7575 Van Buren Road, Baldwinsville, NY 13027
June 2008 ZBA MINUTES
6/16/08
The Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Van Buren, held at the Town Building, 7575 Van Buren Rd., was called to order at 7:30 p.m.
All present joined in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
Roll Call: Robert Cleverly present
James Bowes present
Joseph Kiselica present
John Virginia, Chairman present
Laura McBurney, Vice-Chair present
Also Present: Vera Cavallaro, Secretary
Ted Spencer, Attorney
MINUTES
Minutes were approved as written.
Motion
Mr. Virginia moved to accept the May minutes as written, seconded by Ms. McBurney. There was no further discussion. Motion carried; unanimously
SYRACUSE SMSA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
Button Shores Rd Tax Map Parcel ID# 038-02-7.2 PUD Zoning District
Section 200-32 Telecommunications Tower
Mr. Jared Lusk, Coleman Burke, and Greg Hanley were present to address the Board.
Mr. Lusk said at the last public hearing there were a series of questions raised and he has responded to those questions. The first question was Mr. Church's inquiry about the application having to be restarted because the tower has been moved considerably closer to the property to the west and if the Board recalls when they started this public hearing process on January 22, 2008 the ZBA asked them to conduct another balloon test because of neighbor's concerns about the tower's proximity to Ms. VanVliet's house. After that balloon test Board members asked that Verizon consider relocating the tower a little bit to the north and they then relocated the tower 134ft to the north and 82ft to the west and that was at the request of the Board based on that balloon test. The tower remains over 221ft from the Hrynyk parcel to the west and 914ft from
the closest neighbor to the north. Although Mr. Church states that the tower is considerably closer to neighboring parcels, the fact is that the re-design of the site is de-minimus in nature and made at the request of the ZBA and it fully complies with the zoning code in regard to the setbacks so for Mr. Church to say that there has been a considerable change just isn't consistent with the facts.
Mr. Lusk said Mr. Monica expressed concern about the proposed tower's proximity to a nearby steel barn and as determined during last month's meeting the steel barn is located farther to the south than Mr. Monica apparently thought. The proposed tower will sit over 402ft from the nearest structure.
Mr. Lusk said that Mr. Monica also questioned whether Button Shores Rd would be widened to accommodate the project and as outlined in the site plan, Verizon intends to construct a 20ft wide access gravel driveway from Button Shores Rd to the tower site and no improvements for Button Shores Rd are planned or required by code.
Mr. Lusk said Mr. Trew spent considerable time reviewing the EAF and Visual Addendum that was submitted by Verizon Wireless as part of its May 24, 2007 application and since that application Verizon has only slightly modified the project to accommodate the Board's request to increase the distance between the tower and the Van Vliet property. Submitted with exhibit R is a revised EAF that responds to some of Mr. Trew's comments and the May 24 EAF dealt with the original tower location and they have revised that application. Mr. Trew went into great length to go through that application line by line and there were two basic concerns that arose out of that discussion from the Board's perspective and they have responded to most of the others. One of the questions was the endangered species and the other question was that there seemed to be a lot
of discussion about the potential impact on historic sites in the vicinity. They have provided the Board with a revised part 1 EAF that reflects the change in the location and exhibit S to the application is the field study for endangered species and there was one identified potential species in the area and that animal is the Indiana Bat. The firm did go out and examine for the bat and has stated that there is no habitat for the bat where the tower or the driveway will be located so the firm was able to determine that there is just no chance that this will have any impact on the Indiana bat.
Mr. Lusk said another issue that seemed to be raised was the Erie Canal and the potential impact on the historic sights and in Exhibit T they conducted a secondary study and submitted it to SHPPO and SHPPO has 30 days to respond and sometimes SHPPO responds and sometimes SHPPO doesn't respond but if SHPPO doesn't respond within 30 days it is deemed that there is no comment and there is no historic impacts at all on surrounding properties and they have provided the Board with the proof of their mailing and SHPPO has not responded within 30 days which is not uncommon.
