Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-10-30 - PH Public Hearing, October 30, 1997 379' Ulysses Town Planning Board Pu g+ Page 1 Town of Ulysses Planning Board Public Hearing October 30 , 1997 Present : Chair Dave Tyler, Board Members Krys Cail , Peter Demjanec , Greg Hoffmire, Rick Geiger. Also present : Town Supervisor Doug Austic, Code Enforcement Officer Alex Rachun, Town Counsel. Bruce Wilson, and Consultant Tom Aiston. Recording Minutes : Debra Austic Citizens present : Carolyn Duddleston, Richard Coogan, Grace Wolf, Don Barnett, Carol Barnett, Bob Howarth, Bill Carletto , Susan Besemer, Marian Miller, Anne King, Dave Gell , Vern Collins, Dee Collins, Nancy Dean, Mike Marshall, Jodi Marshall, Lysle Gordon, Roxanne Marino, Rebecca Schneider, Jim Wilson, Betty Wilson, David Reynolds, Susan Reynolds, Julie Jordan, Tom Reitz, Karen Thompson, Donald Sola, Steve Szymanski , Rose Szymanski , Susanne Hillman, Judith Reese, Lorna Close, Marion Boratynski , Jean Foley, Lauren Stanynth, Mark Scibilia-Carver, David Romm, Geri Keil, Joel Warren, Linda Warren, Jackie Merwin, Aulia Tisch, Seraphina Tisch, Bill Wright, Timothy Cardina, Rebecca Cardina, Gary Myers , Meredith Kwiatkowski, Joe Heptig , Susan Brock, Robert Burgdorf, Barbara Fisher, Rick Jacobson, and Walter Pacyga. Dave called the meeting to order at 6 : 35 p .m . Peter made the motion to go into executive session to discuss pending litigation with Frontier, seconded by Krys, and passed unanimously . The Board returned from executive session at 7 : 15 p .m . Rick made a motion to go back on the record, seconded by Greg and passed unanimously. The Board reviewed the minutes from the October 7 , 1997 meeting . The following changes were made : spell out ASAC (Aeronautical Safety Analysis Corp) ; page 4 , paragraph 1 , specify Phase 1 environmental audit. Krys made a motion to approve minutes as amended, seconded by Greg, and passed unanimously . Dave introduced the hearing as a continuation of the September 23 , 1997 public hearing . Attorney Burgdorf explained the remaining viable sites were site 6 (Reynolds Road) at 250 ft . , site 2 (Mekeel Road) at 195 ft. , and new site 14 (Jacksonville Community Park) at 195 ft. The applicant withdrew sites 1 , 1A, and 18 . Burgdorf showed a site plan for site 14 . A variance for setback would be required for site 14 . A drive test to verify 195 ft would work and wetlands concerns also need to be confirmed for site 14 . The option was signed. Burgdorf stated for the record that 22 propagation. studies were submitted to the Town. Dave set the order of business to be site 14 first, then site 6, and general comments as time permitted . Burgdorf explained the facility at site 14 would be the same as proposed for Mekeel Road, except tower would be freestanding rather than guyed. Burgdorf asked the Board for direction in locating the tower on the property with preference for the southwest corner. Tom Aiston asked whether moving the tower location would assist in the drive test. • There was a discussion of locating the tower. The property owner requested freestanding and located as far into the corner as possible to minimize interference with trails . There was a discussion of distances needed for fall-down, guy wires and pad . Greg questioned whether the tower proposed for site 14 was digital or analog . Barbara Fisher confirmed all proposals were for analog with digital . Judith Reese questioned the request for a freestanding tower by the property owner and stated that the issue was not discussed at the previously held Jacksonville community meeting . Reese said she understood a freestanding tower to be more of an eyesore than guyed . Torn Reitz stated that the location of the tower as depicted on the plan would be within 300 ft of adjacent Robinson ' s house and the location should be moved more to the corner. Reitz also claimed any location on the Jacksonville Community Park property would require a variance and the Board should consider the impact on vegetation and wetlands in creating a 30x50 ft clearing for the tower. S\1 Ulysses Town Planning Board Public Hearing, October 30, 1997 Page 2 David Romm stated that a park should not be an appropriate place for any technological or industrial development and is being offered as a last resort specifically because no person in particular would be harmed. Romm suggested special care should be taken in considering this site . Don Barnett submitted a letter from his daughter Susan Carol Barnett who grew up in Jacksonville . Lysle Gordon claimed Frontier has not proven they need a tower in excess of 100 ft. Gordon noted the mis-location of the T-burg fire tower and the applicant' s refusal to consider a dual-tower site and suggested the Board reject all proposals in excess of 100 ft. Mark Scibilia-Carver stated he has tried to resist towers where proposed and read a statement. Scibilia-Carver suggested the process had fragmented the community . Aulia Tisch suggested that although the community association voted yes there was not enough time to notify people of the vote and many voted under misinformation and fear of a lawsuit. Tisch said the association was not informed about other options for maintaining the park and questioned how the park was offered as a site . She claimed not enough time was allowed to consider options before offering the park as a site . Richard Coogan, president of the Jacksonville Community Association, responded that he approached Alex Rachun