Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1999-06-24TB 6- 24 -99 TOWN OF DRYDEN SPECIAL TOWNROARD MEETZW .DINE 241, 1999 Supv Schug opened the -meeting at 1{]:5 am. Audience members and guests participated 'in a moment of silence followed by the pledge of allegiance- Roll call by Town Clerk Bambi L. Hollenbeck proved the following in attendance- 1 Beck, C1 T Hat$ekd, Supervisor Schug, Attorney Mahlon R. Perkiris, Absent, C l Grantham and CI C Hatfield, Supv Schug - You have received the minutes utes of our special meeting and hearings an this Matter held on June 1, 1999. Upon motion made, seconded and unanimously carried the minutes of June 1, 1999, were approved. Supv Schug - bet's move to the special permit hearing for Omnipoint at the Pinclmey Road location. I understand Mahlon has some comments on that tnatter, Atty Perkins - You last met on June 1 regarding this application. At that meeting the $4ard discussed the completeness of the application and whether or not there was additional information which should be before the Board in making its decision. As a part of that process the applicant agreed to provide additional prop- 1gation studies which investigated existing sites - In that investigation the applicant determined that it may indeed be possible to co, locate their antenriw, facilities and structures on the existing Cellular One tower site off Simons Hill Road, very close to the proposed location for the applicant's tower - The local Iaw which we have treats co- location as a favored method of resolving these applications. With that in mind, the local law provides that the Town Board may waive certain requirements of the local law and after consulting with Dick Comi who is our consultant, 1 have prepared a resolution which you have before you. The resolution basically converts the application that Ommpoint and Utusite have already made for a tower to an application to co- locate on the Cellular One site- It goes on to impose certain conditions on the spial use perixit to co- locate on that site and it provides that no additional fee should be clue on the conversion from an application for a tower to an application to co- locate. It ilia waives all the requii-ernents of the local law except those which are speciflcaJly Provided in the resolution and it waives any further public hear gs on an application to co-locate. Except to the extent that the special use permit is granted for co- location, the original application is hereby denied- Before you act on that resolutions you will need to consider SEAR- (Asl€ed ZO Slater to make copies of the EAR) One of the other documents I handed out to you is a record of the proceedings (copy provided to Atty Spitzer), which I hunk is comprehensive and lists all of the documents whieb constitute the application, except for the propagation studies which weere submitted and which are referred to in the actual re wlution- One €nf the other documents you have before you is a proposed resolution male ng a determination that the project of co- location will not have a significant effect on the environment and accepting the EAF, and requiring the supervisor to file a negative declaration. Of course you cannot act on that resolution until such time as we have the EAF back and can look at that- quo with respect to the application at Sinnms Hill Road, that is here we are upv Schug - Does anyofxe from the publk wish to speak or have anydiiqg to say's This is a continuation of a public hearing, Page l of 14 r • TB 5 -24 -99 Atty Perkins - Actually, to the extent that you act on this resolution to caavert it from an aPPlicabOn to construct a tower to an application to co ocate, it is riot a public hearing. You don't even have to have the public hearing, Supv Schug - Co�locatian is the way to ga. Hopefully everything works out in that area, Atty Spitzes - Do you have an extra er}py of the resolution? (Given to him by Atty Perkins) 1 Beck - Mahlon, you mentioned certain Town law provisions that are waived when we accept this one What types of thugs are we waiving? Atty Perltins - We have a comprehensive local law regarding the siting of towers and co- locating- That provision of the local law, section 8, subsection O says if you are co- locating, which is really the preferred way to do it, the Board can waive any of the formal requirements of the local law, including having a public hearing, So we are not going to ask Omrupoint to go back and redo a wbole new application. We are god to accept what they have filed and a lot of the conditions which are proposed here I think we already have or they can eamay provide us because it is part of the original application. (Ask=ed Sixpv Schug to give Dick Corm a copy of the resolution.) Dick Comi - Just two questiions, and basically the first one is for Onu- dpoint. You are going to be removing Unisite from the application then? Obviously they are not building this thing, so somehow that ought to be acknowledged,m here that this is an Omnipoint co- location and not Unisite_ Atty Spitzer - I think lie has done that. it think it very clearly says , .. Paragraph two clearly says the Town Board hereby approves a. special use permit for Omnipoint, so Unisite gains nothinS iri terms of a right to build a tower. D Comi - OK, I had not seen this. Atty Spitzer - You had another questi=on? D comi - I think the second thing, Mahlon, was simply a comment more along your Line, Some of the things that we said that Omnipoint doesn't have to do, they did propagation studies from 200' away and showed the reed, Obviously, to have them go back and do something 200' away and do a lot of other studies is not a requirement, so those are the .kin4 of things that when I discussed with Mahlon, as far as I'm concerned would be an absolute waste of everybody's time and effort, money and energy and so