7575 Van Buren Road, Baldwinsville, NY 13027
January 2008 PB Minutes
January 5, 2008
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 7:00p.m.
Those present joined in the Pledge Allegiance to the Flag.
Roll Call: Harold Crandon present
James Virginia present
James Ruddock present
Eric Knapp absent
Fred Thomas present
Norma Goodman present
Anthony Geiss, Chairman present
Also present: Brad Hunt, Attorney
Jim Billings, Town Engineer
David Pringle, Codes Officer
Vera Cavallaro, Planning Board Secretary
MINUTES:
The Board clarified one sentence on page 9.
Motion Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to accept the December Minutes as amended. Mr. Crandon 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 absent
Mr. Crandon yes
Mr. Ruddock yes
Ms. Goodman yes
Mr. Geiss, Chairman yes
HEADRUSH, INC - PUBLIC HEARING
Walters & Winchell Rd Tax Map Parcel Id# 055-04-2.1
Mr. Julian Clark and Jacob Wright were present to address the Board.
Mr. Clark said that they would like to divide Lot 5 into two lots; Lot 5 and Lot 8.
Mr. Geiss asked if anyone wished to speak either for or against this matter.
No one spoke.
Motion #08-01 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing. Mr. Thomas moved to accept the motion, seconded by Ms. Goodman. There was no further discussion. Motion carried, unanimously.
HEADRUSH, INC - SUBDIVISION
Walters & Winchell Rd Tax Map Parcel Id# 055-04-2.1
Mr. Jacob Wight and Mr. Clark were present to address the Board.
Mr. Geiss read a summary of the County comments.
Mr. Geiss said that Lot 8 will need to have a 40ft wide access easement which is shown on the applicant's map and that access will be off of Winchell Rd.
Mr. Geiss said that the County would like the traffic study updated with phase 3.
Mr. Clark said that the water park will be phase two he believes but he will have to go back and look at the traffic study but phase one and two included the first phase of the water park and then they showed a phase two of the water park and he thinks that the County is calling that phase three.
Mr. Geiss said that the traffic study will be coming in when the Board reviews the water park.
The Board discussed the retention pond and wetlands on Lot 8 and the storm water management if Lot 8 should be developed.
Mr. Geiss said right now they are not proposing any development on lot 8 so therefore the County's fourth comment on the Corp. of Engineers and the DEC doesn't apply because they will not be going near the wetland.
Mr. Wright said that the reason for the subdivision is separate projects for separate financing.
The Board discussed who would be responsible for the drainage and Mr. Wright said that it would be among the properties involved.
Motion #08-02 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to approve the subdivision for Headrush on Walters and Winchell Rd. Tax Map Parcel Id # 055-04-2.1. This is a subdivision of Lot 5 which is 9.016 acres into two lots; Lot 5 of 4.233 acres and Lot 8 of 4.783 acres. This is all shown on the applicant's map labeled Final Plot Walters Rd Property Subdivision Amended dated 12/8/07. It is a signed and stamped map. In addressing County comments access to the new Lot 8 will be off of Winchell Rd through a 40ft wide access easement between Lot 4 and Lot 8. The applicant will be required when any further development occurs for this Lot 8 or for the other water park involved that a new traffic study will be required. This proposed subdivision does not affect any additional storm water run off which would affect the NYS
Thruway at this time and there is no proposed development of Lot 8 at this time which would impact any wetlands or wetland buffers on Lot 8. There will be no access to Lot 8 off of Walters Rd and no access other than the 40ft easement shown on the applicant's drawing. Mr. Thomas moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Crandon. There was no further discussion. Motion carried, unanimously.
QSL SYRACUSE, LLC
3535 Walters Rd. Tax Map Parcel Id# 055-04-02.7
Mr. Jacob Wright was present to address the Board.
Mr. Wright said this is the signage for the box of the restaurant and there are no monument signs on the street or anything like that and they are still working on the signage package on the roadways for the entire lot like they have discussed in the past so this is basically just the franchise spec and just like any other franchise they want to make the buildings look the same and this is the signage package that they were given.
Mr. Wright said that his partner went in front of the ZBA and has approval contingent upon approval by this Board.
Mr. Geiss said that there was quite a discussion at the ZBA meeting about the arrow sign.
The Board discussed the signage that is on the building with the applicant and what part of the arrow could be seen from the street.