whether the selection of sites for the tower was closed and at a meeting on 10/ 15 /97 the association voted to hear a proposal from Frontier. At the 10/29/97 meeting , the association discussed offering the park and voted 26 yes to 8 no for offering the park as a site . Vern Collins said he lives in front of the park on Route 96 and did not see a problem with the tower, there were ways to make it less ugly and felt that it would do the some good bringing revenue to the park . Julie Jordan stated the picture presented by Dick Coogan was not accurate and felt that not enough people were notified of the 10/29/97 meeting and offering the park for a tower site was reprehensible to some people . Jordan also submitted a written statement . Don Sola suggested that the lawsuit referred to at the Community Association meeting was the lawsuit pending against the Planning Board . Sola questioned the relevance of a drive test for site 14 . Burgdorf answered that the drive test would confirm a 195 ft tower would provide adequate coverage . Sola asked whether the drive test could eliminate site 14 as an option. Richard Coogan confirmed that the option for site 14 is only for a tower under 200 ft. Rick Jacobson stated the drive test was scheduled for 11 /4/97 at noon. There was a discussion of the time frame and Dave asked Burgdorf if the deadline could be extended by 10 days to accommodate the wait for the drive test. Burgdorf said he would propose it to the Telephone Company . Seraphina Tisch expressed concern over destruction of park land during the drive test and her objection to a tower at the site . Roxanne Marino stated she felt the tactics used by Frontier regarding the lawsuit and time line were appalling . Marino said Frontier has not proven the need for a tower in excess of 100 ft as per the ordinance . Marino stated the definition of adequate coverage was questionable . Marino suggested since this was the first application under the ordinance the Board should uphold the law and deny the application . Dave clarified that the lawsuit was a result of alleged procedural errors, which have been corrected . The Town chose not to incur the expense of going to court to have the suit dismissed, but Dave felt the Town would have been successful . Krys clarified that the time table was determined by the town ordinance , which the Board felt would be sufficient at the time the ordinance was developed. • Norman Foley read a press release announcing pending legislation to change the tower siting rules established in the 1996 Telecommunications legislation. Foley suggested the application by Frontier was made in bad faith and that if the Board denied the application Frontier would sue . Dave stated that if the Board denied the application without a good reason a lawsuit was a possibility . Don Sola read a prepared statement suggesting a split cell option and documenting the process thus far. Marion Boratynski read the remainder of the statement suggesting the Board get assistance from the county planning commission with contribution of funds from Frontier . Dave directed the discussion toward site 6 (Reynolds Road) and asked Burgdorf for an update . Burgdorf showed an abbreviated site plan with a guyed tower of 250 ft. Burgdorf stated a setback variance would be required . Burgdorf pointed out that 1 .i i . - • - • • 33 Hearin October 30, 1997 i Ulysses Town Planning Board Public g, Page 3 propagation studies mentioned by citizens have been submitted and site plans for sites 14 and 6 would be left with the Board along with the oversize exhibits . Bob Howarth suggested the process was flawed, the application contained flaws, and questioned whether the propagation studies might be flawed. Howarth stated he spoke with an attorney at the FCC and was told that 200 ft towers were tall and not looked on favorably by courts . Howarth stated co-location, and the need for a tower over 100 ft have not been addressed by Frontier. Howarth said according to an FCC website the Town can expect 8 towers within the next 18 months, so the ordinance should be enforced now and the application denied. Meredith Kwiatkowski spoke strongly against Reynolds Road because the certainty of lighting would make it the least favorable . Bill Couch stated site 6 was in their back yard. The site was less than 500 ft from the house, and the possibility of 250 ft with lights was particularly disturbing . Couch asked that the zoning be enforced. Dave opened the floor to general comments. Bob Howarth questioned the availability of propagation studies and difficulty for public review. Dave stated the studies were sent to consulting engineer and were not available to the Board until before the meeting . Dave Gell questioned the splitting of cell in Danby/Ithaca area and suggested splitting the Ulysses cell in order to minimize number of towers would be an equally valid reason. Rick Jacobson responded the two sites in Ithaca were a different concept because of the dense environment, capacity, and magnitude . Dave asked whether the tower at site 2 could be moved to the east as discussed at the previous meeting . Burgdorf suggested the tower could be moved to less than 120 ft from the property boundary, but would require a variance . Susan Brock introduced herself as representing the Ulysses Citizens for Responsible Technology . Brock suggested the application was still incomplete, lacking a long form EAF , no study of visual impact of site 14 , no landowner consent, and