forth. Cl Beck - That sounds seasonable. Supv Scbug -And the Six or seven things we asked for shouldn't take long to Put together Mould they? Atty Spitzer - No, I don't thank so, Just briefly in terms of the copy of the lease, nu problem There. The structural certification, we got that from Cell One We always require it, so no problem there. The non - interference arid, actually there is an item in here that 11+Ir. Co d, asked for and IS not i an n the resolution. It says C, the applicant provide a non - interference certificate. I4+1r. Corm had also ^ oh, I'm sorry, certificate of emissions - it is here, It is 2, ray agolagies. Well provide that. I think that our position is as previously stated. We feel the Town is regulating areas outside it's jurisdiction. Page 2 of 14 TB 6 -24 -99 Atty Perkins - And for the record, we are not telling you what it has to say, we are just ® asking for the certificate. Atty Spitzer - So we don't have to have a licensed engineer do it? Our RF engineer can do it? Atty Perkins - You have to comply with the local law. We're not telling you what it has to say. You just have to comply with the local law. Atty Spitzer - Ok, I understand. A copy of the written practices, I think we did that for Unisite. Well amend it to say what Omnipoint's are. But, to the extent of the language, inspection, maintenance, I can't force Cell One to give you something about their maintenance. I can certainly give you for our equipment and what well do. Atty Perkins - You can ask Cell One for a copy of it. Atty Spitzer - I would be more than happy to. I just want that on the record that I can't force Cell One to do anything. In terms of a bond, our intent is to file one. We've asked our bond company to give us a bond on the tower. They said well give you a bond for the removal of your own equipment, we can't give you a bond on the removal of Cell One's tower. You don't own it. So, we intend to ask Cell One to, at Omnipoint's expense, obtain a bond. Obviously, if Cell One says no, we can't go on their tower and satisfy your law. So we can look at that as a future date. And certainly the time frame is adequate to us. The only thing of substance I would note is that you state that you deny the application. One of the things I pointed out in my letter to Mr. Perkins is that we intend to spend a lot of time trying to lease this. We have been trying to lease this for a year. There is no coincidence that our gap is centered on Simms Hill. We thought we'd be able to go on this tower from day one. But if Cell One says no, we ® don't think that it is appropriate to indicate that we have to start this process over again, with our other application. If Cell One says no or if the structure fails so that we can't go there, what happens at that point? This seems to indicate that you want us to submit a whole new application. I'm not sure that's the intent. What I had suggested in my letter was that if the conditions could not be met to satisfy Cell One within sixty days, we would give you written notice and request that you reconsider the construction of the second tower. Doing so, of course, would not in any way indicate that you have to give us the tower or that you think the tower is worthwhile, or in any way commit you to anything. But to the extent that it's denied, I'm concerned because Cell One certainly could say no. They now have a competitor in.effect and the ability to delay us, which frankly was their prior stance. I'm not quite sure how we want to handle that. Atty Perkins - I think the other way to do it is since it seems that what Mr. Spitzer is asking is for the board to table further action on the application. He has been the first to point out to us that we are required to make decisions within a relatively short period of time. If he doesn't want the decision that way and is consenting to the tabling of action on the existing application, then you might consider modifying #6 of the resolveds to read something like "upon issuance of the special use permit after compliance with the conditions herein unposed, and except to the extent herein specifically approved for co- location, the application is hereby denied ", which would deny it at such time as the permits are issued. Atty Spitzer - That's fine with us. Atty Perkins - Is that a satisfactory resolution? Atty Spitzer - Yes. Page 3 of 14 B 6.24.9 T upv Schug - Wh-.e Mahlo 's doing that, why don't we take a look at the short farm environmental assessment farm, which has to be dome sornewh.ere along our project. You have I t its front of you. The application sponsor looks fine. Sui =s Hill site. Modification of existing tower, placing antennas on Cell One tower. Cl Beck - Is that correct language? Modification of cell, tower? Do you modify the tower? Atty Spitzer - If you are asking me in my opinion, no, but as I understand your law you consider any change to an existing tower to be a modification, so I followed your local law both in that question and in paxageaph 12. Supv Schug - By hanging stuff on it you modify it. Atty Spityer - That is my understanding of your local law. Atty Perkins - Although the Cellular One tower was riot subject to this local law. ZO Slater - That is correct, SugV Schng - OK, does any one have any questions about the short form environmental assessment form? fNo questions) Atty Perkins - Before you act on that resolution, I will re -read that #6, but I guess I'd litre to ask i r. Spitzer, are you generally in agreement with regard to what the record consists of up to this point, other than the propagation studies which were, submitted? Atty Spitzer - Yes. Supv Schug - yigi red again if there were any questions and there were none. RESOLUTION NO- 145(1999) RESOLUTION DETER KING T AT ACTION TO APPROVE CO-LOCATION OF ANTENNAE AND FACILITIES AND STRUCTURES ON EXISTING TELECOMMUNICATIONS