The Board and the applicant discussed what signs would be lit such as the arrow sign, Quaker Steak and Lube sign and the neon border that goes around the building.
Ms. Goodman asked if the neon signs are going to be very visible from Walters Rd.
Mr. Wright said that they will be visible.
Mr. Geiss asked if a lighting study was provided in regard to this.
Mr. Clark said that the lighting study was only for parking and not for building signage.
Mr. Geiss said that the ZBA questioned the lighting and the output and he thinks the Board should have a lighting study to see how that affects what they would be seeing out towards the road.
Mr. Geiss said when they bring the photometric plan in it should be for the parking lot that was previously done and the new one so the Board can see what the difference is.
Mr. Virginia asked if they are going to screen the restaurant at all and what do they plan on doing with the hedgerow opposite the house across the street.
Mr. Wright said they plan to landscape it because they want it to look good.
Mr. Geiss asked that they bring something to the Board showing landscaping over on that side.
The Board discussed ways the applicant could effectively screen the restaurant from the house across the street.
Mr. Geiss asked the applicant to come back with a screening and a lighting study.
Mr. Ruddock said the issue is that they are not going to get any lumens from those colored lights; the lights are just visually bright and they might see a .1 change in the photometric on the ground but it is bright red and green at night. It doesn't travel but it is just in the visual field and that is what Ms. Soutar is concerned about with her child. Beautifying the street a little bit doesn't cut down the real objection and that is the color of the lights on the front of that building and he thinks the island that goes up along the access road is the thing that will block more visually and if they do some visual studies or any kind of modeling that is where they are going to get the best bang for their buck as far as blocking that goes.
Mr. Ruddock said that people in this area were told that their residential properties were going to be zoned industrial but they could live in them forever and the Town was hoping that when these people died the residential would be gone but that involved some change in zone back in 1988 - 89 when the Town was looking at tanks and he doesn't think that when it was first presented at that time people said sure they can continue to live there on their residential property but it is going to be all industrial because the Town needs an industrial area and he thinks it was kind of passed without enough real public awareness as to what was going on so he thinks the Board needs to protect that person and other people that find themselves in this situation.
SYRACUSE SMSA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
105 Button Shores Rd. Tax Map Parcel Id# 38-02-7.2
Mr. Jared Lusk, Mr. Andres, Ms. Wright, and Mr. Burke were present to address the Board.
Mr. Lusk said that they have provided additional information to the Town's consultant regarding the questions with the application and copies were also provided to the Board.
Mr. Geiss said that the Board received the latest report from Mr. Graiff this evening where distribution and such was looked at.
Mr. Geiss asked the applicant the height of the tower.
Mr. Lusk said it would be 160.5ft and the booms for the antennas are 12ft.
Mr. Geiss said right now they are only putting up booms to support their own antennas and not future antennas.
Mr. Lusk said that there are two sets of antennas that are being installed on the 12ft booms which are 850 megahertz and 1900 megahertz. The application is for digital service which is the 1900 megahertz and they are also in 2008 going to be deploying the EVDO system which is basically wireless internet over the 850 megahertz system so they have designed this tower to accommodate one boom for both the 850 and 1900 antennas. There are two sets of antennas, one of them is the digital antenna and one is the larger 850 megahertz panel antenna so both systems will be deployed from this tower. They could put smaller booms but then they would have a smaller boom below it for the same antennas so the minimum they would need for the 850 system would be about 11ft and then another 7ft for the other. By placing both antennas on one boom they are
consolidating.
The Board and the applicant discussed the sizes of the antennas and their uses.
Mr. Geiss said that the Town consultant questioned the height and in the report it states that the difference between the 160ft and the 120ft is insignificant.
Mr. Lusk said that he can understand why the consultant is saying that except he believes there is a specific area of the coverage area that is more than diminimus. There are parts of it that are a pixel or two on the page and he thinks the important overall thing to recognize is that 160ft is ideal coverage and 120ft is insufficient coverage and they are pretty firm on that. This RF coverage is not a black and white science so to speak so they are willing to discuss the height with the Board in a sense that they would like to have 160ft which would be ideal because they know that they would reach the maximum capacity especially out towards the west.
Mr. Lusk explained the coverage map to the Board and a discussion ensued about the coverage area.
Mr. Lusk said that they are happy to work with the Board and 140ft seems like the minimum that they could accept but 120ft leaves gaps as the Board could see with the coverage map.
Mr. Geiss asked where their antenna is to the west.
