7575 Van Buren Road, Baldwinsville, NY 13027
January 2008 ZBA minutes
The Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Van Buren, held at the Town Building, 7575 Van Buren Rd., was called to order at 7:30 p.m.
All present joined in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
Roll Call: Robert Cleverly present
James Bowes present
Joseph Kiselica present
John Virginia, Chairman present
Laura McBurney, Vice-Chair present
Also Present: David Pringle, Code Enforcement Officer
Vera Cavallaro, Secretary
Ted Spencer, Attorney
MINUTES
Minutes were approved as written.
Motion
Ms. McBurney moved to accept the December minutes, seconded by Mr. Cleverly. There was no further discussion. Motion carried; unanimously
Motion
Mr. Virginia asked the Board to entertain a motion to waive the formal reading of the public notices. Ms. McBurney moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Cleverly. There was no further discussion. Motion carried, unanimously.
FULL GOSPEL CHURCH OF GOD - PUBLIC HEARING
Van Buren Rd & Route 690 Tax Map Parcel Id# 051-03-19 R-40 Zoning District
Section 200-45 & 200-59 F (3) use of property and signage
Mr. John Wicks and Mr. Matt Napierala were present to address the Board.
Mr. Wicks said that the pastor and the congregation own a 21 acre parcel on Van Buren Rd and they would like to put up a church building.
Mr. Napierala said the facility will be located west of the 690 interchange with Van Buren Rd and they plan on developing a portion of that 21 acre parcel and the reason they are in front of the Board today is because this is residential zoning and a special use permit is required for the use. What is being proposed is a 9600sf congregation facility with a parking entrance off of Van Buren Rd and they have had discussions with County DOT and State DOT for that access. Public water supply is going to come from an existing main further to the west and they will be providing an on site septic system of which they have an application for with the County Health Department.
Mr. Wicks explained to the Board what the church was going to look like and the type of facilities that would be inside the church along with parking and church activities.
Mr. Napierala said they have also submitted an application for a sign that will be in the median; the sign is a basic wood frame sign that is up lit.
Mr. Pringle said that a free standing sign is not allowed.
Mr. Napierala said that they would change it to a monument sign.
Mr. Virginia asked that they submit changes to the Codes Office for Mr. Pringle's approval.
Mr. Virginia asked if there was anyone in the audience that wanted to speak either for or against this matter.
No one spoke.
Mr. Virginia closed the public hearing.
Ms. McBurney proposed the following resolution:
The Full Gospel Church of God with an office at P.O Box 663, Baldwinsville, NY 13027 applies for Special Use Permit pursuant to the Town of Van Buren Code Section 200-21 and 200-59(F)(3) to allow for the use of its proposed facility located at Van Buren Road for an indoor institutional activity and for a monument sign.
The property is zoned R-40 and is know as Tax Map no. 051-03-19.0. In an R-40 District, indoor institutional use is a use allowed upon the grant of special permit by the ZBA; a monument sign is allowed upon the grant of a special permit under Section 200-59 (F)(3) of the code.
Applicant has submitted, and the ZBA has reviewed, an application, site plans and SEQRA short form environmental assessment form. The Planning Board made a positive recommendation for both special permits at its December 3, 2007 meeting.
Notice of the public hearing on the special permits and application was duly published. John Wicks and Matt Napariella appeared and spoke in favor of the application. There was no opposition to the proposed indoor institutional operation to be conducted at the facility or the proposed monument sign at the public hearing.
Based on the above referenced documents, and proof received by the ZBA at the public hearing, the Board 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 there will be no significant adverse impact on the environment as a result of this action. The basis for this determination is the subject property, located in an R-40 zone has adequate space (20+ acres) to conduct the indoor institutional Church activity without adverse impacts to the area or adjoining properties. 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.
2. A special permit is required pursuant to Code Section 200-21 for the proposed use, which the Board finds is an indoor institutional use as a church. Additionally a special permit is required for the proposed monument sign pursuant to Code Section 200-59 (F) (3).
3. Pursuant to Section 200-26 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 the indoor institutional use as a church facility;
c) The scale and design of the use, will have minimal effect on the surrounding area given it will be conducted entirely within a site that is in compliance with Town requirements and as proposed will be visually compatible with conditions of the site and surrounding properties;
d) The design of the site provides for efficient vehicular movement given the size of the site and the fact that there is adequate space for the facility and the 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, the proposed facility is located consistent with the overall layout of the parcel;
h) Emissions from the site will be minimal;
4. Special Use Permits are granted pursuant to Code as follows:
a) Special Use Permit pursuant to Section 200-45 to allow for the use of the property as an indoor institutional church facility as approved by the Town Planning Board; and
b) Special Use Permit pursuant to Section 200-59(F)(3) for a monument sign at the site as approved by the Town Planning Board.
c) Special Use Permit pursuant to Section 200-42 to allow a height of 30 feet 8 inches.
These Special Permits are subject to and conditional upon:
a) Final site plan approval by the Town Planning Board.
Mr. Cleverly seconded the resolution. There was no further discussion. Resolution carried on a roll call vote that follows:
Roll Call Vote:
Aye Nay Other
John Virginia ?
Robert Cleverly ?
Laura McBurney ?
Joseph Kiselica ?
James Bowes ?
WILLIAM & DOROTHY HARES - PUBLIC HEARING
1746 Connors Rd Tax Map Parcel Id# 044-01-12 AR-80 Zoning district
Variance from Section 200-45 front yard setback
Mr. William Hares was present to address the Board.
Mr. Hares said that he would like to remove the existing porch and deck and replace it with a new 10' x 27' porch and an 8' x 25' deck which will be above the porch.
Mr. Virginia said that they need a variance of 10ft which is a setback of 50ft.
Mr. Virginia asked if there was anyone in the audience that would like to speak either for or against this matter.
No one spoke.
Mr. Virginia closed the public hearing.
Ms. McBurney proposed the following resolution:
William J. Hares and Dorothy Hares of 1746 Connors Road seek an area variance from Sections 200-45 of the Town of Van Buren Code related to the proposed location of a front porch and deck. The property is located in an AR-80 District and is identified as Tax Map parcel 044-01-12.
William Hares spoke in favor of the application and described the existing porch and proposal to replace it with a screened in porch. The existing porch is 7 feet by 27 feet and the existing deck is 5 feet by 25 feet.
In support of the application, applicant submitted an Application for Variance, Agricultural Data Statement, Notice to Surrounding Property Owners, location sketch and portion of existing survey showing the location of the proposed house on the property at the time it was to be constructed.
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 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 determent to nearby properties. The proposed variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Neighbors expressed no objection to the variance. The benefit to applicant outweighs any detriment to the community as a result of granting the variance.
3. A variance is granted to allow for the construction of a porch and deck at the front of the existing house measuring respectively 10' by 27' and 8' by 25' with a front yard setback of 50 feet. Any additional structures shall require additional review and approvals.
Mr. Cleverly seconded the resolution. There was no further discussion. Resolution carried on a roll call vote that follows:
Roll Call Vote:
Aye Nay Other
John Virginia ?
Robert Cleverly ?
Laura McBurney ?
Joseph Kiselica ?
James Bowes ?