TELECOMM-UNICATIORS TOWER WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT Councilperson Beck offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption_ WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Dryden, Tompkins County, New York {the " Toaffti") proposes to approve the issuance of a special use permit pursuant to Local Lave No. of the year' 1998 (a local law regulatEng the siting of telecor=unicaffons towers, antennae and related facilities) which special use permit would permit Omnipoint Communications, Inc. to co-locate antennae, accessary fas, hies and structures on the existing Cellular One tower off Simms Hill Road (the "Froject'); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, Chapter 43=13 of the Consolidated Laws of New York, as amended (the "SE R Act") and the regulations adopted pursuant thereto by the Department of Environmental ConservaEon of the State of New York, being 6 NY RR Part 617, as amended (the "Regulations "), the Town Board desires to determine whether the Project may have a I' significant effect ors the environmene (as said is Page 4of14 T8 6-24 99 quoted term is defined Mi the SEAR Act and the Regulations) and therefore require the preparation of an environmental impact statement; and WHERKAS, to aid the Town Board in determining whether the Project may have a significant effect upon the environment, an environmental assessment form (the "EAF") has been presented to and reviewed by the Town Board, copies of which EAF are on file in the office of the Town Clerk; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Regulations, the Town Board has examined the EAF in aide; to make a detcrmination as to the potential environmenrtal alp ifir_ance of the Project; and WHEREAS, the Project does not appear to constitute a mrype I Action" .[as said quoted term is defined in the Regulations), NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF DRYDEN AS FOLLOWS; (1) Based upon an examination of the EAF, and based further upon t1be Town Board's knowledge of the area suTToundir the proposed Project and the fact that the Project does not involve the construction of another telecommunications tower but rather advances the policy of promotifig to- location of telecommunications antennas and accessary facilities and structures whenever feasible and based upon the fact the tower and site already exist upon such further investigation of the Project and the environmental effects as the Town Board has deemed appropri ate, the Town Board makes the fallowing findings with respect to the Project: (A) The Project consists of the installation of telecommunications antennaw and accessory facilities and structures on the existing Cellular One tower and site off Sirnrnc Hill Road without creadng new access to the site and without increasing the height of the existing towel. (B) No potentially significant impacts on the environment are noted in the EAF, and none are known to the Town Board. () Based upon the forego ng investigat=ion of the potential environmental impacts of the.Project and considering both the magnitude and importance of each environmental impact therein indicated, the Town Sward makes the following findings and determinations with respect to the Project: (A) The Project constitutes an 'Unlisted Action' (as said quoted term is definftd in the Regulations); (B) The Project will result in no major impacts and, therefore, is one which will not cause significant damage to the envirnnmrnt. Therefore, the Town Hoard hereby determines that the Project will not have a significant effect on the environment, and the Town Board will not require the preparation of are environmental impact statement with respect to the Project; and (C) As a consequence of the faTegoing, the Town Board has prepared a negative declaration with respect to the Project_ (3) The Town Supervisor is hereby directed to file with the Town Clerk a negative declaration with respect to the Project which shall be avaflable for PiNic inspection during regular business hours. Page 5 of 14 TB 6 -24 -99 (4) This resolution shall take effect immediately. 0 Seconded Councilperson T Hatfield Roll call Vote Cl Beck Yes Cl T Hatfield Yea Surp,J $chug Yes Atty Perldns - The change to the resolution on the 15imms Hill Road application would be as follows, Number six would read ° Upon ooxupliance with the conditions herein imposed and the issuance of the special use permit for co- location on the Cellular One tower, then except to the extent herein specifically approved for co- location, the application to construct a telecommunications tower off iranxs Hill Road is hereby denied', RESOLUTION WO, 146 (19991 CONVERT OMNIPOINT APPLICATION FOR A TOWER ON SIMMS HILL ROAD TO A 00- LOCATION APPLICLATIION Councilperson T Hatfield offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption. WHEREA , the Telecommunications Acct of 1996 axed cases decided thereunder reserve to local ,governments decisions regard siting of telecommunications towers, and WHEREAS, the "Town of Dryden adopted Local Law No. 2 of the year 1998 entitled 'A local law regulating the siting of telecommunications towers, =terinae and related facilities" which local law establishes a policy of strongly encouraging the co4ocation of antennae and accessary facilities or structures on existing structures, towers and other existing suitable locations, and WHEREAS, said local law imposes the requirement upon an applicant to identify such existing towers, str iirWres and other suitable locations, and WHEREAS, the 'Town is in receipt of an application by Omnlpoint Commllmlcations, IM- and Un.isite (the 'applicant) to build a 150' telecommunications tower off Simms Hill Road, amd WHEREAS, there are existiiV Mowers in the same general location of the applicant's proposed site which towels might prove to be suitable