Mr. Lusk said at this time they do not have one as of yet but there is an existing tower that is 850 megahertz only that does not have the digital services and they don't have any plans to put anything up.
Mr. Lusk and the Board discussed what services and coverage that they currently have in this area and the services that they plan on providing later in 2008.
Mr. Geiss asked if they were going to be covering everything eventually with the wireless internet.
Mr. Lusk said that Verizon wireless has a responsibility to provide reliable service to its service area including this area so their first goal is to provide service to the more populated areas and the highways first and then move out from there and eventually they have an obligation under FCC license to provide coverage and they have to keep pursuing it.
Mr. Andres explained to the Board how the coverage is determined and how the height of the structure fits into that coverage.
The Board and the applicant had a discussion about the applicant looking at other sites for the tower.
Mr. Lusk said that they are pursuing co-location on the tower that is on the Crego property for their West Baldwinsville site.
The Board discussed this application going in front of the ZBA and that the public will get a chance to speak at the ZBA public hearing.
Mr. Virginia said based on the height of 160ft versus 140ft approximately how many more subscribers are they anticipating with that additional 20ft height with the wireless service.
Mr. Lusk said that he doesn't know if they could have that accurate of a number because it is system wide but he can certainly check and provide the Board with that answer.
Mr. Ruddock asked if all the panels were Verizon panels and if someone wanted to co-locate on the pole where would they go.
The Board and the applicant discussed where others would be able to locate on the pole.
Mr. Ruddock said if the dishes can function at a lower level in his mind going mostly on just a visual point he would rather see the booms and pieces be all together on the top and not have on one the top, then have the little moon shaped dishes and then down the pole having this pole cluttered with things because really they are not going to co-locate for the same reason they want 160ft pole as opposed to a 140ft pole they are pushing all of the co-locators down to 140ft so when they say give them the pole because they can co-locate on it they are really saying they are putting the dishes in and anyone that wants to co-locate is going to say that they want their own pole because they are two low.
Mr. Lusk said that there is a benefit for Verizon Wireless to have people co-locating because Verizon is paying rent and paying for a structure and if tenants co-locate on it then the tenant pays rent for the space and they recoup some of their capital so they have as much incentive to allow co-location as the Town would in that circumstance so there is a benefit for co-locating.
Mr. Lusk explained how the microwave dishes work to the Board.
Mr. Ruddock said that he is looking at it from a Town standpoint and he would rather have one pole that the Board is willing to give at 160ft if the Board knows that it is reasonable to put a second person on that pole but if the Board gives them 160ft and now they are pushing their competitors down lower on the pole effectively the Board is not doing the Town any good because that other competitor is going to come in and want the same 160ft pole that they have and now there are two poles instead of one.
Mr. Lusk said by putting the tower lower than 160ft as the Town consultant noted the Board is lowering co-location opportunity and the microwave dishes that are on the antenna are designed to work with system and are independent from the antenna that are at the top of the tower so that has to be at a certain height and whether that is adjustable by 5ft he's sure the RF engineers can maybe speak to the Board about the distance that they need to be or if there is any play in that and the opportunity for co-location.
The Board and the applicant discussed a note that was on the plan that stated that the dishes were not to exceed 146ft.
Mr. Geiss asked the height of the other antenna.
Mr. Lusk said that they are at 156ft.
Mr. Geiss asked the dimension.
Mr. Lusk said that they are 8ft tall.
Mr. Geiss said that they have an 160ft pole which has a 160ft radius as a fall zone but they are leasing only 100' x 100' and asked if they were limiting anything to be built in that fall zone.
Mr. Lusk said if the Board looks at the separation from all structures they are well away from the setback point and given the use that is on the property which is the landscaping business there is nothing of any value except for trees. They haven't limited anything in that area.
Mr. Geiss said typically the lease agreement includes the fall zone.
Mr. Lusk said generally they don't fall down at 160ft because the tower is designed to collapse on itself so they are not going to fall the full 160ft. They can also provide the Board with a letter that states what the actual fall zone is.
Mr. Geiss said that their setback plan shows a fall zone of 160ft.
Mr. Lusk said that the Town code requires that there be a fall zone of 160ft but the code doesn't say that it needs to be leased that way and the purpose was to show that they have a fall zone.
Ms. Goodman asked when the towers become obsolete what are the plans for them; are they just going to be left to rust or will the towers be taken down.