Mr. Virginia explained to the audience how the public hearing would be conducted and the allotted time for each person wishing to speak.
Mr. Spencer explained the State laws and Town code regarding telecommunication towers and the application and approval process.
SYRACUSE SMSA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP - PUBLIC HEARING
O'Brien Rd Tax Map Parcel ID# 051-04-01.1 PUD Zoning District
Section 200-32 Telecommunications Tower
Mr. Jared Lusk, Ms. Jennifer Wright and Mr. Coleman Burke were present to address the Board.
Mr. Lusk said this application is for a tower that will be located off of O'Brien Rd which they are calling their South Baldwinsville site. About April 19, 2007 Verizon Wireless applied to the Planning Board and ZBA for a tower to be located at 7443 Van Buren Rd which would have been up at the self storage facility adjacent to Route 690. During the review of that application the Planning Board at the time suggested that they seek alternative locations for the site and recommended the Town water tower site off of O'Brien Rd. They approached OCWA to examine the feasibility of co-locating antennas on the water authority tank and it was determined that the tank was not structurally sound and sufficient to co-locate on and after further discussions with the Planning Board they were advised to try the property immediately next door to the water
authority which is the Camex Realty property to place the tower so they approached the owners of Camex Realty and now they are here.
Mr. Lusk said cellular wireless communication involves two way antennas and a cell phone is a .6 watt two way communication device that requires line of sight contact between an antenna and the phone so it needs to speak to the antenna and the antenna needs to be able to speak back. It is based on line of sight technology. Each tower services a particular cell which together collectively provides seamless coverage throughout the area of Syracuse in this instance and the Town of Van Buren. Verizon Wireless is licensed by the FCC at two frequencies to serve in the Syracuse area and that would be the 850 megahertz and the 1900 megahertz and they are required as a condition of their license to provide adequate coverage throughout that coverage area and they just can't have 1900 and 850 be assigned those frequencies for the greater Syracuse and
decide they are going to leave some portions of Towns out of coverage and other portions in. They are required to pursue adequate reasonable coverage as part of the condition of their license. In this instance they have a hole up in their South Baldwinsville site.
Mr. Lusk showed the Board a coverage map and said the blue coverage is current radio frequency coverage and the white is gaps in coverage caused by lack of line of sight coverage from their radio antennas which could be hills, topography, and maybe trees but for whatever reason there is a lack of coverage in this particular area. Their goal here is to provide that seamless coverage that they are required to provide under the Federal Communications License as well as the Communications Act so what they have tried to do here is to fill that hole. The orange on the drawing are proposed sites that are not yet on the air but have been planned so the Board can see where additional sites will be provided. The RF Engineers at Verizon are required to and that is how they got to the site that they are at currently.
Mr. Virginia asked if there is overlap on the existing tower.
Mr. Lusk said yes, and some overlap is appropriate for the seamless coverage.
Mr. Lusk said in Exhibit D the RF Engineers look at the surrounding area and say if they are going to cover this area in coverage in what they are calling their S. Baldwinsville site where would they need to put a tower to provide that coverage. They take a look at topography, tree cover, and other factors and use computer modeling to come up with a circle which is what they call their search ring and if they are going to provide coverage in that area then they need to place that tower within the boundaries of that search ring and that comes from the Verizon Wireless engineers and then Mr. Burke and his staff are asked to locate a piece of property in that ring and attempt to lease property to put up a tower.
Mr. Virginia asked if it could be any place in that ring.
Mr. Lusk said that it is usually any place but with every site Mr. Burke will go out and identify potential sites and come up with a list of landowners that are interested in leasing and which ones are not and these are the latitude longitude of the area on the property where a tower would be allowed and that information is sent back to the RF Engineers at Verizon and they would run the tower height and say ok if they want to provide coverage from this location they need 150ft or 160ft tower or whatever it is or it doesn't work based upon specific site selection. In this case they were sent in this area to locate and they first went to the self storage site to lease and the Town said that it would be preferred if they looked for other places in that search ring and they moved on to other sites. Just because it is not in that search ring it
doesn't mean that it won't work, so often times they will look for alternate sites so in this case they were sent to the water tank although it is not as ideal it would have worked but again they could not get on that tower structurally so they were sent next door.
Mr. Lusk said that in this case the tower at 140ft as identified will provide the coverage that the Board sees in the green from the site and provide that seamless coverage throughout the Town of Van Buren. It is important to note that there have been three steps in this process before they got here tonight. The first step was when they applied to the Town Board because in the PUD zoning district public utilities weren't specifically authorized in that specific PUD. So they applied to the Town Board and the Town Board rezoned the property to specifically permit public utilities. They appeared before the Planning Board and the Planning Board sent the application to the Town's RF expert telecommunications consultant and the consultant reviewed this application and it is important to recognize the consultant's findings. The consultants report
dated November 29, 2007 stated that there appears to be no technical basis based on the Town's ordinance why not the application as submitted should not be approved so the Town's own RF consultant has taken a look at this application and seems to be in good order.
Mr. Lusk said they have proposed a new driveway that leads up to the site. The setback is 53ft from the Town water tower and what they are trying to do is consolidate visual impacts with the tower and they have provided a structural engineering letter that says the tower as designed will collapse within 52ft so in the extraordinary unlikely event of tower collapse it would fall within 52ft. When it went to County Planning it came back with 3 comments, one being the corrugated metal pipe that sits at the base of the driveway increased in size from 12 to 15 inches and they have done that, County wanted a gate added and wanted them to remove the existing driveway that sort of stops half way up the site and the ending of that driveway that is in the right of way and they have fully complied with both the Town's telecommunication ordinance as per
the consultant as well as County Planning's comments; based upon that the Town Board rezoned this PUD to specifically permit it.
Mr. Lusk said this will be a 140ft tower and there are spaces for an additional 3 co-locators on that tower and they have provided in their lease area places for equipment shelters.
Mr. Lusk said that they feel as though the tower is strategically placed where the Town wants it and speaking to the Planning Board at the last meeting the concern that the Planning Board has is that they would like it to be possibly designed to be built taller in case someone would want to co-locate on that later and increase it. There was some question as to a lattice tower or a monopole and the Planning Board asked them to examine how tall that tower could be built as it stands there. They have checked with the tower manufacturer that they currently use on a regular basis and the company said that they could build a 199ft tower there with the 52ft setback but it would be considerably more expensive but they only need 140ft so if the next co-locater wanted to expand that tower to provide coverage they would have the ability to do that at
the co-locators expense and it would not be a cheap venture to have a tower that is structurally designed to collapse upon itself but he thinks that they have tried to be as responsive as they could to what the Planning Board and the Town Board suggested with the design and where and how the Boards want it and as the County Planning has suggested.
Mr. Virginia said that County Planning stated that the Town is encouraged to require the applicant to establish an appropriate setback that provides an adequate fall zone of 140ft between the proposed cell tower and adjacent parcels as per section 200-32 D of the Town code.
Mr. Lusk said the structural engineer's letter that was provided demonstrated that it would fall within 52ft and when the Town Board rezoned it the Town specifically authorized the setback.
Mr. Virginia asked if that has been submitted to the Planning Board.