Mr. Lusk said the next question that Mr. Kublick raised was related to the need for the 850 antennas and with Exhibit U is a letter from Mr. Hanley who is responsible for designing the service in this area and Mr. Hanley has provided a letter indicating what the purpose of the 850 antennas are in that area.
Mr. Lusk said he would like to refer the Board back to several discussions that they have had on these various issues. He would like to remind the Board of the work that they have already done because these issues aren't new issues. The first issue that Mr. Kublick talks about is the Town's consultant Mr. Graiff and with all respect to Mr. Kublick, Mr. Kublick cherry picked a few choice phrases out of the report and did not look at the report as the document in a whole and in response as Mr. Graiff said in the letter to take the whole document and put them together with the original report and the original application. Regarding Exhibit E, Mr. Graiff went on to say that Verizon is proposing relatively large supporting arms without the use of stealth mounting or close mounting and Mr. Graiff states that there has been no demonstration that the
applicant must install the antennas as noted in the exhibits and that there is no technical reason why the installation could not be done in a less visible way. If the Board recalls back from their meeting on January 22 they had this discussion and they went over these issues and they went through the reasons for the twelve antennas and then they went into the 140ft versus the 160ft height and he provided the Board with an exhibit that talked about the additional square footage and square miles in coverage that they gain in population and square miles by moving from 140ft to 160ft. It is easy to take one report and cherry pick the language but they have already been through this.
Mr. Virginia said the height and the stealth or non-stealth is a Planning Board issue, this Board is dealing with the use.
Mr. Lusk said the report from Mr. Graiff goes on to say that Verizon has done a laudable effort to answer the questions in the first report and this is the exact same design and exact same tower that Mr. Graiff reviewed on O'Brien Rd and didn't find any problem with it including the length of the arms and antenna design. To respond to Mr. Kublick's letter he is providing the Board with another document with the basis for all the antenna designs in CNY.
Mr. Lusk gave the Board a map indicating lost call events on the Verizon system from 6/12/08 until 6/14/08 and discussed the lost calls with the Board.
Mr. Lusk said regarding SEQR he thinks that Mr. Kublick is trying to make a segmentation argument which is by approving the 160ft with the foundation for 195ft that somehow this Board is approving the tower at 195ft so therefore the 195ft tower's visibility needs to be considered and he would like to state for the record that Verizon has applied for a 160.5ft tower and that is the tower that they are applying for and they have no intent of ever exceeding the 160.5ft. The Board had asked them to design that foundation to accommodate a 195ft tower should someone come in and want to co-locate in the future so for anyone to say that this is somehow segmentation and the Board is required under law to consider that extension to 195ft when there is no plan to do so just isn't consistent with the law so he urges the Board to consider the 160ft and if
the Board thinks that the 195ft tower needs to be complied with SEQR or that the Board needs to analyze that then he asks the Board to make it a condition that they do not exceed 160ft and that they go back to the foundation for 160ft.
Mr. Virginia stated that this application is for 160.5ft tower only and if it goes higher it has to go through the whole process again.
Mr. Lusk said they will design a foundation to accommodate 195ft because it is underground and that's fine because it increases the flexibility for co-location in the future but that in no way commits the Town or Verizon to a future act which of course is an element of SEQR and segmentation.
Mr. Virginia asked that the new information be submitted to Mr. Graiff for review and also to ask Mr. Graiff to submit his response within two weeks.
Mr. Spencer said one of the issues that has been raised with Mr. Graiff and by Mr. Trew has been this 850 coverage issue and Mr. Graiff's report indicated that there appeared to be adequate 850 coverage so Mr. Graiff didn't know that there would be a need for this proposed tower to include additional 850 coverage and he is not sure as he looks at the height justification study whether that is a study done on 850 or the 1900 MHz.
Mr. Spencer said those have been points of confusion with what report applies to the 850 versus the 1900.