for flue installation of the applicant's proposed antt=ae aad accessory facilities or structures, and WHEREAS, the Town Board has on numerous occasions, through its employees and consultants, requested the applicant provide propagation studies for such existing towers at various heights, and WHEREAS, at Che insisten*e of the applicant the Town Board held a public hearing on the application on June 1, 1999, and WHER A , at such public hearing the 'Town Board reiterated its insiaWnve that the applicant provide proof that the existirig towers could not be used for installation of its antennae, accessory facilities and structures and egaipment, and WHEREAS, at said public hearing the applicant agreed to provide additional propagation studies including those for the Cellular One tower off Simms Hill Read, the Page 6 of 14 Tompli ns County tower at 204 Walker Road, the water tank at College axed the Frontier tower off Bradshaw Road, and WHEREAS, upon further ixivestigation by the applicant, is feasible to co- lacatte its antennae, facilities and structures or subject to the applicant being able to enter an agreement with such tower, and TB 6 -24 -99 TuEapkim- ortland Community the applicant determined that it the Cellular One tower and site Cellular One for the joint use of WHEREAS, when an applicant proposes to co- locate its antennae, facilities and structures on an existing tower as opposed to the construction of a new telecommunications Cower Section 8(Q) of the local law permits the Town Board to waive such requiretnents. of the local law as may be for good cause shown, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: 1_ The application of Omnipoint Come,- ruications, Inc. is hereby converted to an application to co- locate its antennae and facilities and structures on the Cellular One tower and site. The Town Board hereby approves a special use permit for Omnipodnt ammunicativns, lncr to ca- locate its antennae and facilities on the existing Cellular Oene tower, without Mi creas9 its beight, on the following conditions: (a) The applicant provide a copy of the lease and landowner consent or satisfactory proof demonstrating an agreement permitting co- location; (b) The applicant provide a structural certification of the suitability of the Cellular One tower including soil samples, foundation reports and the suitability of the structure to ho4se (he applicant's antennae: (c) The applicant provide a non- interference certificate; (d) The applicant provide a copy of the written practices for inspection and maintenance of the tower. site and facilities; (c) The applicant provide 21 certificate of missions; (#} The applicant provide proof of the insurance required by the local law; (9) That a bored or other security in the amount of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,0.00.00.) _be _provided to insure the removal of the Cellular One tower and the applicant's equipmerit upon cessation of the use of such tower by Cellular One and/or the applicant; (h) That all of the foregoiPg be submitted to the Town within six (6) months from the date hereof and prior to the issuance of any building permit and construction at said site_ 3. That upon compliance with the terms of the conditions of this resolution, the Code Enforcement Officer is instructed to issue a. building permit and special use permit to the applicant. Pagc 7 of 14 TB &2.4 -99 4, Since this approval is for co- location on an exiStLng tower and site, except as herein specified, aU other requirements of the local law are hereby waived including the requirement of a public hearing. 0 5. Nn additional fee shs11 be charged the applicant for the conversion of its application. 6_ Except to the extent herein specifically approved for co- location, the application to construct a telecommunications tower off Simms Hill load is hereby denied_ Seconded C ouncilperson Becks Roll Call Vote Cl Beck Yes Cl T Hatfield Yes Supv Schug Yes Atry Perkins - At the same time On June I that you asked for fiuther propagation studies on the Simms Hill application you also asked for additional propagation studies for the Pinckney Road area and you are in receipt of those, or your experts are in receipt of those, and based on those additional propagation studies, there is another proposed resolution. {Copies givers to Atty Spitzer and Dick Conk Atty Spitzer - There's a tower at Nei= and Hanshaw Road? M Crosby - There is no tower there yet. Atty Perkins - Yet being the operative word. Atty Spitzer - Certainly ur terms of the important part, the resolution appears... was have no objection, its fore. In the last two whereas paragraphs, we were asked to look at that site at the supervisor's suggestion that we received on June 7. Your law requires us to look at existing sites. That is not an existing site It's a proposed site for the future_ We agreed to do propagations because it basically seemed to be in the same area, It's your resolution, so you can pass, whatever you like, but it is not necessarily correct to suggest that this tabling is at the request of the applicant_ We just don't have arry objection to it because if it p out that we can build a tower a lot cheaper by going on someone else's we certainly want to. We also want to see when this site is up whether that shadowing is really there like out propagations all show that it is, evexi at this site. So 1 guess I'm -thin kin like a lawyer a little bit here and being nitpicky. I don't have any problem with the action you are taking, but I would respectfully suggest that simply the words 'at the request of the applicant" be removed from the last whereas and it just say the Town Board has agreed. uPv Schug - And who would we be agreeing with other than you'd Atty Spitzer - With all of us, We are certainly agreeing with Your action here, but we haveri't requested this. You