Mr. Pringle said that it has.
Mr. Spencer said that the code does talk about setback requirements for a cell tower, if this proposal were to be approved the fall zone setback as Verizon presents them would be smaller than the setbacks set out in the code.
Mr. Pringle said they still have to add 1ft to the setback for every foot that they are over in the maximum height allowed in the district.
Mr. Lusk said that he believes the Town Board specifically granted the setback in this case to be 52ft from the rezoning application.
Mr. Virginia asked if they have a copy of that in their submittal.
Mr. Lusk provided a copy to the Board.
Mr. Spencer said a letter that was in one of their subsequent submittals the fall zone was from a particular manufacturer which he believes was Saber and is that the same manufacturer that they will utilize for the proposed tower.
Mr. Lusk said yes.
Mr. Virginia asked if a decision has been made as to the type of tower such as a monopole or is that still up in the air at the Planning Board.
Mr. Pringle said the Town did receive comments back from the consultant but the Planning Board hasn't reviewed that yet.
Mr. Pringle said the Town Board established a minimum setback of 52ft but that doesn't give them permission to exceed the height and the code states that they have to increase setbacks for additional height. What the Town Board set was a minimum setback so they are going to have to increase that one foot from every foot over the maximum height allowed in a PUD district which is 40ft; so if this is a 140ft tower they would need to add 100ft.
Mr. Lusk said that wasn't his interpretation of what the code was trying to do; the Town Board was trying to eliminate that issue based upon the structural letter stating 52ft was sufficient.
Mr. Pringle said the Town Board can not do that only the Zoning Board can change the law through a variance process. Town Board has no legal authority to do that.
Mr. Virginia said that the Town Board would have to change the zoning laws.
Mr. Pringle said that they could apply for a variance based on the fact that the structure is going to self collapse.
Mr. Lusk said that he was under the impression that since this is a PUD it is a specific zoning in of itself for this parcel and by the Town Board setting the minimum setback at 52ft within that zone that the Town Board has specifically set that zoning for that code and he is happy to apply for a variance if it is necessary but based upon the rezoning resolution that was provided, he is of the impression from speaking to Mr. Stokes and attending the meeting that the Town Board has specifically changed the zoning in this particular PUD to permit that tower to have a setback of 52ft based upon all the information presented to the Town Board.
Mr. Spencer said that the Board can reexamine the Town Board meeting minutes to try to sort this out and figure out whether or not the modification of the PUD addresses the setback issue or whether the Board is still in a situation where it might require a variance if the Board goes with the 52ft setback.
Ms. McBurney asked Mr. Lusk to explain how a tower falls.
Mr. Lusk said that the tower is designed to crumble upon itself and it is designed to the structural G standard which is an engineering standard that says it can withstand winds up to 90mph and an ice load of a half an inch of ice and in the extraordinary unlikely event that the tower collapses he can say that the houses surrounding the tower will no longer be there because at 90mph winds through this area there will be larger problems than that. This tower is specifically designed for that and it will collapse within itself and it is designed to hinge upon itself and fall within 52ft of its base.
Mr. Virginia said even if it is extended to 199ft.
Mr. Lusk said yes and they have a letter to that effect.
Mr. Spencer said that there is a letter to that effect but he can not vouch for it because he knows nothing about that but the letter is saying that it is almost like metal fatigue and the tower crunches and crimps and falls over on itself like a straw half way down and in the design the tower itself at certain points where it becomes weakest first and then it will buckle at that point and fall over instead of all going in one big swoop.
Mr. Virginia asked if a lattice or a monopole would do the same thing.
Mr. Spencer said this letter was directed towards a monopole.
Mr. Lusk said that the lattice and monopole can be designed to collapse the same way. They had originally applied for a lattice tower but the Town consultant stated that the Town wanted a monopole so they designed it as a monopole but if the lattice is what is preferred and some people on the Planning Board he believes were of the opinion that a lattice tower was it but they will build whatever the Town wants with the condition that it has to collapse within 52ft of its base; they can comply with that.
Mr. Spencer said one of the issues that seemed to be at the forefront for the Planning Board was trying to maximize the utility for co-location so that the tower could already accommodate co-location or that it would be built in such a way that the tower could be extended.
Mr. Lusk said it is important to note that the current standard in NY is the F standard which is 70mph and the G standard hasn't been adopted yet and it is much more restricted than what is required by the code and they are complying with a stricter standard than what is required to do so.
Mr. Lusk said in their initial application they provided the simulation of the proposed tower at exhibit F.
Mr. Virginia asked if the balloon was flown or simulated by a computer.
Mr. Lusk said it was flown.
Mr. Spencer said the way they have it set up in the pictures is that one photograph shows the picture with the balloon and the other doesn't so the tower would appear in one picture at that same location.
Mr. Lusk said yes the red balloon is centered where the top of the tower would be and it is approximately the width of the antenna mass.
Mr. Spencer asked if they could go over the proposal for the antennas and booms on the tower.
Mr. Lusk said there are 3 12ft booms that are connected into the shape of a triangle on the top of the tower and the booms are 12ft in width and on the booms the Board will see 6 antennas for the 850 megahertz and 6 which are the 1900 megahertz; the two frequencies which Verizon has been licensed from the FCC to provide.
Mr. Spencer asked if there was any visual difference between the one type of antenna and the other as one looks at the boom.
Mr. Lusk said the 850 are panel antennas and the 1900 digital antennas would be smaller so what the Board is going to see are the panel antennas that are seen from the 8ft panels.
Mr. Virginia asked how much of the existing vegetation are they destroying; on the site plan they show the tower tucked into a corner and asked where the existing trees are.
Mr. Lusk said he believes the tower is tucked into the trees and they have preserved the trees to the extent possible to leave the set of trees that are shown on the plan and they were balancing to keep the tower right up against the water tank to keep the visual impact at a minimum.
Mr. Virginia asked if they are using the trees for screening.
Mr. Lusk said they are using the trees for screening to the extent that they can as well as they have the landlord that stated if they lease land they needed to be in the corner.
Mr. Virginia asked if it is a gravel road going in and gated.
Mr. Lusk said yes, it is.
Mr. Virginia asked if all the utilities will be underground.
Mr. Lusk said yes.
Mr. Virginia asked if the towers needed to be inspected yearly.
Mr. Pringle said yes by a professional engineer.
Mr. Lusk said that is not an uncommon requirement and is something that they plan as far as to comply as they do their other towers.
Mr. Spencer said under Section 200-32 under the list of special use guidelines there is some direction as to what the finish of the tower is supposed to end up being and asked what the proposal is for tower; in the Town code it talks about a galvanized finish or painted grey.
Mr. Lusk said that their site plan calls for the tower being galvanized grey.
Mr. Virginia asked if there is going to be lights on the tower.
Mr. Lusk said no and that is why the Planning Board has been stopping at 199ft because every tower over 200ft has to be lit pursuant to the FAA so most Towns have regulations stating towers can not be taller than 199ft. Some towers less than 200ft have to be lit depending on the flight pattern in the area.
Mr. Lusk said when the tower is finally approved it will be sent down to the FAA for the FAA's final sign off and the FAA will say if it needs to be lit and they have done a preliminary study of the tower through a consultant and their consultant said it will not need to be lit.
