No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-06-24`rB 6 -24 -2009 TOWN OF DRYDEN SPECIAL TOWNBOARD MEETING JUNE 24, 2009 Present: Supervisor Mary Ann Sumner, Cl Stephen Stelick, Jr., Cl Joseph Solomon, Cl David Makar, CI Jason Leifer Elected Officials: Bambi L. Hollenbock, Town Clerk Other Town Staff: Mahlon R_ Perkins, Town Attorney Kevin Ezell, Zoning Officer Jeff Kirby, Telecommunications Consultant Supv Sumner opened the meeting at 6:10 p.m. and board members and guests participated in the pledge of allegiance. Supv Sumner said the Recreation Department needs a four -bay sink in order to meet. Health Department requirements for its events such as Music in the Park where food is being served. The cost for a new sink is around $2,500. The Recreation Director has an opportunity to purchase a used sink on E -bay for $1,050.00 if we can cut a check soon. She asked the board to approve the voucher for payment. RESOLUTION #109 — APPROVE VOUCHER FOR IMMEDIATE PAYMENT Cl Stelick offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby approves voucher #567, payment to Concessions Plus in the amount of $1,050.00, and directs that the check be cut and sent to the vendor immediately. 2nd CI Solomon Roll Call Vote Cl Stelick Yes Cl Solomon Yes Supv Sumner Yes Cl Leifer Yes VERIZON WIRELESS SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION TO CONSTRUCT A TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER AT 1536 HANSHAW ROAD The board received a document prepared by Atty Perkins containing summaries of the background of the application, public hearing and comments, findings, environmental review, and determination. Atty Perkins advised the board to review part one of the environmental assessment form and complete part two. Supv Sumner stated the applicant is Upstate Cellular Network d /b /a Verizon Wireless quid read the following from part one of the EAF. A. Site Description — 1. The present land use is residential and forest. Page l of 23 IWO TB 6 -24 -2009 • 21 Total acreage - .65. Presently .65 acres is forested and following the construction .346 acres will be meadow, .01 will be forest, and .25 will be the yard and access drive, and .009 will be roads, buildings and other paved surfaces. 3. The predominant soil type is Langford chatuiery silt loam. 3a. The soil drainage is 100% well - drained. 4. There are no bedrock outcroppings, but according to Soil Conservation Service maps, the depth to bedrock is 1.84 feet. 5. Zero to 10% of the site is sloped. 6,7. There is no historic building, site or district nearby. 8. Depth to water table is 1.23 feet according to the Soil Conservation Service. 9. It is not located over a primary, principal or sole source aquifer. 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? No. 1.1. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified • as threatened or endangered? According to Earth Dimensions, Inc. on August 22, 2008, the answer is no. Supv Sunnier said she also reviewed a study prepared for the 'Town of Ithaca on the Sapsucker Woods area and said she was surprised how fear fair species were involved. There are some grasses and such, but that was it. 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? No. 13. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? After discussion, the board agreed the answer should be ves. 14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? No. 1.5. Streams within or contiguous to project area: None 16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: None 17, is the site served by existing public utilities? Yes. 18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 24 -AA? Noy. 19. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL and 6 NYCR.R 617? No. Supv Sumner noted that it is not far from the Sapsucker Woods natural area. Page 2 of 23 TB 6 -24 -2009 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or ha7ardous wastes? No. 13, Project Description. 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project: (a) Total contiguous acres owned by or controlled by sponsor - .65 acres (b) Acreage to be developed - .294 inital.ly and .294 ultimately (e) Acreage to remain undeveloped - .356 (d) Length of project in miles - N/A (e) No expansion is planned. (t) Two off street parking spaces are proposed. (g) Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour - 2 -3 per month. (h) There are no housing units on the project site. (i) Dimensions in feet of largest proposed structure: 1 1.4' tower height; 11'6" building width, 30' long building length (j) Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare - 30'. 2. How much natural material will be removed from the site - None 3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed - Yes, graded Fuld seeded. Topsoil and upper subsoil will be stockpiled for reclamation. 4. How many acres of vegetation will be removed - .294 acres 5. Will any mature forest: (over 100 years old) be removed - No. 6. It is a single phase project with a three month anticipated construction time. 7. Multi- phased - N/A 8. Will blasting occur - No 9. Number of jobs generated during construction - 10; after completion - None. 1.0. Number of jobs eliminated by this project - None. 1.1. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities - No. 12. Is surface liquid wast.c disposal involved - No. 13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved - No. 14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by this proposal - No. '15. Is this project or any part of the project in a 100 year flood plain - No. 16. Will the project generate solid waste - No. 17. Will the project; involve the disposal of solid waste - No. is18. Will the project use herbicides or pesticides - No. Nape 3 of 23 `hQ 6 -24 -2009 19. Will the project routinely produce odors - No. 20. Will the project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise level - No. 21. Will the project result in increased energy use - Yes, it %will use some electricity. it. was noted there is a backup generator that «rill operate once a week and if the power is out. It is housed in the shelter and within the screened area. It is similar to a typical house generator. 22, 23. Water supply - N/A 24. Does project involve local, state or federal funding - No. 25. Approvals required: Special Use hermit and Site Plan Approval from Towr► Board. Supv Sumner asked whether Tompkins County Planning should be listed and Att_y Perkins said their approval is not actually needed but their §239(1) and (in) review can be noted. FAA approval is not required for the project before the board for purposes of SEQR. Applicant: has a letter stating the tower will not cause interference, so they do not need a permit. FAA must be notified when construction is complete. . C. Zoning and Planning Information 1. Does proposed actin involve a planning or zoning decision - Yes, site plan and special use permit. 2. Zoning Classification - 12.13-1 Residential 3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted - N/A 4. Proposed zoning is the same as existing. 5. Maximum potential development is the same. 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans - Yes. 7. What: are the predominate land uses and zoning classifications within a '/o mile radius of the proposed .action - Residence, wooded, agricultural, RB -1. Commercial was added by the board. 8. is the proposed action compatible with adjoining /surrounding land uses within a quartc,r mile - Yes 9. Subdivision of land - N/A 10. Will the proposed action require any authorization for the formation of sewer or water disticts - No. 11. Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire protection - No. 12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels - No. Supv Sumi clarified by saying construction site, a week and in the Ter noted the areas that that the Uhl property is On #20 under Project D event of a pourer failure, had been revised: served by existing escript:ion it was n but it is insulated Page 4 of 23 # 17 under Site. Description was public, utilities, but not the oted the generator was used once and below the ambient noise TB 6 -24 -2009 level. On #25 under Project Description with respect to approvals required, special permit was changed to "special use permit", under other local agencies, Tompkins County Planning Dept §239(1) and (m) recommendation, and under Federal Agencies, FAA was added. In #7 under Zoning and Planning Information, "commercial" was added to the current land uses. On behalf of the applicant, Jared Lusk stated he concurs with the changes. Supv Sumner reviewed the instructions for Part 2 - Project Impacts and Their Magnitude and the board proceeded with completion of Part 2. Impact on Land 1. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site - Yes, small to moderate impact. Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than 3 feet and construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within three feet of existing ground surface. 2. Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site - No. impact on Water 3. Will proposed action affect any water body designed as protected - No. 4. Will proposed action affect any non - protected existing or new body of water - No. 54 Will proposed action affect: any surface or groundwater quality or quantity - No. Supv Sumner note(] the implications of this clearly does extend beyond the actual construction site. But it is not close enough to any water body to have any effect. She said none of the examples listed apply. it was noted there should not be any significant change during construction as it is at the top of a hill. There will be a temporary disturbance of groundwater during construction only and the applicant will obtain any necessary permit. Applicant well still have to take the necessary siltation prevention measures. 6. Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns or surface water runoff- No. impact on Air 7. Will proposed action affect air quality - No. Impact on Plants and Animals 8. Will proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species - No. 9. Will proposed action affect any non - threatened or non - endangered species - No. impact on Agricultural Land Resources 10. Will proposed action affect agricultural land resources - No_ impact: on Aesthetic Resources 11. Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources - Yes. Proposed land use or project components obviously different from or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether man -made or natural - Small to moderate impact. Can impact be mitigated Page 3' of 23 `)'B 6 -24 -2009 ® by project change - No. It was noted the project: has been moved further from nearby residences, and the tower will be of lattice design rather than a monopole. Supv Sumner said the project has been mitigated as far as it can be. No additional change can be made to reduce the small to moderate impact. Impact on Historic and Archaeological Resources 12. Will proposed action impact. any site or structure of historic, prehistoric or paleontological irnportance - No, impact on Open Space and Recreation 13. Will proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities - Yes. Under other impacts it was noted there is a small to moderate impact on the Sapsucker Monkey Run wildlife corridor. Supv Sumner referred to the study done for the 'Town of Ithaca. This is a very small impact: that cannot be mitigated. impact on Critical Environmental Areas 14. Will proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area (CEA) established pursuant to subdivision 6NYCRR 617.14(8) - No. impact on Transportation 1.5. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems - No. Impact on EnerKy 16. Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply - No. Noise and Odor Impact 17. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the proposed action - No. Supv Sumner noted what little noise there is from the generator NA411 not be objectionable. Impact on Public Health 18. Will proposed action affect public health and safety. Supv Sumner said she understands there is some controversy here, but according to all the studies available, it will not. The "no" box was checked. impact on Growth and Character of Community or Neighborhood 19. Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community - Yes. Examples given on the form do not apply. There was some discussion about whether it would set a precedent and ii: was decided it. would not, because the procedure is in accordance with local laws. This is a use allowed by special permit and is deemed to be compatible once appropriate conditions are attached. Any proposed extension is not considered with this application, and will be a separate application. After discussion, under other impacts, a small to moderate visual aesthetic impact was noted. 20. Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts- Yes. It was noted that a number of people spoke at the public hearing in February, Emails and other written comments were submitted. The hearing was continued Page 6 of 23 TB 6 -24 -2009 in March, April and May. Comments and controversy have been addressed or will be addressed in the findings statement. Part III was not completed because no potentially large impacts were identified. The board reviewed the Visual EAF Addendum. Atty Perkins explained this is to help them answer question 11. on the EAF. There will be an impact no matter what. Visibility 1. Would the project be visible from (distance): Applicable items are: A parcel of land which is dedicated to and available to the public for the use, enjoyment and appreciation of natural or man -made scenic qualities? Cornell Recreation Park Trail, '/1 to 3 miles. Count} Road? Hanshaw Road, 0 to `A mile. Local Roads? Applicant lists: 2MM Freese Road Bluegrass Lane Plantations Road Mt Pleasant Road Monkey Run Road Approximate distance 0.50 miles 0.63 miles L46 miles 1.42 miles 0.87 miles After discussion, the board also added Sapsucker Woody Road, Cardinal Drive, Meadowlark Drive, and Sanctuary Drive. 2. Is the visibility of the project seasonal? No 3. Are any of the resources checked in question 1 used by the public during the time of year during which the project; will be visible? No 4. From each item checked in question 1, check those which generally describe the surrounding environment. The board checked: Essentially undeveloped - within 1/4 mile Forested - within '/4 mile Agricultural - within '/4 mile, Suburban residential - within 'A mile Commercial - within %4 mile 5. Are there visually similar projects within (name distance)? Applicant lists: Spectrasite tower 1.46 miles from proposed site. is Spectrasite tower 1.59 miles from proposed site. UNlsite tower 1.61 miles from proposed site. 3G Solutions 2.56 miles from proposed site. Page 7 of 23 TB 6 -24 -2009 Exposure 6. The annual number of viewers likely to observe the proposed project. Applicant lists an average daily view of 100, and 36,500 per year, using traffic counts on Freese Road. Supv Sumner noted there are available traffic counts for Hanshaw Road at Muriel Street and also at Etna Road. After discussion, the traffic count for Hanshaw Road at Muriel Street of 5,624 (daily) was used as a closer estimate. Using the formula, the total estimated views per year was changed to 102,821. 7. The situation or activity in which the viewers are engaged while viewing the proposed action is all of the following: Travel to and from work, recreational activities, routine travel, at residence and at. worksite. J Lusk acknowledged that he had followed along line by line as the board reviewed the EAF and consents on behalf of the applicant to the changes made. The board conrinned that with respect to question 11 on the EAF, will proposed action affect aesthetic resources; the yes box was checked, small to moderate impact:, because the project components are obviously in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns. Further mitigation is not possible. • RESOLUTION #110 - NEG SEQR DEC - Verizon Tower on Hanshaw Road Cl Stelick offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: WHEREAS, A. The proposed action involves consideration of the application of Upstage Cellular Network d /b /a Verizon Wireless (Verizon) for a special permit and site plan approval to construct a 11.4' telecommunications tower with 4' lightning rod, equipment shed, fencing, and related appurtenances and equipment on property of Charles Uhl and Natalie Uhl at or near 1505 Hanshaw Road (` %own of Dryden Tax Map No. 43.