requested us to look at a site Outside the scope Of the laver and we said line_ It's your resolution, and the important part is I have no problem with your resolution part, but for the record, I dont want there to be any questions afterward, If it turns Out that that tovier never gets built and we're back in Mere asldng within twelve months for you to reac xaiva ghat application, where it all came about. Agai t n, the resolution is quite clear in the third whereas on the second page that it is a proposed tower. I thitrk we all recognim that it's not an existing site. Ifuiy comments that I just made are rioted in the minutes.._ It would be nice if you'd take out 'at the request of the applicant", but if my comments that I just made are noted in the minutes that may be sufficient. Page 8 of 14 T$ 6624 -99 Petty Perkins -Let me ask you this. How would you feel if it read "Wh.ereas upon agreement between the applicant and the Town Board, they have both agreed to table farther action_" Atty Spitzer - We'd be perfectly happy with that. Thank you for your consideration, Supv S chug - I we you guys brought all your colored maps with you that you worked so hard on. When we pass this resolution we'll give you ten minutes to show us all the hard Ivor. 1 T HatFeld - I'd like to see it, Atty Perkins - In connection with the Pinckney Road application I also prepared a record of proceedings (copy to Mr. Spitzer). Again, except the propagation studies, I think this fairly represents where we axe_ l would ask Mr. Spitzer if he agreed that this reflects what we have so far, so that if we take this up at some time in the future, the only thing we haven't got referred to herein is the propagation studies, which we have not really addressed as, a town board yet. Atty Spitzer - I concur_ RESOLUTIE MNO. 147 (1999 ) - TABLE APPLICATION OFOM.NIPOINT & UNISITE FOR A TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOURER ON PINCKNEY ROAD Courkalperson T Hatfield offered the following resolution and asked for its adoptions; WHEREAS! the 'Telecommunications Act of 1996 and cases decided thereunder reserve to local gmernments decisions regarding siting of telecommunications towers, and WHEREAS, the Town of Dryden adopted Local Law No. 2 of the year 1998 entice "A local lave regulating the siting of telecommunications towers, antennae and related facilities" which local law establishes a policy of strongly encourages the co- location of antennae and accessory facilities or structures on existing structures, towers and other existing suitable locations, and WHEREAS, said local lave imposes the requirement upon an applicant to identify such existing towers, structures and other suitable locations, and WHEREAS, the 'C'own is in receipt of an application by Omnipoint Communications, Iinc. and Urtisite (the applicant") to build a 150' telecommunications tower on Pinckney Road, and WHEREAS, there are existing towers in the same general location of the applicant's proposed site which towers might prove to be suitable for the installation of the applicant's proposed anten.nac and accessory facilities or structures, and WHIEF A , the Town Board has on numerous occasions, through its employees and consultants, requested the applicant provide propagation studies for such eNastir towers at various heights, and WHEREAS, at the insistence of the applicant the Town Berard held a public hearing on the application on June 1, 1999, and WHEREAS, at such public hean'ng the Town Board reiterated its insistence that the applicant provide proof that the existing towers could not be used for installation of its antennae, accessory facilities and structures and equipment, and Page 9 of 14 TB 5- 24 -99 WHEREAS, at said public 'hearing the applicant Agreed to provide additional propagation studies including those for the proposed site at different heights, the Town water tank above the New York State Electric & Gas Corporation property, the T*3np,ins County tower on Mt_ Pleasant Road, the WHCU tower on Mt. Pleasant Road, the Town of Dryden communications tower on Beam Hill Road, and a proposed tower at the southwest corner of Neimi and Hanshaw Road, and WHEREAS, txpotY fu1't11er:Lnvesi Ahon by the applicant, the applicant determined that it may be feasible to co- locate its antennae, facilities and structures on other sites including the site at the southwest corner of Nero d and Hanshaw Roads, and WHEREAS, at the request of the applicant the Town Board has agreed to table further action on the applicatuon pending further invesbgation of the possibility of the installation of a tower at the southwest corner of Ne;m; and Hanshaw Roads which would permit the co- location of several users of such tower thereby furthering the public policy of the Town in promoting such co- location, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWSL 1. FUrther consideration on the application of Omnipoint Communications, Inc. and nisite is hereby{ tabled until such time as the applicant shall request the Town Board further consi fur der the application. This action is without pTejudice to the Town with respect to action on the application including a determination of its completeness and compliance with the provisions of the local law. 3. The applicant may request that the Town Board consider its application at any time within the rxext twelve (12) months and upm such written request the 'down Board shall itchedule a public hearing on such application, Seconded CouncUperson Beck Roll Call Vote C1 Beck Yes Cl T Hatfield Yes Supv Schug ides Poi Crosby - I brought the same plots as I had last tithe, so there is noting new other than the three ring binder that was submitted. These are the same plots that I had last time and I agreed that I would bnng them back as submitted- Supv Schug - OK, does it cover the holes you are looking