Mr. Spencer said the Board needs to sort out the issue of the setback to determine whether or not modification to the PUD reduced the setback requirements or in the alternative whether as a result of what they currently have now a variance would be required for the tower as proposed and secondly the Board needs to make sure that the Board has County referrals with respect to the application for the Special Use Permit.
Mr. Pringle asked if the tower will have backup power.
Mr. Lusk said there will be a generator in the equipment shelter that is proposed and it will be tested on Tuesday mornings to make sure that it works and then it will only be utilized when the power is out.
Mr. Virginia asked how the generator is powered.
Mr. Lusk said that it will be diesel.
Mr. Lusk asked if he could be advised before the next meeting if an area variance is determined to be needed.
Mr. Spencer said that he will try to get through the minutes of the prior meetings by the end of this week or the beginning of next week and let the applicant know where he thinks the Board is and what procedurally the Board should do if anything to deal with that so if a variance is needed they can get that application submitted for processing.
Mr. Virginia asked if there was anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this matter.
Ms. Julie Rosen asked the Board to look at the picture that she brought in of her child.
Ms. Rosen said that she is a young professional that has chosen to live in this community and raise a child in this area. Her young child is the reason why she is here today. She is asking the Board to make a very simple choice, choose people over all other motives. She is asking the Board to stop this before it goes any further. This area is not appropriate for any commercial uses. There is a reason that this area is zoned for residential uses, this tower is exactly the reason why zoning uses are put into place. Before home owners buy their houses they evaluate the area with all the surroundings and when the decision to buy a home is made those residents contemplate their futures in that area and she would not be here today if this tower was already in place when she purchased this home. She looked into several homes before this one and
chose not to purchase ones near other potential risks such as high voltage transformers and in addition to her children she asks that the Board take into account the elementary school that is located four houses away from her own. The risks of this type of tower can never be known to a certain degree and she is asking the Board as a member of the community not to allow this to go any further; not in this particular area. More importantly, there are many more suitable areas for a tower that are not located next to schools and homes. Please do not put their children at risk for unknown dangers. She understands that the Zoning Board has already hired a consultant on the risks of this tower and she contends that this is not enough. The research in this area on electromagnetic radiation referred to as EMR is very slim; the technology is new and very uncertain and so is the research. Although some research has concluded that there are no risks; Harvard professors have signed a petition
asking for more research to be conducted in this area. The only absolute fact is that there is uncertainty in this area and all of the health risks are not known at this point. Please recall in the Boards own memory that many substances that have been used later in time have been found to be carcinogens, please do not take this risk with her child or any of her future children. Please do not choose one man's profit over unknown health consequences to her family and loved ones.
Mr. Ron Rosen said that he hopes the Town Board will reject this application of this monstrosity that is going to devalue the property of all the people in the neighborhood however he loses money all the time. He used to gamble and he had to quit so he is used to it but for safety he wouldn't want to see any children, people, neighbors or friends suffer any consequences because of this. For years he has worked in hazardous materials, he has worked with lead where people died, he has worked with asbestos and people got sick with cancer and these things took a long time they didn't happen over night. He talked to a guy from OSHA once and asked how they determine safety levels and the levels of exposure and they go into a plant and find out how many people are there and how many retired and at one plant no one retired; the substance the people
were working with killed them before they turned 62. New Jersey has their own fact sheet and has set their own standard; New Jersey doesn't go with the government. New Jersey thinks the standard should be lower to protect the people of New Jersey so when people are working with substances people would go by their law not by the government. OSHA sets the standard but OSHA is usually a little too high and people still get affected the longer they work with that product and he has seen a lot of people pass away before their time and he doesn't want to see his friends, neighbors, children, and grandchildren come into any consequences because of this monstrosity that is going to be on the back of the hill.
Mr. Virginia asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak either for or against this matter.
An audience member asked why the Planning Board rejected the tower at the self storage facility.
Mr. Pringle said the self storage business had already changed their site plan to accommodate the 9th and 10th building and space for U-Haul rental trucks and with the tower plan it conflicted with one another so the applicant withdrew the cell tower application at the Town's request.
Mr. Virginia continued the public hearing until February 21st, 2008 at 7:31p.m
SYRACUSE SMSA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
106 Button Shores Rd Tax Map Parcel ID# 038-02-07.2 AR-80 Zoning District
Section 200-32 Telecommunications Tower
Mr. Jared Lusk, Ms. Jennifer Wright and Mr. Coleman Burke were present to address the Board.
Mr. Virginia stated that this application also has to go to County Planning.
Mr. Lusk said that he is here representing Verizon Wireless in what they are calling their Erie Canal Site. The same models apply with the PCS with regards to the existing coverage. In the white areas there is no coverage and with the West Baldwinsville site which is not currently built they are looking to co-locate on an existing tower in that vicinity and they are in the process of pursuing that.
Mr. Lusk showed the Board a map demonstrating coverage at negative 85dbm and said that is a measurement of signal strength and that their system is designed to provide reliable coverage and the Board can see in this circumstance that they don't have any coverage in this area at negative 85dbm so the way for them to provide that coverage specifically to Route 370 and the surrounding areas is to place a new telecommunications tower facility in the area.
Mr. Virginia said the map the applicant is working with is based on a 160ft tower and a 120ft tower and asked where the 140ft tower calculations are.
Mr. Lusk said it was provided to the Board previously in subsequent packets that were reviewed by the Town consultant.
Mr. Spencer said the subsequent package came with a cover letter dated December 13, 2007 and it has additional exhibits N thru Q and exhibit P.
Mr. Virginia asked if this tower was going to be designed for extension.
Mr. Lusk said yes, if that is the Board's desire.
Mr. Virginia said that would be a Planning Board decision.
Mr. Lusk said that they haven't been asked to do that but they have been asked to look into it.
Mr. Lusk said exhibit F to the first application has a search ring and for them to provide coverage for 370 and the remaining area their site selection team found two properties that were interested within that search ring which were the Shute's and the Lamb's; both sites were submitted to the RF Engineer for Verizon Wireless and based upon the fact that the Shute's were closer to the center of the search ring even though both sites were adequate they chose the one closer to the center of the search ring for that purpose and based upon the surrounding land use of that property given the landscape and use there. Based upon that they entered into a lease agreement with the Shute's and a site plan was developed.
Mr. Lusk said that they applied to the Planning and Zoning Board on May 24, 2007 and the application was sent out to the Town's RF expert for review and consult. During that process the Town's consultant asked them a series of questions about alternate heights, coverage area, equipment, etcetera and they responded to those questions that the consultant asked and all that information has been provided to the Board.
Mr. Spencer said at the Planning Board there was some discussion about what the height of this tower should actually be and if his recollection is correct he believes Verizon's position is that the tower probably needs to be 140ft to accomplish covering the gaps in coverage and the Planning Board inquired about once again either having it larger or making it such that it could be extended in the future for this co-location potential.
Mr. Spencer asked if there has been any resolution of exactly where Verizon is currently with on the height of the tower.