Mr. Hanley stated that everything they have submitted has been based on the 1900 and this site originally had been for the 1900 voice and data EVDO network site and the only thing that hasn't been 1900 is the report that he has done showing the lost calls in the area and that report is based on their 850 network so that even furthers the case for the PCS coverage. 850 usually has a 3 to 1 size footprint over a PCS/1900 site so if he is having problems on the 850 network which is what that report is showing, actual data from the switch, then he is going to have worse problems with the 1900 megahertz.
Mr. Virginia asked if they put the 1900 megahertz in what will that do to the 850 megahertz.
Mr. Hanley said the 850 megahertz will stay the same but when the 850 network gets 100% utilized the calls will roll over onto the 1900 megahertz and if someone's phone sees a 1900 megahertz at a stronger signal the phone will go to that service but if someone is going through that area and that person is on an existing 850 megahertz call that person will still experience problems in that area but if that person originates a new call, the phone will see the stronger signal on the 1900 and the call will originate on that.
Mr. Hanley said the 850 antennas have been brought up several times and over a year ago when they put this application in it was designed to be a 1900 only site with no 850 on it and in the past year Verizon Wireless has gone through a process and they are going through this process in Syracuse right now where they are converting their data network over to the 850 network. Right now their data network is for getting on the phone and downloading music, videos from CNN and ESPN, instant messaging, getting on the internet and surfing the internet with their phone, they can also receive email with laptops and that network was on the 1900 network last year when they applied for this permit and in August that network is going to be converted over to the 850 network, so in order for people in the area of this site to be able to use those services
which is their fastest growing market, they have to have the 850 antennas on the tower. The data services will be on the 850 and every new service that they have coming out whether it be push to talk or voice carriers it will be on that network. If they don't put on the 850 antennas when they turn this site on they are going to be right back in front of the Board asking for those antennas for that purpose. They can not turn on a site without the capability to broadcast their data network.
Mr. Spencer asked what will be on the 1900 network.
Mr. Hanley said the 1900 right now is the data network but it will be converted to 850 and then the 1900 will be used for voice for people actually making phone calls.
Ms. McBurney asked what that translates to on the tower.
Mr. Hanley said there will be an 8ft cellular antenna and 3ft in there will be a 4ft PCS antenna. There will be 4 antennas per sector, 12 antennas total in a triangular shape and they have given the Board a technical document that shows what the basic layout of the antennas on the tower. Mr. Graiff was asking if the antennas could be close mounted by putting them all on the pole and there are several reasons why that shouldn't be done. One reason is performance to optimize the network and they lose diversity which gives them more coverage on the receiver half, network reliability and all the sites that they design in NY is 4 antennas per sector, 12 antennas total.
Mr. Lusk said on the December 13, 2007 report Mr. Graiff states that Verizon should submit construction alternates if it has not done so already to demonstrate antenna mounting techniques on close mounting that would satisfy the requirement for minimizing the visibility and their letter to Mr. Graiff says for the Erie Canal site two of the four antennas per sector will be used to transmit and receive PCS 1900 megahertz service and the remaining two antennas per sector will be 850 cellular antennas that they have placed on the tower for the planned deployment of an 850 megahertz EVDO carrier in 2008. They thought that was a long time ago in the future when they were here in December but that will be coming out in August so they went on to say that currently Verizon Wireless has license to operate both and they wanted to get approval for both
so that they would not have to come back later in 2008 to get the approval to put the 850 antennas up. The future is now and they are deploying this in August and turning it on so they need the system so for anyone to say that they haven't demonstrated the need they have had that consistent message since September 07 after Mr. Graiff's report that they had the system coming on that is going to using the 850 antennas so he believes that they stated their position.