far, %vh.cther its in our town or outside the town, does it do the job you want. Atty Spitzer - The Sims Hill? Yes, M Crosby - I didn't brims new plots of the Cellular One co- location, but I do have . , . Supv Schug - But you do have your location, 200 feet can't make that much difference. M Crosby - These two here show basicaAY what was proposed. (Pointed out Route 13 for a reference point) The proposed D.Tyden site on Shows Hill Road is here, and the Fag Creek site is here. One of the masons like Dau said about having the second Hanshaw Neimi load built is that yowl have a much better and more acc- arate depiction of the coverage once you Page 10 of 14 TB 6 24 -99 can do an actual live test rather than simulating on the computer. But this is basically what we would look like with the building permit on the Cell One. Supv Schug - Now what's it going to look like in that Pinckney Road site if we go on the Neimi tower, on the computer model. M Crosby - According to the plots that were submitted in the three ring binder, you should see very similar supplemental coverage along 13 and 366, being its up in this area. The site would be right here, so we'd get a little bit more up into this area. Probably not a whole lot more over in the Lansing area. That's again with the propagation model. It's really one of those areas with all the terrain as you get out to the west side there. You really won't know for sure until .... Supv Schug - When you get up there and then you go up 150 - 200 feet, or whatever the tower is, it's pretty flat up on top of the hill. Then you get across the airport and part of Lansing starts to drop off, but not that serious. M Crosby - There's two dips going up to the airport, two that are crucial. And it's covered from the same cell one location, so you can tell what their coverage does. Supv Schug - Thanks for all your hard work. Atty Spitzer - We thank the board, particularly Mr. Perkins for all his hard work in the last week getting all of these resolutions done on such short notice. easier. Supv Schug - I'm glad the co- location worked out for you. It really makes life a lot Atty Spitzer - It certainly does for us. Atty Perkins - Asked that the propagations be left as part of the record and they were. Supv Schug - You have a copy of a memo from Kevin to me regarding the HP Plotter for GIS Mapping. There is no line item for this. The machine has been moved twice. It needs some update, service and repair. As Kevin said, he will see about getting a service contract on it. I would like to have a resolution approve this, not to exceed $911.00 for repairing the HP Plot-ter, and authorize the transfer of $911.00 from contingency A1990.421 to Mapping A6510.4. RESOLUTION #148 - REPAIR HP PLOTTER & TRANSFER FUNDS FOR SAME Cl T Hatfield offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby approves repair to the HP Plotter for GIS Mapping in an amount not to exceed $911.00, and further authorizes the transfer of funds in the amount of $911.00 from Contingency A1990.421 to Mapping A6410.4. 2nd Cl Beck Roll Call Vote Cl Beck Yes Cl T Hatfield Yes Supv Schug Yes Page 11 of 14 TB 6-24 -99 Supv Schug - Back on the 1611 I sent you a copy of the agreement between the Town and the Village for Zoning Officer services. Henry found a couple of minor problems with this • and we sent it back to the Village. One is in 2(a), the inspections, commercial or general occupancy, and multiple dwellings should be inspected every other year. 'Their law calls for multiple dwellings to be done every three years, so Reba's going to change that and get it back to me for signing. The other thing is on the back page. They are now going to pay us by the month, but Reba said the reports could be done quarterly and see how it works out. They actually do their own reports. There is a $500.00 increase. RESOLUTION 0 149 - AUTHORIZE SUPERVISOR TO SIGN CONTRACT WITH VILLAGE OF DRYDEN FOR ZONING & CODE ENFORCEMENT Cl T Hatfield offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby authorizes the Supervisor to sign the contract with the Village of Dryden whereby the Town will provide zoning and code enforcement services to the Village, as amended. 2nd CI Beck Roll Call Vote Cl Beck Yes Cl T Hatfield Yes Supv Schug Yes Supv Schug - As you know, we own part: of the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Plant and we are presently in the middle of working on and they have received a grant in the amount of $11,000,000 to do a lot of work. A SEQR project has to be done. The six owners, the Town of Dryden, Town of Ithaca, City of Ithaca, Village of Cayuga Heights, Village of Lansing and . Town of Lansing would like to have DEC be lead agency in this matter. You have a copy of a proposed letter to Ralph Manna, Regional Permit Administrator at DEC in Syracuse, designating DEC as lead agency for that permit. form. Atty Perkins - This letter says it encloses a copy of a full environmental assessment Supv Schug - The engineers will be doing that. Atty Perkins - Right, but the action is a Type I action. In my opinion it is going to require an environmental impact statement. Does the engineering agreement provide for that money. Supv Schug - That's the next item, yes. They will do all that. Atty Perkins - They will prepare the environmental impact statement for that $52,400? Supv Schug - $84,000 which will be ... Atty Perkins - That brings me to my next question. The amendment to the agreement says that the engineering services are $52,400. Supv Schug - And $14,000 that I'm going to ask for is moving it forward by another $30,000, and that is the engineering agreement. The monies we are going to spend and the additional $30,000 is for Sterns & Wheler to do their unified engineering report, SEQR, environmental review, clean water /clear air bond act grant application. The State