Mr. Lusk said radio frequency coverage is not an exact science as far as how 140 or 160ft works and what doesn't. They feel that the proposed 160ft provides the best coverage in this area based upon the need and the coverage gaps that would occur at 140ft and he knows that Mr. Graiff said that the coverage gaps were in his mind diminimus but based upon their research that the Planning Board asked them to provide with the difference in coverage; the coverage would cover approximately 2,038 individual people at 9.34 square miles at 160ft and at 140ft that reduces by 637 people and the coverage area would be reduced by 3 square miles to 6.40 square miles. They stated that if the Board prefers 140ft they will accept 140ft and it was atleast one Planning Board member's opinion that if they are going to put up a 140ft tower they might as well put
up 160ft to provide the maximum coverage that they can from that particular tower.
Mr. Virginia said that the Planning Board also wanted to look at co-location there because no one wants to see a bunch of these towers all over the Town and he believes that was the reason 190ft came up and that is the reason he is asking the same question.
Mr. Lusk said that they were asked to evaluate 160ft versus 140ft and they are providing the Board with the best evidence that they can and one of the gaps that the Board can see is the gap that goes over Route 370 that they have circled in yellow. The population that lives in this area and other people that are using the highway they anticipate that these people are going to have difficulty in those yellow areas maintaining coverage depending on the volume of cars that are using the tower and the coverage at 140ft. It isn't as though it is a huge hole but again it is a hole and it is their desire that when they build a house they don't build it to be ok it is built to provide the best coverage that they can so he thinks at this point they have presented this and if the Board prefers they are flexible with the 140ft they are recognizing that
it is acceptable coverage but not ideal.
Mr. Virginia asked if they go with the 160ft versus the 140ft does the 160ft allow for more co-location.
Mr. Lusk said that does allow for more co-location assuming someone needed to be at 150ft as opposed to 140ft.
Mr. Virginia asked what is going to be mounted on the tower.
Mr. Lusk said that it is going to be the same antenna but it will be at an antenna center line of 156ft or 136ft on the tower on O'Brien Rd so the additional 20ft gives them 20ft of height for the antenna and array.
Mr. Cleverly asked if the white area on the map is covered.
Mr. Lusk said that it is not currently covered to -85 and they are covering the major highways and the population centers first as they move out from there but they have to prioritize where they can put sites at this time and as they put the cells together they are trying to connect them to get continuous reliable coverage.
Mr. Cleverly asked if there is some sort of coverage there.
Mr. Lusk said to say that there is no coverage is inaccurate but there isn't coverage that is reliable at negative 85dbm which is the power level that Mr. Graiff the Town's consultant has looked at and they and most cell providers which is in vehicle, in building, coverage for people that is of sufficient strength to provide reliable coverage. If they get any less coverage it would be negative 90 or negative 95 once they start to move away from that the reliability decreases rapidly.
Mr. Bowes asked if the coverage was only for Verizon customers.
Mr. Lusk said that it will be Verizon's frequencies and the frequencies are licensed to anyone that has a Verizon phone and anyone roaming in the area would be able to use that frequency. So it wouldn't affect T-Mobile, Cingular, or AT&T because they are on a different frequency and are provided that different frequency so they are not allowed to go on others frequency and vice versa.
Mr. Virginia asked if other providers would be allowed to go on this tower.
Mr. Lusk said yes, the co-location is identified in the policy.
Mr. Spencer asked if the other companies couldn't roam since the frequencies are different.
Mr. Lusk said that there are specific roaming rules for the FCC and they don't prevent them from roaming at all but if there is a frequency in this area that AT&T has for example they would be able to flip over to Verizon because they are on different poles., it depends on where they are and how they get there and if it is the same technology, some phones operate on a completely different computer technology than this so if the phones are capable the phone can. The poles don't distinguish the technology but the phones distinguish between RF and radio systems.
Mr. Virginia asked when this tower was located was this kept in mind for the visual and he knows they are at the Shute's in the center of the circle but when they move around the circle did they consider the impact to visual of the surroundings.
Mr. Lusk said the Town code first requires them to see if there are any towers or structures that are large enough to accommodate a co-location and if they could co-locate on an existing tower the visual impact would be diminimus because they have that existing tall structure and as the Board knows from living here that there aren't any tall structures in this vicinity at all that are of sufficient height at the 160ft or the 140ft range to provide that. When they go in the area they look for a strand of trees that they could be it on in that circle that they could put in a tower and hide it amongst the trees and they would do that because from a land use planning perspective they would do it but it is hard to hide a 160ft tower whether on the Lamb or Shute property or anywhere else in that search ring for them to provide the coverage so the
answer is yes, they would always consider areas to put it but he would find it hard to believe 140ft tower would look any better from the same property.
Mr. Virginia said that the topography changes quite a bit within that circle from roughly 450 at one side to 540 on the other side.
Mr. Lusk said the location tower height may vary depending on the exact location of the tower but as he has said not every side within that search ring would work and these two raw land sites both work from the RF perspective for the best coverage.
Mr. Virginia asked if the green areas on the map are the visual impact areas.
Mr. Lusk said those are where the towers would be visible.
Mr. Lusk said in the previous application where the question about the radiation was provided and he thinks it is important for the Board to note that the Federal Telecom Act and the FCC have specifically outlines that the Board's are not to consider that because an independent study has been done to determine that there isn't but in addition to that as part of both of these applications in Exhibit L is an independent engineering study that describes the proposed antennas and the frequency to determine that the antenna is operating within applicable FCC and FAA regulatory standards and it is important for the Board to note that.
Mr. Lusk said another topic that the Planning Board brought up was regarding the tower height and the fall zone of the tower and he thinks it is important to note that at the proposed site the Town's tower requirements are the tower height plus 10 percent from surrounding property boundaries. The tower that is proposed at 160ft and the nearest boundary is 247ft so they are well within Town standards and requirements under the ordinance for the setbacks. In addition they have a letter from the tower manufacturer that identifies the fact that if this tower were to fall it would fall within itself at 160ft so it would go no closer to the property boundary than 80ft and he knows there have been some reference made the neighboring property owner to the south and they have identified that they are 306ft from that house so in the unlikely event that
this tower built to the G standard that he referenced above were to collapse it would collapse no closer than 140ft from that property. This tower is designed to collapse within itself but with certainty that it will collapse no further than 140 or 160ft whatever the height of the tower is.
Mr. Lusk said the remaining setbacks with the property lines are well beyond what the Town requirement for cell towers is in this circumstance and they have fully met the setback requirements of the code and then some and the Town consultant affirmed that also.
Mr. Spencer asked Mr. Lusk to cross reference that.
Mr. Lusk said SP1 is where the setbacks are.
Mr. Pringle said that the fall zone is 10% or 1 foot over the maximum height which ever is greater and they are proposing a 160ft tower so the maximum height in that area is only 20ft so they need 140ft added to the 60ft front yard setback, 40ft side and 50ft rear but they are still ok.
