amendment to a previous subdivision and in the whole parcel the original created the second lot and this is creating a third lot so it is still minor but it is a new subdivision.
Mr. Ruddock said he understands that it is a minor it is the name and two lot number 2's and he liked the previous one that said lot 3 on it.
Mr. Geiss said that the map says Lot 2 Palmer subdivision and that is what that was called at that time and they have that in small letters and the Board is now listening to Palmer subdivision amended.
Ms. Sabin said it is strictly dealing with upper lot 2 and lot 1.
Mr. Reith said that was a comment from the pre-agenda meeting was the change from a lot 3 to a lot 2 and another example is on Winchell and Walters Rd the project going on out there they have come in a couple of times with different subdivisions with Plumley Engineering and rather than create new subdivisions all they have done is say amended if they have cut up and added an additional lot and he thought that was a good way of doing it and he would recommend going back to the lots being labeled 1, 2, and 3.
The Board discussed the applicants map and came to a decision that the map would be redrawn to show lot 2 as lot 3.
Motion# 07-181 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to refer this subdivision to County Planning for review. Mr. Thomas moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Virginia. There was no further discussion. Motion carried, unanimously.
FREDERICK & LORETTA KILBORNE
Warners Rd. Tax Map Parcel ID# 049-04-04.1
Mr. Fred Kilborne was present to address the Board.
Mr. Kilborne said they sold the house and the buyers wanted to buy more land. He owned .98 acres with the house and he bought the other lot separately so when he sold the house he tried to sell the whole thing and they only wanted 2.2 acres to make the lot 3 acres even.
Mr. Geiss said that they are subdividing the lots into lot 7a of 3.73 acres and new lot 1a would be the remainder of the 5.95 and lot 1a is going to be combined.
Mr. Kilborne said new lot 1a is going to be total of 3 acres.
The Board discussed new lot 1a that the applicant was proposing.
Mr. Ruddock said that it is not a new lot because the upper portion is being combined to an existing lot.
Mr. Pringle said that it only creates a new lot by dimensions but the Board is not creating a new lot.
Mr. Ruddock said it is either an existing non-conforming or conforming lot the Board is just adding additional land to it not making it new.
The Board and the applicant discussed the acreage each lot would have.
Mr. Virginia said that since the Board is adding to an existing lot the Board doesn't need to worry about the lot being conforming.
Mr. Ruddock said yes.
Mr. Virginia asked about egress to new lot 7a.
Mr. Geiss said that they are not changing the ingress/egress to that lot.
Mr. Pringle said that they are both legal lots.
The Board discussed ingress and egress for the lots.
Mr. Pringle said that they have more than 60ft frontage at the road.
Mr. Virginia asked if Isabelle was a separate lot and if that was the only access to the road.
Mr. Crandon said that this is an R-40 not AR-80 so the rules are different.
Mr. Geiss said that is what existed for that back lot and the Board hasn't changed that.
Mr. Ruddock said that the issue he has is that it says new lot 1a and it is not a new lot and they can call it lot whatever they want but it is not new it is a piece of land that is being appended to whatever lot the house is numbered that has the pool on it.
Mr. Pringle said that they should just say lot 1a and take out new lot 1a.
Mr. Geiss said that is basically 2.72 acres which as part of this it is being attached to the existing .90 acres in an R-40 district.
Motion# 07- 182 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to declare the Kilborne proposed subdivision at Warners Rd. Tax Map Parcel ID# 049-04-04.1 as a minor subdivision. Ms. Sabin moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Virginia. There was no further discussion. Motion carried, unanimously.
Motion# 07- 183 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to declare the Town of Van Buren Planning Board as lead agency a single agency uncoordinated review for the unlisted action under SEQR for the subdivision at Warners Rd. Tax Map Parcel ID# 049-04-04.1. This is creation of a lot 7a which is 3.73 acres out of a total lot 5.95 acres which other remaining acreage of 2.2 acres to be combined with the existing lot which fronts on Warners Rd. and has an existing frame house on it. Mr. Thomas moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Virginia. There was no further discussion. Motion carried, unanimously.
Motion# 07-184 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to send the Kilborne subdivision to County Planning for review with the fact that the applicant amend the map to remove the word new for both lot 1a and lot 7a and also note the acreage of lot 1a as 0.9 acres and then it is 2.2 acres as well. Mr. Thomas moved to accept the motion, seconded by Ms. Sabin. There was no further discussion. Motion carried, unanimously.
Mr. Ruddock asked who owns the lots.
Mr. Kilborne said that he owns both the lots until he sells lot 1a at the end of the month.
Mr. Ruddock said when they come back next month for subdivision they will be subdividing something that they don't own.
Mr. Geiss said that they are selling something that isn't subdivided.
Mr. Ruddock said when the subdivision is approved the applicant is going to need a letter from the new owner stating that they agree with the subdivision or make it part of the sales contract.
Mr. Kilborne said that he can't sell anything until after the subdivision is approved.
B. CASSIDY SUBDIVISION
7462 Canton St. Tax Map Parcel ID# 031-01-23
Mr. Doug Reith was present to address the Board.
Mr. Reith said that there is an existing 47 acre parcel that has an existing Time Warner tower on it right now under a lease and what they are looking to do is subdivide the piece with the tower.
Mr. Geiss asked the height of the tower.
Mr. Reith said 190ft.
Mr. Geiss asked about principal use of property.
Mr. Pringle said that it would be a utility use and it is allowed in an AR-80 district so it is an allowed use and it is an approved tower and the tower has the proper permits and it was warned at the time when they made application that they put the new lot lines in conformance with the height for towers, fall zone, and for every additional foot over the maximum height being a principal structure they had to add so many feet to the setbacks which the applicant has done and they meet the 60ft at the road. It is also a legal sized lot for the AR-80 district.