got money to help clean up the Finger Lakes and clean up sewers dumping into the Finger Lakes. They put Page 12 of 14 TB 6- 24-99 up $25,000,000 and there are only two sewer plants discharging into the Finger Lakes and that is ours and Cayuga Heights. Therefore there is another $8,000,000 available that the engineers have to apply for by August. They will prepare that and we have a good shot at getting another $8,000,000 to keep upgrading the plant and bring us in to compliance. Atty Perkins - So there is not attached to this cost sharing agreement the additional agreement of Sterns & Wheler for the additional money, the difference between .... Supv Schug - Right it is not, but it was agreed to. Atty Perkins - You approved the $52,400 already. Cl T Hatfield - I remember you reporting at the last meeting the need for the additional dollars that were available. This is the next step, we have the request in writing. Supv Schug - As far as the lead agency, the Town of Dryden doesn't want to do it and it's better if the DEC does it. Cl T Hatfield - Your concern, Mahlon, is what? Atty Perkins - I'm only pointing out that you don't have anything here that says that the additional cost is what Sterns & Wheler has agreed to do. You just have an agreement to share those costs among the six parties, up to the limit of $14,000. This has half the exhibits attached to it that it should have. The other thing I'll point out to you is that this is an equal cost sharing of these engineering services without regard to what percentage of ownership anybody has in the plant. You might want to make your resolution clear that the fact that the Town has agreed to share equally in these costs does not constitute a commitment or a precedent for any future cost sharing. RESOLUTION #150 - AUTHORIZE SUPERVISOR TO SIGN LETTER REQUESTING THAT NYS DEC BE LEAD AGENCY IN IAWWTP APPLICATION Cl T Hatfield offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby authorizes the Supervisor to sign a letter to Ralph Mann, Regional Permit Administrator at the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation in Syracuse, New York, requesting that the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation serve as lead agency in the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Plant's application for Clean Water/ Clean Air Bond Act grant funds for regional wastewater improvements. 2«d Cl Beck Roll Call Vote Cl Beck Yes Cl T Hatfield Yes Supv Schug Yes RESOLUTION #151 - AUTHORIZE $14p000 PAYMENT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR IAWWTP Cl Beck offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: RESOLVED, That this Town Board hereby authorizes the payment of a sum not to exceed $14,000 to the City of Ithaca Comptroller, to be used exclusively for engineering ® services rendered by Stems & Whelcr in connection with the application of the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Plant for grant moneys from the Clean Water/ Clean Air Bond Act, and it Page 13 of 14 TB 6 -24 -99 is further resolved that this action shall not set a precedent of equal sharing for any other costs, including constriction costs, ownership percentages, etc. 2nd Cl T Hatfield Roll Call Vote Cl Beck Yes Cl T Hatfield Yes Supv Schug Yes Supv Schug - Thanked Atty Perkins for his work in connection with the Omnipoint and Unisite applications. Cl T Hatfield - This was the best answer. There's no question about that and the Town doesn't end up with another tower in the middle of it. Atty Perkins - It points up that if you insist on compliance with your local law you can wake them do it. The only thing they hadn't done was complied with the part of the local law that says identify other possible sites and show us you can't use them. Cl Beck - And they had no intention of doing that until we forced them to. Cl T Hatfield - I think you're right, and it works. Cl T Hatfield - I think I can report that with the school district having moved forward and retaining a new superintendent, the Time Warner contract and issues have been in limbo. I spoke with Linda Carr at the school and have been assured that as soon as the new superintendent is on board, within the first week, I'll have a chance to sit down with her and • get that back into motion. Supv Schug - I didn't hear back from Monroe about whether they wanted to do anything with that agreement. Cl T Hatfield - I wanted to ask him today, but I knew they'd been busy with this Omnipoint deal. Maybe we can follow up on it now. Supv Schug - I'll follow up with them. The application for the trail is coming along. Dianne has been working hard on that. Upon motion made, seconded and unanimously carried, the meeting was adjourned at 11:05 am. Respectfully submitted, /Bambi L. 'OH Town Clerk Page 14 of 14 ------------------------------- ® In re: The Application of Omnipoint Communications, Inc. and Unisite for a 150' Telecommunications Tower off Simms Hill Road ------------------------- - - - - -- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 16 Daniel A. Spitzer letter dated 8/18/98 (2 pp) 2. Undated "Special Use Permit Application" 05 pp) 36 Consent of Owner dated 6/23/97 Exhibits A - M to Special Use Permit Application 4. Exhibit A - Site Plans (provided under separate cover) 5. Exhibit B - Technical Data (5 pp) 69 Exhibit C�- Technical Data (1 pg) 7. Exhibit D - Safety Analysis (7 pp) 8. Exhibit E - Questions & Answers - Wireless Communications ® Technology (7 pp) 90 Exhibit F - Radio Station Authorization (2 pp) 10. Exhibit G - Environmental Site Assessment (19 pp) 11. Exhibit H - Coverage Areas (5 pp) 12. Exhibit I - UNR - ROHN letter dated 7/26/97 (2 pp) 13. Exhibit J - Full EAF (8 pp) with visual Addendum (2 pp) 14. Exhibit K - Visual Resource Representation (10 pp + map) 15. Exhibit L - Search History, Dryden (8/5/98) (1 pg) 16. Exhibit