Mr. Ron Farrington said that he owns 60 acres abutting on the property and he was never notified at all from any party about this tower to begin with and he may be the almost closest house to it and in some of the papers that he saw it stated the property being owned by someone else and not even under his name and he has been there for decades. He is not sure how far this is going to be from his house but he is a bit off the road so he would like to know how close this will be to his house and he also understands that there are collapse zones on these things and he wondered also about ice build ups and whether wind blowing ice is going to carry farther than this collapse zone under everything being equal under the best circumstances it will fall where it is intended but like the Challenger things don't always go the way people want them to
especially the big large panels on here; will sheets of ice blow off there and carry some distance away from the drop zone because they might be able to do quite a bit of damage. His other concern is that he is still one of them dinosaurs that doesn't have cable and this tower will be directly between him and all of the broadcast towers in Syracuse; will that affect his TV signal because he is about a quarter mile off of the road so he is not really able to get cable and it is also interesting just exactly how much wattage the transmitter has and he assumes they must meet Federal regulations but he would still be interested in knowing what the radiation intensity is going to be in the area and if that affects anything. Those are his basic concerns and he knows they have the site located on the site of the hill and he wonders if they looked at higher elevations so they could have a smaller tower and he doesn't know how close this thing is to his house and looking at the maps he can't
really see where anything is located or where the houses are.
The Board and the applicant looked at the map with Mr. Farrington to try to locate his house on the map.
Mr. Farrington said that they may have the map mislabeled showing his property in someone else's name and that is why he never received anything.
Mr. Spencer said the people in the audience should be aware that they do have the right to come and review the plans and material that has been submitted to the Town subsequent to this meeting and part of any other meetings if they would like to look it over in more detail it is available in the Codes Office.
Ms. Mary Lamb said that her property was the proposed other site for the tower and when someone calls and offers 1000 plus dollars a month to put a tower on her property it is a wonderful thing but then they started doing some research and she guesses what surprises her the most here is that everyone is concerned about how high the tower is and what it is going to look like and no one has asked what the physical affects on people are and she knows that there are people that can probably enlighten on this more than she can and that is her concern.
Mr. Lawrence Connelly asked if there is any data that exists on what the potential impact on property values in the area around this tower would be especially if it is in visual sight line.
Mr. Paul Church said that he is a 20 year resident of Button Shores Rd and he has lived in the Town all of his life and he is against this proposed microwave tower. He likes this area and he doesn't want to see it damaged by this unsightly tower. He doesn't feel Verizon has represented themselves in an honest manner for example they have not in his opinion justified the need for an 160ft plus tower for wireless internet access and wireless internet access is already available in this area without the use of towers and he doesn't see how they have met the Town's zoning requirements. The Town's zoning code book states in Chapter 200 page 31 "The purpose of supplemental regulations is to promote the health and safety and welfare of the Town's residents". Health is a concern. Why are warning labels mandated on all towers? Safety and
general welfare are also a concern for the zoning committee according to the Town zoning book, safety and general welfare are not related to wireless internet access; fire and emergency rescue do not use wireless internet access for their operations. This is a luxury not a necessity. The code book also states the Town should protect the natural features and aesthetic character of the area, a huge tower will not protect nature. When he thinks of aesthetic value or beauty of a piece of land he thinks of property value. What would a 160ft tower 300ft from someone's house do to the value? Consider Janice VanVliet who has lived on the corner of Gunbarrel and Button Shores Rd. for almost 50 years, her present property value is assessed at $105, 000 what will it be worth with an unsightly tower looming in the background.
Mr. Church showed the Board a picture that Verizon has submitted to the Town and one that he took in the same location. The picture that was submitted by Verizon omitted Ms. VanVliet's home.
Mr. Church asked if that was a mistake or is it another underhanded move by Verizon, was the picture submitted in good faith, he believes it was done with complete disregard for Ms. VanVliet's property. If Verizon would do this what else are they hiding from the Town and its people? The people deserve better. At the last Planning Board meeting the chairman and the members were very concerned about this proposal especially Mr. James Ruddock who was visibly upset when the Verizon attorney Jared Lusk who in his opinion did not answer Mr. Ruddock's questions to full discloser regarding the proposed tower specifications. Mr. Fred Thomas was also concerned when Mr. Thomas commented that the Town was beginning to look like an asparagus patch and he thought to himself more like a cactus patch. The code book also states that new tower applicants must
submit a report demonstrating good faith efforts to secure shared use for existing towers; there are 5 existing towers within a four mile radius of this proposed site and asked if these towers somehow could be used to accommodate Verizon's plans. He doesn't feel this is a good site for this tower and the majority of the residents on Button Shores Rd agree. They have a petition with almost 40 names on it that are in opposition and he would also like to comment on the pixel drawings that he believes are not accurate at all and he doesn't know if anyone else has cell phones but if someone travels anywhere in this area the cell phones work just fine.
Mr. Doug Trew said that he is adamantly opposed as well as a number of people in the audience to the site selection because of major concerns that he and neighbors have discussed about this particular site. First and foremost the lack of honesty on behalf of Verizon regarding the actual intended use for this tower; in the original document dated May 24, 2007 it states from the applicant to the Town in Exhibit C; the project description repeatedly states the tower is for wireless telephone or cell phone use and since that time Verizon has lead the Town Planning Board to believe that this is a cell phone tower. On the cover page of this letter it says that Verizon wanted the tower to remedy service inadequacies in and around the Northwest portion of the Town of Van Buren. At the Planning Board meeting on January 7, 2008 Jared Lusk of Nixon and
Peabody representing Verizon admitted "cell phone coverage is adequate in this area" and that was caught on tape. So he and a lot of other people ask what this tower is actually for. After pulling some teeth from Mr. Lusk on behalf of the Planning Board the Planning Board was able to determine this tower is actually for wireless internet service according to Mr. Lusk, not cell phone usage. Verizon accomplishes this by using electromagnetic radiation a phase anonymous with microwave radiation. This is actually a microwave tower not a cell phone tower. A secondary major concern is lack of necessity; wireless internet is a luxury not a necessity. Exhibit C states to provide wireless telecommunication to emergency services; emergency personnel already have this technology at their disposal, laptop computers linked to global positioning systems and transponders on every emergency vehicle within this area are linked to satellites orbiting the earth. It is a secure system that is
hard to crack, it is tried and tested and the emergency personnel in this area are not in the market to replace a secure system that is already proven effective.
Mr. Trew said with regard to general consumers wireless internet access has been available for a number of years through numerous providers; direct TV, AT&T, etcetera and from what he understands there is up to seven providers in this area. Verizon is looking to capitalize on this investment. His third major concern is neighborhood welfare. Stating the general code from the Town of Van Buren Chapter 200-32 says "the purpose of the supplemental regulations is to promote the health safety and general welfare of the residents of the Town". Electromagnetic radiations have negative environmental health risks associated with it even at low levels. A simple Google search on the internet will substantiate this with studies conducted by universities with nonbiased researchers at universities and not by consulting engineers who stand to
profit monetarily from the outcome. The studies pertaining to the negative health consequences of elderly adults and young children is also a concern; Ms. VanVliet's house is within 300ft of the center of this tower and there is also a registered daycare within a quarter mile of this tower.