Mr. Lusk read Mr. Kublick's letter that states "in conclusion the applicant has failed in the view of the independent expert retained by the Town to even try to support the need for the 850 megahertz system or to demonstrate either the inadequacy or the coverage of the necessity required by the Town code as a prerequisite for granting the permit for the 1950mhz system". It is actually a 1900mhz system so they want to make sure that the record is clear on that but as far as the 850 Mr. Kublick said they haven't provided cell propagation for the 850 to Mr. Graiff and that is because they have said all along that the 850 cellular coverage, the voice telephone system, had adequate coverage in this area and the tower wasn't designed to provide cellular coverage. As an attachment to the latest mailing in Exhibit U they have discussed and
shown propagation for the EVDO and that shows the coverage on the EVDO which is wireless data transmission and again that is everything but voice so when someone takes a picture and sends it to their friend or sends an email that person would be using that EVDO system. Those people who have phones that do that kind of thing will need this EVDO system.
Mr. Hanley said any new feature, option or service that is going to be coming out down the road in the future is going to be on this EVDO network.
Mr. Lusk said Mr. Kublick's next paragraph in the letter states that "the Board does not therefore have a complete application before it for the 850 system and the Board should deny the application for the 1950mhz system on the basis that the Town's independent expert concluded that neither inadequate coverage, nor necessity have been proven, as required by the governing code".
Mr. Lusk asked the Board just to read Mr. Graiff's report and their response to it because it is stated in Mr. Graiff's report that they have demonstrated the need for the PCS system and he doesn't believe Mr. Graiff has seen the EVDO response and the Board can show that to Mr. Graiff if the Board thinks that's helpful. The Board can see from the plots that were provided there are lost calls in this vicinity on the 850 system during 2 days of time so he thinks this tower is going to be helpful for all of the communication needs of Verizon Wireless customers.
Mr. Hanley said the lost call plot shows need 100% and every one of the numbers in the plot are a lost call that shows that there is a coverage problem in this area even on the 850 network because that is 850 data so the 1900mhz as he said is going to be even worse and it will have even more lost calls without a site in this area and if they put a site in this area the lost calls would virtually go away because if they look at the adjacent areas where there is another site there aren't lost calls so that to him says that there is a true coverage hole in that area.
Mr. Spencer said he was looking back through the Planning Board minutes and the whole issue of the extendibility of the tower was brought up by the Town so Mr. Lusk is right in that regard. It was the Planning board that raised the issue of having a tower that would in the future provide additional potential options and that is why they talked about making it so that while it could be built at 160 it would have the capacity if another carrier decided they needed to use that site it could be a potential option to minimize the number of independent towers and try to move towards consolidation but that was just a Planning Board forward thinking kind of thing as opposed to a specific issue and Mr. Lusk indicates Verizon has no intent on going above 160ft as reflected in the application.
Mr. Virginia asked if there was anyone else who had new issues that would like to speak.
Mr. Doug Trew said in the past he has been representing the neighbors in the community as a neighbor himself and he just wanted to fill the Board in on his background with education as far as his familiarity with environmental aspects in which he touched on at the last meeting.
Mr. Trew said he has a Bachelor of Science degree in Environmental and Forest Biology from the College of Environmental Science and Forestry in Syracuse concentrated in efficiencies in wildlife management, wildlife wetland ecology, the study of inland waters and cultural recourses. He wanted to have that on the record because when this ends up in court which he is afraid that it will he thinks that the judge should have that information available so that the judge knows that his comments aren't just coming from a lay person that is a neighbor, he is building on some of his background in his experience working in the field of environmental science. He has spent 5 years as an environmental planner for Onondaga County Soil and Water Conservation District, he has worked for the US Fish and Wildlife Service, he has worked for the NYS DEC, he has
worked for NYS Research Foundation and in addition to that he has worked for Onondaga County Department of Water Protection. He doesn't like to toot his own horn and he really didn't want to bring that up tonight but for the record he thought he should do that.
Mr. Trew said there was a lot of discussion tonight about the gaps in coverage with the 850 MHz and he just had a discussion on Thursday afternoon with Barry Bullis, the Supervisor for the Town of Lysander, and they had a lengthy discussion about this tower and some of the perceived inadequacies in coverage and Mr. Bullis stated that a few years ago he fielded a number of calls from people in the Town of Lysander regarding dropped calls and Mr. Bullis stated that has diminished to the point where he hasn't received any calls anymore about dropped coverage. Just as an experiment on his own part he has taken a Verizon cell phone and he believes Mr. Virginia has done the same thing and gone through the Erie Canal corridor and gone down to 370 and around the area.