M - New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservatoin letter dated 7/23/98 (1 pg) 17. Daniel A. Spitzer letter dated 8/21/98 (1 pg) 18. Application for Special Permit and Building Permit dated 8/31/98 (2 PP) 19. Application for Dryden Town Zoning Permit dated 8/31/98 (4 pp) 1 20. Daniel A. Spitzer letter to Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning dated 8/21/98 (1 pg) 21. Letter from Richard Comi to Tom Ball dated 10/20/98 (1 pg) 22. Letter from Daniel A. Spitzer to Richard Comi dated 10/23/98 (2 PP) 23. Letter from Mark Kulik to Richard Comi dated 10/23/98 (1 pg) 24. Letter from Richard Comi to Mark Kulik dated 11/4/98 (3 pp) 25. Letter from Daniel A. Spitzer to Richard Comi dated 11/27/98 (5 pp) 26. Letter from Richard Comi to Mark Kulik dated 12/12/98 (3 pp) 27. Letter from Mark Kulik to Richard Comi dated 1/15/99 28. Letter from Richard Comi to James F. Schug dated 2/22/99 ( 4 pp) 29. Letter from Richard Comi to Mark Kulik dated 2/24/99 (1 pg) 309 Letter from Daniel A. Spitzer to Mahlon R. Perkins dated 5/7/99 (7 pp) 31. Letter from Daniel A. Spitzer to Henry M. Slater dated 5/12/99 (3 PP) 32. Henry M. Slater memo dated 5/19/99 re: SEQR lead agency 33. Letter from Henry M. Slater to James F. Schug dated 5/20/99 (1 pg) 34. Letter from Henry M. Slater to Mark Kulik dated May 20, 1999 (1 pg) 35. Letter from Henry M. Slater to Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning (1 pg) 36. Letter from Tompkins County Fire & EMS Service to Mark Kulik dated 5/26/99 (8 pp) 37. Letter from Mark Kulik to Tompkins County Fire & EMS Service dated 5/28/99 (1 pg) 38. Letter from James W. Hanson, Jr., Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning to Henry M. Slater dated 5/28/99 (2 pp) 39. Letter from Evan and Tracy Kurtz to Henry M. Slater dated 5/31/99 40. Memo from Henry M. Slater to James F. Schug dated June 1, 1999 41. Minutes of public hearing held June 1, 1999 (30 pp) 42. Letter from Richard Comi to Michael R. Crosby dated June 4, 1999 ( 3 pp) 43. Letter from Richard Comi to Michael R. Crosby dated June 7, 1999 (1 pg) 44. Letter from Daniel A. Spitzer to Mahlon R. Perkins dated June 21, 1999 (2 pp) 45. Letter from Daniel A. Spitzer to Mahlon R. Perkins dated June 23, 1999 (2 pp) ------------------------------- ® In re: The Application of Omnipoint Communications, Inc. and Unisite for a 150' Telecommunications Tower on Pinckney Road ------------------------- - - - - -- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 19 Daniel A. Spitzer letter dated 8/18/98 (2 pp) 2. Undated "Special Use Permit Application" (5 pp) 3. Consent of Owner dated 7/4/97 Exhibits A - M to Special Use Permit Application 4. Exhibit A - Site Plans (provided under separate cover) 5. Exhibit B - Technical Data (5 pp) 6. Exhibit C - Technical Data (1 pg) 7. Exhibit D - Safety Analysis (7 pp) 8. Exhibit E - Questions & Answers - Wireless Communications ® Technology (7 pp) 99 Exhibit F - Radio Station Authorization (2 pp) 10. Exhibit G - Environmental Site Assessment (23 pp) 11. Exhibit H - Coverage Areas (5 pp) 12. Exhibit I - UNR - ROHN letter dated 7/26/97 (2 pp) 13. Exhibit J - Full EAF (11 pp) with visual Addendum (2 pp) 14. Exhibit K - Visual Resource Representation (10 pp + map) 15. Exhibit L - Search History, Dryden (8/5/98) (1 pg) 16. Exhibit M - New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservatoin letter dated 7/23/98 (1 pg) 17. Daniel A. Spitzer letter dated 8/21/98 (1 pg) 18. Application for Site Plan Review and Building Permit dated 8/31/98 (7 pp) 19. Application for Dryden Town Zoning Permit dated 8/31/98 (2 pp) N 20. Daniel A. Spitzer letter to Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning dated 8/21/98 (1 pg) 21. Letter from Richard Comi to Tom Ball dated 10/20/98 (1 pg) 22. Letter from Daniel A. Spitzer to Richard Comi dated 10/23/98 (2 PP) 23. Letter from Mark Kulik to Richard Comi dated 10/23/98 (1 pg) 24. Letter from Richard Comi to Mark Kulik dated 11/4/98 (3 pp) 25. Letter from Daniel A. Spitzer to Richard Comi dated 11/27/98 (5 PP) 26. Letter from Richard Comi to Mark Kulik dated 12/12/98 (3 pp) 27. Letter from Mark Kulik to Richard Comi dated 1/15/99 28. Letter from Richard Comi to James F. Schug dated 2/22/99 (4 PP) 29. Letter from Richard Comi to Mark Kulik dated 2/24/99 (1 pg) 309 Letter from Daniel A. Spitzer to Mahlon R. Perkins dated 5/7/99 (7 pp) 31. Letter from Daniel A. Spitzer to Henry M. Slater dated 5/12/99 (3 PP) 32. Henry M. Slater memo dated 5/19/99 re: SEQR lead agency 33. Letter from Henry M. Slater to James F. Schug dated 5/20/99 (1 pg) 34. Letter from Henry M. Slater to Mark Kulik dated May 20, 1999 (1 pg) 35. Letter from Henry M. Slater to Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning (1 pg) 36. Letter from Tompkins County Fire & EMS Service to Mark Kulik dated 5/26/99 (8 pp) 37. Letter from Mark Kulik to Tompkins County Fire & EMS Service dated 5/28/99 (1 pg) 38. Letter from James W. Hanson, Jr., Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning to Henry M. Slater dated 5/28/99 (2 pp) 39. Memo from Henry M. Slater to James F. Schug dated June 1, 1999 r. 40. Minutes of public hearing held June 1, 1999 (30 pp) 41. Letter from Richard Coma, to Michael. R. Crosby dates] June 4, 1999 (3 pp) 42. Letter from Richard Comi to Michael R. Crosby dated June 7, 1999 (1 Pg) 43. Letter fre�m Daniel A. Spitzer to Mahlon R. Perkins dated June 21, 1999 ( PIS) L PLEASE PRINT Name TCWN Cr M)ymIEN TrnN•n Board Meeting June 1999 v1 q 1 Address v��A�az , k)k.W yaiz< u 60v%e%0, ul /�- ivirf.m !, , 0 11� �+ acs ) 1� a /P,� SP�TzC2 Esg /- /oy6E5o� � �as5 ice: �I r �1�a5 "��r �•� ��r�C�ei✓ l n � ✓ �r � rJ.�J2n1 /� Address v��A�az , k)k.W yaiz< u 60v%e%0, ul /�- ivirf.m !, , 0 11� �+ acs ) 1� a /P,� SP�TzC2 Esg /- /oy6E5o� � �as5 ice: �I r �1�a5 "��r �•� ��r�C�ei✓ l n � ✓ �r � rJ.�J2n1 /