- 1 -17), B. The proposed action is an Unlisted Action for which the Town Board of the Town of Dryden is the lead agency for the purposes of uncoordinated environmental review in connection with approval by the 'loan. C. The Town Board of the Town of Dryden, in performing the lead agency function for its independent and uncoordinated environmental review in accordance with Article 8 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law - the State Environmental Quality Review Act "(SEQR), (i) thoroughly reviewed the Full Environmental Assessment Form (the `Full EAF" ), Part I, the Visual EAR Addendum and any and all other documents prepared and submitted with respect to this proposed action and its environmental review, (ii) thoroughly analyzed the potential relevant areas of enviromnental concern to determine if the proposed action may have a significant adverse impact on the environment, including the criteria identified in 6 NYCRR §617.7(c), and (iii) completed the Full EAF, Part II; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: Page 8 of'23 TB 6 -24 -2009 1. The Town Board of the Town of i7ryden, based upon (i) its thorough review of the Full EAF, Part 1, Visual EAF Addendum and any and all other documents prepared and submitted with respect to this proposed action and its environmental review, (ii) its thorough review of the potential relevant areas of environmental concern to determine if the proposed action may have a significant adverse impact. on the environment, including the criteria identified in 6 NYCRR §617.7(c), and (iii) its completion of the Full CAF, hart II, including the findings noted thereon (which findings are incorporated herein as if set forth at length), hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance ( "Negative Declaration ") in accordance with SEQR for the above referenced proposed action, and determines that an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required, and 2. The Responsible Officer of the Town Board of the Town of Dryden is hereby authorized and directed to complete and sign as required the determination of significance, confirming the foregoing Negative Declaration, which fully completed and signed Full EAR and determination of significance shall be incorporated by reference in this Resolution. 211d Supv Sumner Roll Call Vote C1 Stelick Yes Cl Solomon Yes Supv Sumner Yes Cl Leifer Yes Cl Makar arrived. The board reviewed the document prepared by Atty Perkins detailing the application including the following components: background, public hearing/ comments, findings, environmental review, and determination. Supv Sumner read each of the conditions. J Lusk said that Verizon Wireless, under the FCC, is required to comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. He doesn't feel they should be obligated to follow American Tower's protocol because Verizon has its own policies. They will comply with the requirements of the FAA and FCC and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, but he does not. feel they should be held to a standard developed by another company that may change from time to time. After discussion, condition number 9 was changed to reflect that Verizon will comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act as outlined in a letter dated March 11, 2009, from Barbara Fisher Clifford and submitted as Exhibit FF. Verizon does not go on the towers at nesting time unless there is an emergency. The amount of the performance bond was set at $30,000. The Town of Dryden :s standard conditions of approval (1 -9 -08) were reviewed. There was discussion about condition number 13, which states that microwave dishes not be installed until such time as a local system which utilizes that technology is installed. This will be an administrative function of the Zoning Officer. If the condition were removed, a new permit would be required to install the microwave dishes. J Lusk said Verizon will not put them up until they are needed. The board agrees to the conditions. Cl Leifer asked Jeff Kirby whether the same coverage could be achieved with towers that is were smaller in height in the area. J Kirby said Verizon is attempting to provide additional overall capacity to the system by increasing coverage PCS band. This could be done with microcells. The challenge is to minimize the quantity of those sites and the height of each of Page 9 of 23 TB 6 -24 -2009 them, yet provide coverage to the same area as the single tower that has been proposed. Telephone poles are often not tall enough and have other uses that can present issues of ownership and access, etc. Much of the coverage area. is wooded and the terrain is rough, and considc;ring the layout of the roads and the :areas where people live or work, it is his opinion that: Verizon would need at least rive sites that are at least 30' or 40' tall (minimally) if there were no trees at all. Because there are trees, more sites would be required. The sites would be three - quarters of a mile to a mile apart and each would require radio equipment to process the signal. The town would end up with six to ten sites that would have to be individually permitted under local law, RESOLUTION # 111 - APPROVE APPLICATION OF VERIZON WIRELESS FOR A TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER AT 1536 HANSHAW ROAD Cl Stelick offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: TOWN OF DRYDEN TOMPKINS COUNTY S'T'ATE OP NEW YORK in the Matter of the Application of Upstate Cellular Network d /b /a Verizon Wireless for a Special Permit and Site Plan Approval for a 1.14 -foot Telecommunications Tower on Premises of Charles Uhl and Natalie Uhl at 1.536 Hanshaw Road 0 BACKGROUND Upstate Cellular Network d /b /a Verizon Wireless (herein "Verizon "), by application dated September 9, 2008 (Exhibits A -S and Zoning Site Flan, Sheets "L -1, Z -2 and Z -3) applied for a special permit and site plan .approval to construrt a telecommunications tower, equipment shed and site improvements on property of Charles Uhl and Natalie Uhl, 1.504 Hanshaw Road ('Town of Dryden Tax Map No. 43.