Mr. Virginia said that he has an AT&T phone and he couldn't get a Verizon phone to do the experiment.
Mr. Trew said he can guarantee Verizon works and there are 3 or 4 bars no matter where someone goes in this area and Mr. Bullis also agreed with him that there isn't any concern on the constituents' behalf in the Town of Lysander that Mr. Bullis is aware of that there is a lack of coverage. Another thing in his leisure investigations on the internet he has been on the Verizon Wireless website and if someone types in their zip code for where that person lives the webpage will produce a map depicting digital coverage and it was kind of interesting to him to see the digital coverage on Verizon's own website shows the entire Town of Lysander and the entire Town of Van Buren as having full digital coverage so to him that looks like there is some information that isn't being portrayed whether the people that are in charge of the website aren't
talking to the engineers but someone is being misrepresented or misled and he doesn't know if that is the general public or if it is the Board and he would hate to think it is one of the Boards and he would hate to think that it is the general public but that information that is available on the internet is available to a lot of people so someone is being misled and he doesn't feel that is very justifiable.
Mr. Trew said he has quite a bit of information about the Erie Canal and what the Erie Canal has turned into is that it is actually part of the National Park Service and it is a National Heritage Corridor and in NYS it is called the NYS Erie Canal National Heritage Corridor and it is a substantial area and he doesn't have individual copies for everyone but there is a wealth of information that he can just hand to the Board and the Board can pass it around. There is a wealth of information on the internet and there are links to the websites in the papers that he handed the Board. The reason why he has brought this up is because there is quite a bit of discussion that he brought up last meeting about the importance from a cultural resource aspect the proximity of this tower in relation to the Erie Canal, which is less than a quarter of a mile.
Mr. Trew said going through the SEQR forms previously there were numerous questions that could be answered by saying they were in view of the proposed tower. This tower is within view of this natural heritage corridor and there is no question about that and there are significant visual and aesthetic impacts on that corridor. If the Board looks in some of the information that he provided the information shows the boundaries of this national park service corridor are the municipal boundaries of the adjacent townships so that means that the entire Town of Van Buren and Lysander are included in this corridor.
Mr. Trew said another thing that they have discussed and could not come up with an answer was the relation to wetlands. There is a wetland that is immediately adjacent to this proposed site and it is not on the National Wetland Inventory Maps or the New York State Freshwater inland wetland maps because it is less than 10.4 acres and if they were to put every single wetland on those maps then the maps would be obliterated and just covered with wetlands because wetlands are everywhere.
Mr. Trew said there are 3 criteria that the scientists use to determine wetlands and it has to do with soil qualities.
Mr. Trew described the criteria scientists use for determining wetlands.
Ms. McBurney said if this tower isn't going to be sitting in the middle of a wetland how does any of that apply to what the Board is approving or not approving.
Mr. Trew said he gave the Board a document that is tailored to municipalities to help the Board see the importance of wetlands.
Mr. Virginia said the applicant provided a report from the DEC and the Board still needs to go through it. The board received the information from the applicant on Friday and from Mr. Kublick today and the Board asked for all this information two months ago so the Board has a lot of work to do.
Mr. Trew said he has been calling the Codes Office and waiting for the information that the applicant stated that they would send.
Mr. Virginia said the Board has also been waiting for the information that Mr. Trew's attorney was supposed to send.
Mr. Cleverly asked what Mr. Trew's rational is for saying that this tower is going to be more detrimental in this area with the wetlands or along the canal rather than a house.
Mr. Trew said it is significantly more aesthetically unpleasing at 160ft.
Mr. Cleverly said there is no more pollution from a tower.
Mr. Trew said he would argue that as far as radiation is concerned.