Mr. Trew stated that NYS has laws on the books dating back as far as 1978 which is pretty well established that these laws are out of date and need to be changed which deter Municipalities from prohibiting tower construction for cellular telephone service, they do not pertain to wireless internet service and it states that in Exhibit D of the Verizon application. A special note; microwaves do not discriminate between political boundaries; Town lines do not stop the travel so Lysander will also be affected by this microwave radiation. His fourth major concern is aesthetics. Citing Section 200-32 of the Town code "the purpose of these regulations is to protect natural features and aesthetic character of the Town of Van Buren; an 160ft tower that hovers approximately 120ft above existing vegetation on the proposed site will certainly be out
of character with the surrounding land use and he doubts Verizon themselves would actually admit that these towers are attractive.
Mr. Trew said that his fifth major concern is depreciation of surrounding property values; if such a tower were to be constructed one would be hard pressed to find a real estate agent that would actually say that such a tower would not depreciate the value of a adjacent property. His sixth major concern is the misinterpretation of the Town code regarding shared use; Section 200-32 states "at all times shared use of existing towers shall be preferred to the construction of new towers. An applicant shall be required to present an adequate report inventorying existing towers within a reasonable distance of the proposed site and outlining opportunities for shared use of existing facilities as an alternative to new construction." Verizon has presented over 3 existing towers which were presented this evening; one located at NYS Route 370
across from Anheiser Busch, another adjacent to Route 690 south of the Seneca River, and one on West Sorrell Hill Rd. Verizon fails to mention the tower on east Sorrell Hill Rd on the Sholten property and they also failed to mention existing towers in the Town of Lysander, one on Church Rd, one on Tater Rd, and a proposed location near the intersection of Reeves and Fenner Rd which is in the process of going through the Town of Lysander approval. That is information that the Town of Van Buren is not hearing from Verizon and he thinks they should. Co-location is always an option and he has heard in the past that these towers are currently full but there are always options. Modification is an option and it is apparently less expensive to build a new tower. One point of interest that he has is a few years ago a proposal was submitted to Verizon by a land owner within a quarter mile of the existing propoosed site on Button Shores Rd and Verizon told that landowner at that time that a
tower was not necessary in this location due to adequate service. That site was geographically adequate within a quarter mile of the proposed site that the Board is talking about tonight that was topographically superior, 560ft in elevation versus 504ft in elevation for this proposed site, and that site was also aesthetically superior regarding proximity to homes. There isn't a home with that previous site within 300ft from the base of the tower but now that the landowner is aware of the potential health consequences he is rather certain that they are no longer in favor of a tower on his property yet they have received no correspondence from Verizon and this just reinforces Verizon's lack of effort to investigate all possible location options, there are a lot of options and Verizon is not looking at them. He is said it is his understanding that the chairman has the option to keep this public hearing open or close it at the chairman's discretion and he respectfully asks that it stay
open.
Mr. Virginia said that the public hearings will stay open until next month.
Ms. Anne Lilly Harynyk said that her heart aches to think that two fine Boards such as the Planning and Zoning Board, which are intended to represent "the people in the community" as well as the Town's economic and tourist interests, would actually approve the site selection for the so-called Button Shores Cell Phone Tower Project without getting representative public input much sooner. Now that the Board is at the point of granting a special use permit, how is it that this project has gotten so far; is it just her or did this get slipped under the radar by Verizon so as to get its approval as quickly as possible. This short term gain on Verizon's part could turn out to be the long term detriment to the homeowners and landowners in this region. Please slow down in the consideration process. This Verizon project, though well intended
she's sure, would do nothing but rip the fabric of this close, family oriented neighborhood in two while forever spoiling the aesthetic beauty and natural surroundings of their pristine woods. This is not conjecture, but a fact. As the News Release that was provided to the Board accurately describes, their major objections are valid, deserving of much morre than a cursory and a short review at tonight's Board meeting. For the record she would like to state her major objections to the Button Shores Rd site including the manner in which they were notified or not notified about the project beginning last May 2007.The site on Button Shores Rd is misrepresented, it is inappropriate, shared use of existing towers has not been adequately investigated or demonstrated, adequate reports on the existing cell phone towers and microwave towers in the region have not been presented; the reports that have been presented are inadequate and biased. No evidence has been shown that both of the Town
Boards with the Nixon Peabody lawyers representing Verizon and homeowners representing the Button Shores/Gunbarrel Rd Neighbors Coalition have toured the site on Button Shores Rd together as well as touring the surrounding tower sites.
Ms. Harynyk asked the Board members if they had toured the site.
Mr. Virginia said that he had.
Ms. Harynyk said an economic tourism impact statement has not been submitted as to how this 160ft microwave tower may impact the local economy and tourism such as recreational boating in the region. This is especially of concern since the microwave tower may reportedly be built to the Planning Board discussed height of 200ft without any advance notice being given to homeowners about this greater height now. Additionally, Verizon is requesting that up to three additional unknown providers be allowed to rent space on this tower. Obviously area home owners feel this would further erode the aesthetic beauty and natural wonder of the Button Shores/Gunbarrel Rd area. A growing children's day-care operation called Kiddy Kingdom is within a 1/4 mile from the site and many nursing home residents live within three miles of the proposed site. The
original notices sent by Nixon Peabody on behalf of Verizon to a handful of Button Shores and Gunbarrel Rd residents to notify them about the so called public hearing on May 17, 2007 were faulty. The names and tax map parcel identification numbers associated with those parcels showed errors and that stopped the first and second very small mailings from being accurate. The largest landowner in the Button Shores Rd/Gunbarrel Rd area still has not received any notices about this project. Instead her name was associated with this parcel area. Most home owners in the Button Shores Rd/Gunbarrel Rd area have never received a mailed post card notice about this project and those that did received them only four days before this public hearing, which is in violation of the law and homeowners rights.
Ms. Harynyk said that she acknowledges that the public notice about this project did appear in the Baldwinsville Messenger newspaper five days in advance but the notice was specifically designed to be tiny and overlooked by residents, and not forthcoming as it should be by a consistently major advertiser such as Verizon. Additionally it is simply unfair and not good business for this tiny ad notice to be the first notice that some area homeowners would have seen instead of receiving a mailed post card. These tactics by Verizon, while they meet the letter of the law, are indicative of Verizon's disregard for the homeowner's in this region, such as herself.
Ms. Harynyk said for the reasons that she has outlined, she hereby asks the Planning Board to rescind its site approval of the Button Shores Rd site from being considered for the so-called Button Shores Rd Cell Phone Tower project. Secondly she asks that the special use permit not be granted by the ZBA. Thirdly she asks that both the Planning Board and the ZBA recommend to Verizon that it consider other shared use sites first for the telecommunication facility/microwave tower. Legally Verizon is bound to do this and should do this, before again presenting any sites where Verizon can hope to build in the Town of Van Buren and finally, that any new recommended sites put forth by Verizon be more in line with the sites that have been previously approved. That is in rural, sparsely or non-populated country areas where either cell phone towers or
microwave towers will not be of any potential emergency danger or concern to the many valued landowners and for the economy/tourism in the area.
Ms. Harynyk brought pictures to the Board showing her property and ice damage from the last ice storm for neighboring properties and her own property.