Mr. Lusk said the Town Code authorizes the Planning Board to provide for a demolition bond for the removal in the event that the tower becomes obsolete and that is pretty standard with municipal approval and it is also required in their lease to have it removed.
Mr. Geiss said that in the past with fall zones he thought that the applicant was required to lease the entire fall zone area.
Mr. Pringle said part of the site plan review under code with setbacks it does talk about height of the tower and adding ten percent to what is called the fall zone so it does apply to these towers.
Mr. Lusk said the code doesn't require them to lease the fall zone it requires that they have an adequate fall zone and from the site plan that they provided it shows that there are no houses and the tower is not falling outside of the property boundary.
Mr. Geiss said they are limiting the home owner from ever building in that fall zone which is not implied in the lease.
Mr. Lusk said as a condition of the Board's approval the Board can say anything that they build in that fall zone they have to get approval from site plan and if someone wants to put up a utility shed and take the risk that the tower will fall on it.
Mr. Geiss asked if there was going to be a gate provided at Button Shores Rd.
Mr. Lusk said that they can put a gate there.
The Board and the applicant discussed the type of fence that would be used.
Mr. Lusk discussed other sites that they had looked at besides the current one and that this site was their preferred location.
The Board discussed the height of the tower and why the applicant chose 160ft versus 190ft.
Mr. Virginia said the taller the tower the more opportunity for others to co-locate.
Mr. Lusk said that they would be willing to build a tower that can be extendable.
The Board discussed the type of towers that the Town prefers.
Mr. Ruddock said he would like to see a study in how much it costs to extend a tower from 160ft to 195ft and whether it works better for a monopole versus a truss type so that it makes logical sense to him as a Planning Board member as to whether or not anyone else would ever want to co-locate on this tower and pay for that extension and if that is the case and it is an economic possibility that makes sense then he would give them what they want and make it extendable and make the foundations correct and he would be fine with it because now the Board can go to the next telecommunications group and then the Board can almost force them to use that tower, not that he is trying to restrain trade he is trying to look at the environmental impact of the towers on the visual characteristics of the Town.
Mr. Lusk said that he will provide a cost estimate for the extendibility for the tower.
The Board and an audience member had a discussion as to the need for this tower on this particular piece of property and the audience was told that the Town hired a consultant who reviewed this application and has justified the need for the tower.
The Board stated that the applicant would go to the ZBA next month.
Motion #08-03 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to refer this application to County Planning for review. Mr. Thomas moved to accept the motion, seconded by Ms. Goodman. There was no further discussion. Motion carried, unanimously.
SYRACUSE SMSA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
O'Brien Rd. Tax Map Parcel Id# 051-04-01.1
Mr. Jared Lusk, Mr. Andres, Ms. Wright, and Mr. Burke were present to address the Board.
Mr. Geiss asked the height of the pole.
Mr. Lusk said 140ft and the fall zone is 52ft.
Mr. Lusk said they wanted to get as close to that water tower so they could consolidate the visual impacts of both the water tower and the proposed tower so they put it as close as they could and got a structural engineers report to tell them what the fall zone would be but if the Board wants that to be extendable or higher it may effect the structural collapsibility of the tower and it may need to be moved.
Mr. Andres said that there are some slope issues that almost keep them in that location so moving in any direction might potentially have a slope issue and interfere with the potential of the rest of the property and the reason that they have it pushed against that property line is to make the rest of the property more developable in the future.
Mr. Lusk said that they will evaluate the structural collapsibility of the tower at 195ft and figure out what that distance is from the property line.
The Board and the applicant discussed the remainder of the property.
Mr. Virginia asked that they look at the maximum height they can take the tower to without relocating the tower and if they can move to a different location on the site and reach the maximum height.
Mr. Lusk said that they also need to ask the landlord since they do have a lease with regard to moving the tower.
Mr. Geiss said that they could flop the buildings and the pole since the buildings are further away from the water tower.
Motion #08-04 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to send this application for 140ft monopole to County Planning for review. Mr. Thomas moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Crandon. There was no further discussion. Motion carried, unanimously.
Motion #08-05 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 Syracuse SMSA Limited Partnership Site Plan at O'Brien Rd Tax Map Parcel Id# 051-04-01.1. Mr. Crandon moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Virginia. There was no further discussion. Motion carried, unanimously.