Mr. Cleverly said with a house there is all kinds of pollution coming from it and there would not be a single person here tonight against a house, there are all kinds of houses near the canal and on the river and in his estimation these houses are creating more pollution. With the historic preservation of the Erie Canal a house would be more detrimental than this tower that is sitting back from the canal.
Mr. Trew said the national heritage corridor is composed of 27 members of different backgrounds and he is sure that they are probably looking at residential pollution and that is a problem world wide.
Mr. Trew and the Board discussed different types of pollution.
Mr. Cleverly said he believes that the tower is not creating pollution.
Mr. Trew said that is not true; the tower is emitting radio active transmissions, electro magnetic emissions and he is not a radio frequency engineer by any means and he is just learning about this but what he has found is that these towers do emit a certain amount of electro magnetic radiation which is considered pollution but there are Federal Laws such as the Telecommunications Act that prevent the Board from declining the special use permit based solely on the concerns or the environmental emissions but to say that there is no pollution coming from that tower is false.
Mr. Virginia said that the Onondaga County Planning Board's resolution states that the ground level power density is at or below 1 microwatt per centimeter squared at any distance from the antenna system of Verizon Wireless; the Verizon Wireless microwave facilities (5800 MHz) have an uncontrolled/general population maximum permissible exposure of 1,000 microwatts per centimeter squared; the exposure at ground level at any distance from the structure would be substantially below 1% of the FCC exposure limits due to Verizon Wireless antennas alone; as per said letter from Millennium Engineering, P.C and therefore be it resolved, that the Onondaga County Planning Board has determined that said referral will have no significant adverse inter-community or county-wide implications and may consequently be acted on solely by the referring
Board.
Mr. Trew said while researching radio frequency emissions he found that the emissions that are emitted within the US are significantly higher than any other country in the world.
Mr. Virginia said that is amazing because over in Europe and several other countries if he is correct they are using cell phones instead of house phones but he appreciates the point. He was thinking about getting rid of his house phone because people in his firm went over to European countries looking at sewage treatment plants and the people from his firm came back saying that it was hard to find a phone in some places because everyone was using cell phones which is interesting and he will look into that.
The Board discussed microwaves.
Mr. Trew said microwave manuals tell people not to stand in front of them so this cell tower is just compounding the microwave emissions/radiation.
Mr. Virginia said the Board can not look at that by law.
Mr. Trew said the question came from Mr. Cleverly about whether this actually emits any pollution and it does.
Mr. Virginia said that it is very small but that is something the Board can not take into account by law.
Mr. Spencer said there are limitations for issues this Board can consider based on the Federal Statute that Mr. Trew cited.
Mr. Trew asked if the Board was aware of the 2003 Telecommunications bill that is proposed before the Senate which is essentially meant to overturn the 1996 Telecommunications Act because the Senate realizes that the 1996 Act had some pork that was put in it which is exactly what Mr. Lusk is falling back upon by saying that the Board can not deny this special use permit.
Mr. Virginia said the Board has been over this many times and asked Mr. Trew if there is anything else that is new that Mr. Trew would like to add.
Mr. Trew said that he has been looking at the Town of Van Buren comprehensive plan because there was a question on the SEQR form as to whether or not this proposed location fit into any type of municipal guidelines or a municipal long term plan and he has not read through the entire comprehensive plan because the more he looks through it he is finding things over and over where this doesn't fit but he is biased because he doesn't want this tower there. He would think that it would be the Board's position to not be biased so the Board could interpret this however the Board sees fit.
Mr. Virginia said that he has a copy of the comprehensive report and would like to know what page Mr. Trew is referring to.
Mr. Trew said page 24 where it talks about the future of the Town of Van Buren.
Mr. Cleverly asked where Mr. Trew would like the tower to be since he doesn't want it where it is proposed.
Mr. Trew said he thinks it could be co-located at an existing tower which are right on some of the maps that Verizon has provided, there is a tower across from Anheuser Busch and the Crego Farm which he doesn't think they have co-located on as of yet. There is also another tower located on Tater Rd in the Town of Lysander.
Mr. Virginia said if the tower had to go in this general area where would it be preferred.
