HomeMy WebLinkAboutProposed Cell Tower at Verizon Building, Community Corners - Conocerns of Lowell Place Residents 9.16.2005.PDFProposed cell rower at verizon Building, community corners
CoNcrnNs or Lownll pr,lcr Rnsrtnrvrs
September 19,2005
Residents of Lowell Place (names listed below) have met to discuss the cell tower being
proposed by Verizon for its facility at Community Corners. We unanimously expressed thefollowing concerns and request that the Board ofthe Village Cayuga Heights and Verizon takefull account of them in their considerations fbr locating the tower at this location.
Proposal not complete
The proposal submitted is not complete in what it said it would deliver and in what the Board
should require before the proposal is formally considered by the Board. Examples:
' No justification for the I2O ft height of the tower is coniained in the application.' Residents were not notified of the balloon tests so they could p.rtonuily observe the
heights from their properties.r Tests were not conducted when the tower would be most visible (i.e., winter), thus not
permitting full evaluation of visual impact.
' No visual impact assessment was made looking from Lowell Place, the closest single
family residences to the proposed tower site.
' T'he Visual EAF Addendum does not include Lowell Place, the closest local road to the
proposed tower site after pleasant Grove Road.
' No oredible justification is given for the rejection of alternate sites mentioned in the
appnication.
' Adequate notice of this meeting of the planning board was not given to the residents
within 500 ft of the proposed tower site. At least one resident, *hor. property is among
those closest to the tower site, is absent and probably unaware of the application and this
meeting.
Rationale for proposed site in relation to alternative sites that could be preferred
It is only reasonable that full consideration be given to all meaningful aliernative sites and
that the rationale for selecting one and eliminating others be fully presented. This has not
been done. For example, at least five other sites would seem to irave equal, and perhaps
superior, features, such as:r Cayuga Heights Fire Hall-Why was it eliminated from further consideration?r Route 13 Malls-Why are these not appropriate sites?o These include Pyramid Mall, Cayuga Mall, Triphammer Mall, and perhaps the
Small Mall
o Each of these sites-and parlicularly Pyramid and Cayuga Malls-are already
laden with vertical poles and signs, which would mitigate visual impacts of a cell
tower.
o The useful principle of co-location can be applied whenever reasonable. as seems
appropriate in this case.
' St. Catherine's Church-Capitalizingon the likely interest of the Church and making this
site work, for the financial good of the church and the benefit of cell tower users.
The Board should not consider the proposal until these and other realistic sites ar$ thoroughly
and comparatively evaluated and the results made public and considered by the Board.
Concerns of Lowell Place Residents for Verizon Tower
September 19, 2005
Page 2 of3
--a The 500 ft requirement for notification
The outer limit for notification is 500 ft. How many cell towers are within 500 ft? Howmany towers are within 100 ft of residences and the apartments? (patten's may also be about100 ft from the proposed tower.) Residences on Lowlll place are estimated to be within 350ft of the tower. euestion:
' Why would the Village wish to approve a cell tower of the type proposed its closerelation to residential areas when Cayuga Heights emphasizes thf quality and nature of itsresidential areas, as evidentthroughout the village? '
It is reasonable that the rationale of verizon and the village Board be fully clarified on theseand related questions before considering the proposar further.
-f Ileight
The visual simulations show both r20 ft and 80 ft towers, suggesting the reasonableness ofan 80 ft tower.
' What is the difference in coverage and effectiveness between the two heights?' Why is not the 80 ft tower being proposed? -'Q-'--'
Responses to these questions should be elaborated in the proposal.
Environmental site considerations
Even if a toweq 80 ft (or 120 ft) were to be built as proposed, environmental measures arenecessary, as good neighbor and village citizen, to ensure:' Minimal visual intrusion to all affected neighbors during all seasons of the year.' Retention of all possible trees and shrubs for..aron, of visual shielding and of currentenvironmental qualities generally, with review of final plans with affecled residents.' Roads, drainage, and other ancillary fbcilities and effects of use and maintenance musthave demonstrable de minimis impacts on neighbors.
'- -\Expectations of neighbors
Residents of.LowellPlace bought and have maintained and enhanced their properties in thefull expectation that the residential areaitself and the special environmental qualities
surrounding it would remain in the same condition as when the owner moved to Lowell place
and Upland Road. None of the residents had any expectation that they would be intrudedupon by an industrial facility, such as the propoied tower.
' For sake of trust and comity these expectations should not be dashed at this or anv othertime.
Requested of the Village Board
' Defer any further consideration of the tower proposal until the application is judged
complete in its technical, social/environmental, ind,community i.rrr. Ontyitren will arecord/proposal be available to provide for the necessary thoughtful and comprehensive
consideration.
' Ensure that the hearing on the proposa.l is held when all residents within a 500 ft radius
have a reasonable expectation of being notified and present (not possible at this timebecause ofthe scheduling ofthe proposal and at least one resident being absent and not
aware of the application or meeting).
." goncerns of Lowell place Residents for Verizon Tower
September 19, 2005
Page 3 of3
' Provide public notice in the usual ways to all residents of cayuga Heights that this toweris being proposed, and what actions will be and are being taken"to .",ri.* and consider it.
n
Residents of Lowell Place (those with * were not present at the Lowell place meeting)I Christine Olsen and Dennis Miller ,&
2 Steve Bradshaw :&
3 Joan and Theodore Hullar4 Jean-Luc Margot *
5 Chandra and Satya Mohanty6 ZillahEisenstein and Richard Stumbar *
7 Erina and Iwan Azis8 Nancy Boothroyd and Frank Hanshaw9 James Cirona *
10 Judy and John Hopcroft
11 Anita Watkins and Donald Campbell
12 ludy Virgilio
and
Caroline and Jeflrey Rusten, 3lg E. Upland