Mr. Geiss said that the proposed lot is 4.124 acres and the remaining lot is 43.625 acres.
Motion# 07- 185 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to declare the Cassidy subdivision as a minor subdivision. Mr. Crandon moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Knapp. There was no further discussion. Motion carried, unanimously.
Motion# 07- 186 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to declare the Town of Van Buren Planning Board as lead agency, a single agency uncoordinated review for the unlisted action under SEQR for the B. Cassidy subdivision at 7462 Canton St. Tax Map Parcel ID# 031-01-23. This is for the subdivision for 4.124 acres labeled lot 2 which encompasses the existing tower which is an approved use in the AR-80 district and the remaining acreage which is labeled lot 1 of 43.625 acres. Mr. Knapp moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Thomas. There was no further discussion. Motion carried, unanimously.
Motion# 07- 187 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to refer this application to County Planning for review. Mr. Crandon moved to accept the motion, seconded by Ms. Sabin. There was no further discussion. Motion carried, unanimously.
CLEARWIRE US, LLC
7463 Canton St. Tax Map Parcel ID# 032-06-07.2
Mr. Matt Kerwin was present to address the Board.
Mr. Kerwin said that they are a high speed wireless broadband internet service and they are new to the area and they are beginning their build out in the Syracuse area, and they are also looking in building in Rochester and in Buffalo. Clearwire's goal in providing this service is to find as many existing services as possible and the type of tower would be to cover needs and that is something that they have been pursuing rigorously and the site that they are talking about today is located at 7452 Canton St and they would like to go to a height of 190ft.
Mr. Kerwin explained to the Board how the service works and that it is similar to wireless.
Mr. Kerwin said that they are looking at finding existing structures as close to the center as possible. The site that they are talking about is Canton St and it is not the ideal site and they did look at 5 other sites and looking at sites they generally look at three factors in pursuing whether a site is a viable candidate and the 3 factors are that the site is leasable, if the site is able to be zoned, and whether the site provides the coverage that they need. Coverage consists of topography and height because if they have over height or under height they would not get the coverage.
Mr. Kerwin discussed the other sites that they considered with the Board.
Mr. Kerwin said that they try to focus on areas where there are a high concentration of residences and businesses because their services tend to provide coverage to home owners and business owners.
Mr. Pringle explained to the Board that this is a wireless service provider and not a cell tower and it is a little different from what the Board has seen before.
Mr. Kerwin said that the antennas are not as thick and bulky as needed for cellular coverage and the cables are essentially internet cables that someone would find at a house; the antennas consist of a panel antenna and a dish antenna and the antennas would be one on top of the other roughly the same size top to bottom of a cellular antenna to provide the coverage.
Mr. Geiss asked what kind of power requirements the tower would be putting out.
Mr. Kerwin said that their RF Engineer couldn't make it tonight but he can take that question back with him and ask.
Mr. Geiss said he was curious because they are looking at residential areas and he cringed at the thought when they talked about looking at a tower facility on top of a residential building or next to a residential building and he thinks the one that they referenced on Idlewood is attached to a house.
Mr. Kerwin said that the other site that they looked at and that would have worked out very well for them was the Time Warner tower which is about three parcels away and they contacted the company that works for Time Warner several times and they received word back today that Time Warner will not allow them to go on the tower because they have other plans for the tower.
Mr. Kerwin said the site on Canton St is an existing tower and they would like to put their antennas at 190ft.
Mr. Geiss asked if the tower had something at the 195ft point.
Mr. Kerwin said nothing.
Mr. Geiss said that this is a private tower that they want to go on.
Mr. Kerwin said that it is owned by Mark Gummer.
Mr. Geiss said that he is looking at their two coverage areas on the maps that were provided and they stated that they wanted to do Village Green.
Mr. Kerwin discussed the existing and proposed coverage areas with the Board and stated that the Canton St tower is obviously not the ideal site.
Mr. Geiss said that if they wanted to get Village Green they have the storage buildings next to the club house.
The Board discussed the coverage area for the proposed tower location.
Mr. Geiss said that this tower was put up without the Planning Board's review.
Mr. Pringle said yes and the owner had to combine lots and jump through a lot of hoops because the tower came first and the approvals came later for a private tower because the owner was a HAMM operator and the tower was there for private use and currently the tower is bare.
Mr. Crandon asked if the tower had the strength necessary to support what they need.
Mr. Kerwin said that it does and they have a letter in the packet that states that.
Mr. Crandon asked if they had the tower studied.
Mr. Kerwin said yes.
Mr. Ruddock said the cell towers that have come in front of the Board in recent years one of the questions that he is pretty sure the Board asks every single one of them is if they are willing to have other people co-locate on the tower and that the Board expects cooperation so when the Board gives them the tower they will in turn make space for other people but the Time Warner tower would have been prior to that time because that has been there a real long time.
The Board discussed the other cell towers in the area.
Mr. Geiss said that he has heard various studies in regard to cell towers and broadcasting and affect on the public and asked what studies the applicant has completed concerning that.
Mr. Kerwin said that they have to meet certain FCC guidelines and discussed those guidelines with the Board.
Mr. Geiss asked what kind of waves they use.
Mr. Kerwin said that they operate at 2500 megahertz and it is a radio signal that is very rapid and it is impeded by trees, tall buildings among other things.
Ms. Sabin said that they are doing line of sight then.
Mr. Kerwin said yes, | ||