Mr. Trew said he would prefer that it be put where another tower has already been sited and it may seem like a feat of engineering but the Planning Board has already talked about the extension of towers and he is not an RF engineer but he doesn't know why it wouldn't be an option to raise the height of existing towers that have already been through this planning process.
Mr. Hanley said they get asked this question all the time; towers can only be raised so much and the coverage will not get any broader because the laws of physics are eventually going to stop that coverage from getting any better because if they get much higher than 190ft it is just not going to get any better. The site at Budweiser he believes is 125ft, the one in Ira is 185ft and the one on the farm by Route 690 and Route 370 is being extended to 140ft so they do look at this stuff but there is still going to be a coverage hole that needs to be filled in this area even if they extended those sites. They were asked in Cicero to see if they could raise a tower that is 90ft up to 250ft and they can't because the FAA won't allow it and if they get over 200ft it needs to be lit and possibly painted. All of their sites go through the FAA to be
checked to make sure there aren't any local fields that might require markings or height restrictions.
Mr. Lusk said they have been in front of the Board for a year and if there was a way to co-locate on a tower and save them the $200,000 and $50,000 in legal and engineering fees to be here they would have done that and he doesn't understand the concept of why it is thought that it could be done on another tower because it would be so much cheaper, they would just hang a set of antennas and go on with their merry way. If they don't need this tower why would they have gone through this exercise? It is just not feasible because the limiting factors to the tower is the .62 watt phone, they could blast the RF energy into the moon but that doesn't mean the phone can talk back to that because it is a two way communication and they are limited in the strength of power from the phone.
Mr. Hanley said Verizon prefers to co-locate with existing towers because it is much easier for them because the structure is already there and the Town's are usually a lot more receptive to them because all they have to do is put antennas up which is a lot easier for them to do and if there was a tower or an existing structure within a quarter of a mile in that area that he could make work he would do everything in his power to make it work. There is nothing in a quarter of a mile from the proposed site that would give him enough height.
Mr. Trew asked about a mile.
Mr. Hanley said a mile would be outside of the search ring and the site no longer becomes effective to the areas that need to be covered.
Mr. Trew said in the information that he read in the supplemental report from Mr. Graiff, Mr. Graiff stated that this tower is not necessary.
Mr. Lusk said he urges the Board to read Mr. Graiff's report and the responses that have been provided to the Board all the way through because someone can't just cherry pick one line out and part of it is Mr. Graiff's report because Mr. Graiff says it is fine in the first paragraph and then in the second page it says lack of documentation and the documentation that he thinks Mr. Graiff is talking about if it is read correctly, is talking about the information between the 120ft and 160ft with the height difference and the difference is minimal and his sense is that the consultant could have been a little clearer.
Mr. Lusk said with Crego Farm being mentioned, they are using the tower at the Crego Farm which is the orange on the map that is going to provide that seamless coverage and if they could be on these other towers they will and they have given proof that they are trying to get on to fill the hole. This has been gone over many times.
Mr. Lusk said this is over 2000ft from the canal and if it was going to have an impact he suspects they would have heard from the State Historic Preservation Office and there was no response.
Mr. Trew said sometimes government processes take a little bit longer than they would like.
Mr. Trew said if the Board is going to determine SEQR decision he is asking that the Board determine a positive determination.
Mr. Kublick said he tried very hard to quote directly from Mr. Graiff's letter and it was hardly cherry picking and he quoted from Mr. Graiff's findings. Mr. Graiff is the Town's consultant and he hasn't had a chance to look at the 108 pages that was submitted on Friday from Verizon and it would be his client's request that Mr. Graiff have the opportunity to see anything in that subsequent submission that deals with radio frequency or propagation or proving the need for the installation that is being applied for. Mr. Graiff's report of December 27th summarized his findings concerning not the original submission but the response by the applicant to Mr. Graiff's previous report and that is the last word the Board has from Mr. Graiff. There apparently is new material and Mr. Graiff should certainly see it. The Town's code strongly favors
co-location therefore the importance of a good faith effort to co-locate by the applicant is obvious but so to is the realization by this Board that should it eventually approve this application on this virgin site, a first telecommunications tower on this site, the Town's code is going to urge applicant's and this Board to consider any further locations or expansions to be on this site. SEQR requires; it is not theoretical and it is not a miss-reading of SEQR, that projects that are likely to follow be considered when the Board decides whether or not there is going to be a significant or may be a significant adverse environmental affect.