Motion #08-06 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to refer the Syracuse SMSA Limited Partnership Site Plan at O'Brien Rd Tax Map Parcel Id# 051-04-01.1 to the ZBA for their review. This location is a preferred location. Mr. Crandon moved to accept the motion, seconded by Ms. Goodman. There was no further discussion. Motion carried, unanimously.
JR CLANCY INC EXPANSION - SITE PLAN
7041 Interstate Island Rd Tax Map Parcel ID# 056-03-07.1
Mr. Roger Whelan was present to address the Board.
Mr. Geiss read a summary of the County comments aloud.
Mr. Whalen said that they went to the NYS DOT and did receive an email approving their plan for the storm water runoff.
Mr. Hoy said that they have been given comments about the drainage and they have addressed those comments.
Motion #08-07 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion with regard to SEQR that the Planning Board has previously taken lead agency with regard to the project for JR Clancy Expansion. This being the expansion of their existing building on 7041 Interstate Island Rd to the north which does require relocation of a storm water line and that it can be located within the property of JR Clancy. There is no significant adverse environmental impact with regard to this proposal. Mr. Crandon moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Thomas. There was no further discussion. Motion carried, unanimously.
Motion #08-08 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to approve the Site plan of JR Clancy Expansion 7041 Interstate Island Rd Tax Map Parcel ID# 056-03-07.1 per the applicant's map which is dated 11/27/07 with latest revisions 12/28/07. The applicant has provided the engineer with and the engineer has reviewed the drainage calculations with this property and the applicant has also shown the revised transformer pad location on their map per County Comments. Mr. Thomas moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Crandon. There was no further discussion. Motion carried, unanimously.
DANIEL KERMES - ZONE CHANGE
3272 Stiles Rd. Tax Map Parcel Id#056-01-01.0
Mr. Daniel Kermes was present to address the Board.
Ms. Goodman abstained from this discussion.
Mr. Geiss said one thing the Board had talked about is that once a recommendation is made on a permanent zone change with conditions it can't be reversed.
Mr. Hunt said it can be reversed by changing the zone again but not by giving the condition that if the property is ever sold it reverts back.
The Board discussed the zone change application again with the applicant and came to the same recommendation as the previous negative recommendation.
Ms. Goodman rejoined the Board.
TMI - SUBDIVISION - INFORMATION ONLY
1775 Route 173 Tax Map Parcel ID# 049-01-05.1
Mr. Todd Towne was present to address the Board.
Mr. Towne said that the first thing they would like to do is get that parcel subdivided and their plan is to put a plumbing, heating, and electric shop there because the property they are currently at they have outgrown. The reason why there is a lot 1 and a lot 2 is because they were concerned that Mr. Benedict might want that one piece.
Mr. Crandon asked if lot 2 was going to be combined with the Benedict parcel.
Mr. Towne said not at this point.
Mr. Geiss said that if they subdivide that piece now it needs to be combined now.
Mr. Geiss asked for the reason for the jog on the west property line.
Mr. Towne said that he did not want to take anymore property away from his father in law because his father in law does pumpkins and things like that and when it was presented to the surveyor their plan was to keep it as close as possible with access points on both roads.
Mr. Geiss said that the applicant should check with the County and with the State for that access.
Mr. Towne explained to the Board that he would like to have two accesses to make it easier for the tractor trailers.
Mr. Geiss said they may have questions that they want to get answered before they proceed such as the drainage heading back towards Route 31 with no drainage facilities. There are no detention ponds or anything and the ditches all lead right to the State road which the State may not let them do and they may want to go back and ask the State and the County for two road cuts before they decide on this.
The Board discussed the topography of the property with the applicant.
Mr. Geiss said that they need to figure out if they can get the road cuts and if they have enough property to do the drainage.
Mr. Pringle said that Bob Caryl has already made application to the State and County for road cuts.
Mr. Hoy said looking at the topography all the drainage goes that way now and they will get that same water there a lot faster and that water is going to have to be detained and they will need to release the water at the same rate as it is releasing now.
Mr. Geiss said that the applicant should figure out the road cuts and drainage and then come back in front of the Board.
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Geiss discussed the County Planning training seminar with the Board and the carry over hours from last years training session and that Mr. Sykes is encouraging every member to attend training every year.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion
Mr. Geiss called for a Motion to adjourn at 10:47 p.m. Mr. Ruddock moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Crandon. There was no further discussion. Motion carried, unanimously.
Respectfully Submitted,
Vera Cavallaro
Planning Board Secretary
| ||