other items missing . Brock suggested Frontier had not commented on possibility of co-location for all towers within 10 mile radius . Brock referred to the honeycomb map provided by Frontier and claimed the search area could be larger than suggested by Frontier. Brock defended the material submitted by Mark Hutchins . Brock emphasized the need for the Board to enforce the ordinance with Frontier and suggested a two-tower cell should be encouraged. Frontier had not shown that co-location or two towers would not work. Brock suggested that locating a cell on the fire tower might save Frontier money by servicing the cell north of Ulysses also . Brock suggested the application should be denied due to missing or incomplete information. Brock asked that if the Board chose to grant the application for one of the sites the special permit should contain the conditions that there be no lighting or aviation markings . Brock mentioned particular concern for lack of visual data for site 14 , and a question of elevation confirmation on page 6 of the ASAC report. Brock asked that the tower be sited with the least impact on property values, with co-location being best. Brock urged the Board to give a positive declaration of impact on SEQRA . If the Board chose a negative declaration, be sure it is premised on a specific height with no lights . A negative declaration could be rescinded if the project changes . Burgdorf stated the long form EAF would be coming but the applicant was waiting to see which sites would be viable . Brock requested the public should be allowed the same consideration of additional time to review and respond to information as is submitted. Burgdorf stated the applicant has submitted propagation studies on co-location of sites 5 and 7 that showed good coverage but other technical and economic problems . Burgdorf cited a case from the New York Court of Appeals in Albany County from 8/ 18/97 overturning a ZBA denial advocating a two-tower cell . Jean Foley submitted a statement of the technical methods used by Mark Hutchins in his propagation studies . Don Sola questioned the relationship between county and town planning. Dave responded that county planning would look at the specific site once selected, but does not look at the process . Dave asked the Town consultant, Tom Aiston to comment on the propagation studies . Aiston introduced himself and explained his examination of the propagation studies which indicated to him that the studies showed a reasonable progression of results and the person doing the studies was doing it properly . Krys confirmed that the r)fi-- Ulysses Town Planning Board Public Hearing, October 30, 1997 Page 4 propagation study of the two-tower site provided more complete coverage, particularly toward Route 89 than any of the others . Aiston showed the comparison between Frontier' s and Hutchins' studies of a 75 ft tower at site 1 . Aiston suggested that a 75 ft tower is low and might only work in close proximity to the next cell . Aiston questioned how a 75 ft tower could provide coverage over the ridge and beyond. Aiston brought up concerns that Hutchins credentials seemed to based upon radio RF broadcast engineering which broadcasts at a higher power. Krys requested more information about Mark Hutchins qualifications and experience and methodology used . Bob Howarth questioned the location of site 1 in the propagation studies provided by Frontier based on the incorrect latitude and longitude reported in the ASAC report. Dave referred to an analysis of the Hutchins report prepared by Frontier and asked that a copy be made available to Brock ' s group . Rick Jacobson stated that the sites were initially proposed by a major cellular consulting firm, TEC Cellular in Florida and the propagation tool used by Frontier costs about $ . 5 million . Krys asked for equivalent methodology verification from Frontier. Jacobson responded that the information was on the propagation studies and the software name was "Wizard". Lysle Gordon asked whether a propagation study for site 5 at corrected latitude and longitude had been submitted . Aiston discussed the corrected study . Dave announced that the materials would be available for public review in the Town Hall . Lysle Gordon suggested that Frontier had a poor record of providing not completely accurate information and should be careful to verify information provided. Gordon suggested the application should be denied and a new application requested with time for careful review. Dave closed the public hearing at 9 : 56 p .m . Dave confirmed with Burgdorf that site 2 at 195 ft moved to the east, and site 6 at 250 ft, were both solid proposals . Site 14 was pending confirmation of the drive test and wetlands . Burgdorf agreed to give the Board until the end of November for a decision. Burgdorf suggested that the application would be complete on 11 /7/97 with long form EAF and visual impact, landowner consent, and site plans . There was discussion of the balloon test and it was suggested the crane used in the drive test would be adequate to view. Burgdorf requested feedback about the location of tower on site 14 . Dave responded that there didn ' t seem to be a problem with moving it into the corner, but not too close. Dave announced that written response would be accepted until Friday, November 14, 1997 . The next meeting of the Planning Board was set for Tuesday, November 18 , 1997 at 7 p . m . in the Town Hall . The meeting adjourned at 10 : 30 p . m .