Mr. Jason Murphy said that he has a Verizon phone and every major corporation that is out to sell a product has what they would call a market group and that is going to be teenagers from his age group and he is 19 years of age. He gets bused to school and they went everywhere from Gunbarrel Rd, Haney, Kingdom, all down the back roads and not once did he ever lose service or his signal and he would like to say that building this tower besides the fact that is not going to help the aesthetics what so ever he would like to point out that it is completely unnecessary due to his fine reception everywhere he goes. Most people of the people on the bus do have Verizon because it is free Verizon to Verizon calling. He is assuming that the tower is made out of metal but he would like to bring up recycled metal perhaps and he doesn't know if that has
ever been looked into and he knows this is going way beyond what it should be but with a growing population and the use of raw materials and natural resources it is going far beyond but it is a start. He doesn't know if Verizon is using recycled materials in building this but that is something Verizon should look into.
Mr. Richard Waltman said that he has lived on Button Shores Rd for 30 years and he also has a Verizon phone and he is glad that there is a hole in the coverage when he gets home because it is a business phone. He has called Verizon many times for internet DSL service and Verizon has it in populated areas but Verizon won't run fiber optic cable out in the country so Verizon should spend the money and run the fiber optic to provide internet service.
Mr. Bob Warner said that it is a beautiful area and he's not down here tonight to criticize anything, he is down here mainly because some of the constituents that he represents asked him to come down and what he intends to do is to make sure these comments that are being said tonight make it to the County Planning Agency so that they will have a fair review. That is his intent at this point; it is just to make sure that these issues are aired well.
Mr. Josh Hues said he is speaking for his mother Judy Hues who is going through chemo and can't attend. They are residents of Gunbarrel Rd and they never found out about this project that is going on right up the street from them and they had a neighbor let them know and his mother is appalled at the fact that the trees are 20ft tall and they are going to have this huge tower out in the middle of nowhere. They have lovely country and they go walking through the woods to see the wildlife and they would like to know what this will do to that and on Verizon's maps they are showing radiation symbols and that is a normal thing if something is bad they mark it with the radiation symbol and there should be stuff around it and yet they still have people around it and he doesn't think it belongs in their community.
Mr. Ken Monica said that he has lived on Gunbarrel Rd for over 30 years and he is completely opposed to this project. This has really got him concerned because the past seven years he has put a ton of money along with a lot of other residents on that road into landscaping and cleaning up his property and his biggest question is what impact is this going to have on the environment, the wildlife, there are horse barns in the area, cattle farms, dairy farms, a lot of feed and farming property, and corn being planted. What affect is this going to have and has the Town or anyone done any studies to find out what affect it does have. Verizon comes in and proposed one thing and then turn around and change that proposal and it is very upsetting to think that he put this kind of money into his property to make it look presentable and then he turns
around and has something like this come in and he was pretty much told that there wasn't a lot that could be done about it as the Board can see he still feels as though they have a fight.
Mr. Monica asked who is it that they can go to if this does go through when their property values are lesser than they were before this and he had his property appraised here just recently just in case this tower does go in cause the Board knows as well as he does if he puts his property up for sale and someone comes in and they look up and see a cell tower they are not going to want it. He just put in a $20,000 pool and now he is going to have to sit in his pool and look at a cell tower and it's ridiculous. His grandkids are there 7 days a week in the summer and this is just unbelievable that this is what they are going to have to look at and what they have to go through. Who is going to be responsible when his property is worth this amount now but it's not worth that amount anymore because of the cell tower and the Board is not going to get
Verizon to say that but if someone comes to buy his house and sees this cell tower no one is going to want it and who is going to be responsible, is it Verizon or is it the Town.
Mr. William Clifford said that his house is right at the base of the hill that the tower is going to be mounted on at the O'Brien Rd site. From the back of his house to the back of his property which is the base of that hill is 70ft. He has no idea the height of the hill and Verizon is going to put a 140ft tower on top of that hill. From the surface of his backyard to the top of that tower he is not sure what the measurements would be but it seems like if that tower fell over with his house being 70ft from the base of that hill that tower is going to roll right over his house and that is a possibility. If the tower collapse at 50ft at an 80 to 90 degree angle that is his backyard so what happens if that tower comes down at 50ft into that hill and right into his yard. He was wondering if anyone could tell him the height of that hill, he thinks
it has to be over 300ft from his back yard as far as height. If there are jets flying over depending on the wind and if it is overcast but the jets are just above tree top height and he doesn't understand how a tower can be put there without a light on it since Verizon is saying that it is not supposed to be lit.
Mr. Pringle said that the height determines whether or not towers need to be lit or if a tower is in proximity to the flight zones.
Mr. Virginia said that he understands Mr. Clifford's concerns but the Board is now in another Public Hearing but the hearing on O'Brien Rd will continue February 21, 2008 at 7:30pm.
Ms. Patty Trew said that she wanted to bring to the Board's attention that Verizon is saying there is going to be panels on this tower and if the Board looks at Verizon's map it will show a microwave dish on the plans and it does not depict how high the dishes are going to be and the plan does not depict anything other than not to exceed 146ft. Are these dished going to be 12ft, 20ft it is unknown. How much radiation do these dishes put off, we all have microwave ovens that is how she cooks her food so are these rays going to go through their homes and through people. She is opposed to this.
Mr. Lusk said with regard to the TV signals they operate on a different frequency and they are required by law not to operate on Verizon's frequency and Verizon can't operate on their frequency so interference under the law would not be created unless one of them is operating outside of their frequency area and they have demonstrated that they will be operating within their frequency and are licensed to do so. A couple of comments regarding the health affects that he has already described that the Board is prohibited from considering health affects to either approve or disapprove this under the telecommunications act and as identified by the FCC because it has been determined that there are no adverse health affects with regard to this so the Board's attorney can advise the Board and to that effect the Board doesn't have to take his word for
it but that is under the law same as economic impacts.
Mr. Pringle said that Mr. Lusk can explain all these things but the Board is going to want to see them in writing.
Mr. Lusk said with the wireless internet comments that he has heard he thinks it is fair to say people must have misinterpreted what he was saying. There are two frequencies that are going to be operated from this tower which are the 1900 and 850 and with 1900 there is currently no coverage in this area and with the 850 there is some extraneous coverage in this area but they have planned for the secondary services that are going to be offered in this area later on including the 850 EVDO system that he described before the Planning Board which is a separate operating system that their phones will operate on that uses the same frequencies as the 850 and the services will include phone, data, wireless internet, and what not but for the people to say that it is only wireless internet is just not accurate. Everyone's phone has data that goes back
and forth and it uses the same frequency for anyone to say that it is just microwave for internet it is just not an accurate comment so he described the services that are going to be offered in the 850 EDVO that aren't offered today. The radiation symbols that were referred to are not radiation symbols they are an indication of the tower antenna array but they are pointed in those three directions. They are not radiation symbols and the microwave dishes have always been identified on the plan and he described them before the Planning Board and there was no intent to hide anything with regard to the microwave dishes and the dishes are there so Verizon does not have to use the telephone systems wires that are out on Button Shores Rd. for relying on the service. If the telephone system goes down and they will point and aim to the next nearest tower when it is built so Verizon does not need to rely on the telephone wires so when there is an ice storm or wind storm Verizon will be able
to operate independently and have redundancy for the system.
Mr. Lusk said that he wanted to point out those thi | ||