Mr. Spencer said there is a requirement under the NYS regulations that if there is a project or plan that involves a big picture a municipal board should do its SEQR analysis based on that big picture; for instance a subdivision that is going to go in phases or a commercial development that is going to evolve over time and contemplates a completion of a big project as opposed to just looking at it one building at a time and simply analyzing that one building so the issue here is whether or not there is a plan or proposal that the Board would foresee that involves the extension of this particular tower and that will be a decision the Board will have to make as it analyzes all this information. Verizon indicates that they have no plan to go above 160ft and he has mentioned before that the whole issue came up because of a Planning Board
recommendation to allow future flexibility but to some point it is speculative because there is not a current proposal for anything above 160ft and that proposal to analyze the SEQR implications of that the Board does not know what it is so it would be hard to quantify. Segmentation is addressed in the regulations with respect to SEQR so the Board will need to make a determination whether or not the Board is in a position where this is actually part of a bigger plan where this will be a bigger tower. In any event under the Town's rules if a tower gets approved and a site plan is issued it would be for what is presented and any subsequent either co-location on that existing tower or any proposal to enlarge that tower and extend it vertically would require an applicant to come back and begin the process that Verizon goes through for the initial construction of the tower so it wouldn't go un-reviewed or unanalyzed at a later date.
Mr. Kublick said the issue of the Erie Canal National Corridor is visual, it is not electro magnetic, it is not radio frequency, and the issue is that Congress has identified the Erie Canal Corridor as having very high historic and cultural value and one tower let alone a number of towers visible from this will have an impact and that is the impact that he is recommending to the Board.
Mr. Virginia asked how many towers are visible from the Onondaga Lake outlet to Cross Lake from the canal.
Mr. Kublick said that he doesn't know.
The Board and the audience discussed how many towers there are.
Mr. Kublick said he would direct to the Board's attention that the applicant appears to be trying to provide almost a great deal of information in lieu of a draft environmental impact statement, in other words a thoroughly heavily documented EAF is going to be urged as the equivalent of an EIS and it is not the same subject or the same review standards and it is not subject to the same opportunity to review and question as a draft EIS.
Mr. Kublick asked if Mr. Graiff would be getting the new material that was submitted.
Mr. Virginia said yes.
Mr. Kublick asked that his client get an opportunity to see any response from Mr. Graiff and to comment on the 108 pages from Verizon.
Mr. Virginia asked that if anyone would like to comment at the next board meeting that it be submitted in writing two weeks in advance so the Board has time to review it.
Mr. Virginia asked if there was anyone that wanted to speak either for or against this matter.
Motion Ms. McBurney made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Mr. Bowes. There was no further discussion. Motion carried, unanimously.
Mr. Virginia asked the Board members to review all the information that was provided and to fill out part two of the SEQR form.
Mr. Virginia continued the review of this application until July 21, 2008 at 7:35pm.
OTHER BUSINESS
Motion Mr. Virginia made a motion to concur with the Planning Board acting as lead agency for the coordinated review of the Spano Asphalt Facility on Van Buren Rd.
Ms. McBurney seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. Motion carried on a roll call vote that follows:
Robert Cleverly yes
James Bowes yes
Joseph Kiselica yes
John Virginia, Chairman yes
Laura McBurney, Vice-Chair yes
Vote: 5 yes, 0 no
ADJOURNMENT
Ms. McBurney made a motion to close the June Meeting, seconded by Mr. Virginia; motion carried, unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Vera Cavallaro
Zoning Secretary
| ||