- 1 -17). The street address for the site has been designated as 1736 Hanshaw Road. Verizon supplemented its application by submittals dated October 14, 2008 (Exhibits T, U), December 8, 2008 (Exhibits VwBB), February 11, 2009 (Exhibit CC), February 13, 2009 (Exhibit DD), March 11, 2009 (Exhibits SE-1-1H), April 3, 2009, April 8, 2009 and April 28, ® 2009 (Exhibits Ii -MM). Page 10 of 23 TB 6 -24 -2009 The application included a Full Environmental Assessments Form and a Visual EAF Addendum. At the request of the Town Board, Verizon conducted a second balloon demonstration at the site on April 16, 2009 to demonstrate the visual impact of the height. of the proposed tower and possible future extension. Verizon submittals also included photo simulations of the proposed tower. Town staff reviewed the Verizon submittals and commented on them in correspondence dated September 12, 2008, September 24, 2008, October 7, 2008, November 4, 2008) December 15, 2008, December 19, 2008, January 1.2, 2009, January 29, 2009, February 9, 2009, February 11, 2009, February 19, 2009, March 3, 2009, March 6, 2009, March 9, 20091 April 7, 2009, April 27, 2009 and May 1, 2009 (Henry M. Slater, Director of Building, Zoning and Planning to Mary Ann Sumner, Town Supervisor) and January 27, 2009 and February 10, 2009 (Dan Kwasnowski, Environmental Planner to Surnner). The gown's consultant on telecommunications towers applications, JelTrey B. Kirby, • P.E., reviewed and commented on the Verizon submittals in correspondence dated October 30, 2008, Janua.ry 26, 2009, February 20, 2009, February 26, 2009, March 27, 2009, April 27, 2009, April 28, ''2009 and May 8, 2009 (Kirby to Slater), and on questions posed by gown board member Jason Leifer in correspondence dated June 1, 2009, The Tompkins County Department of Planning pursuant to its role; under General Municipal Law 239 -1 and 239 -m in a letter dated October 30, 2008, commented on the application and determined that the project may have negative inter- community or county -wide impacts thereby triggering the supermajority vote requirement unless the project was modified according to four (4) recommendations. The Tompkins County Environmental Management Council (TCl'.:MC), in a memorandum dated February 27, 2009, made recommendations concerning the project. The Town of Ithaca was invited to comment: on the application but failed to do so. The Town of Dryden Conservation Board reviewed the, application but took no official isposition, although two board members who are recognized authorities on birds opined that the project should not pose a significant ha7ard to the bird population. Page I 1 of 23 TB 6=24 -2009 PUBLIC HEARING /COMMENTS The town board held a public hearing on the application on February 11, 2009, and continued the hearing on March 11, 2009, April $, 2009, and May 13, 2009 when it closed the public hearing. Written comments were received from Michael Ludgate, an adjacent landowner, in correspondence dated February 11, 2009, March 11, 2009 and May 13, 2009, and from Hilary Lambert, Nancy Morgan and Stephen Wagner (Friends of Hanshaw - Sapsucker) dated April 22, 2009 and from Hilary Lambert (Friends of Han shaw- Sapsucker) dated May 130 2009. An email was received from Jack Bush, Town of Dryden Highway Superintendent (April 13, 2009), commenting on the need for redundancy in communications systems in the case of emergencies. Email comments were also received from Hilary Lambert, Herbert J. Engman, William ® Sonnestahl, Jake Weiskoff, Kick Kaufman, Rachel Dickinson, Lynne S. Williams, Kate Coddington Senner, Peter lan Kuniholm, Adam Engst, Julia Bonney, Walter D. Koenig, Alex Gonzalez, Charles Bartosch, Lou De Pot, Sandy Wald, Teri Ann Zdanowski, Christianne White, Martin Hatch, Howard Evans, Alexis C. Falise, Karen Kaufman, Lars Washburn, Angela Andiorio, Brian Maltzar, Jonathan Ames, Carol Miller, Jane P. Riccobono, Genevieve De Clerck, Hugh Edwards, Nick Feia, "Theresa George, Michael A. Koplinka- Loehr, Katrina Rodmin, Rosa Dice, Robert McCurdy, Scott Perez, Lesley Greene, "Shedskin," Amanda Steinhardt, Jon Zeserson, Natalie Detcnt, Gwen Curtis, Danielle Nelson, Nate Marshall, Hanan Zeiman, Jody Levitt, Micki Schulenberg, Eileen Erickson, Linda Orkin, Joan Tedels, Debbie and Bingham Cady, Lisa Ann Wright, M.P. Mickelson, Twylene Bethard, Edith O. McCrea, Pamela G. Strausser, Susan Verberg, Dan Pendleton, F. Robert Wesley, Laura Martin, Deb Murdough, Pam Gueldner, Jennifer Marshall, Tom Shelley, Eric A. Ludwig, Donald J. Barry, Brian At:zberger, and K..E. Sa'ttig von Wittelsbach. Eight of the emails gave no substantive reasons for rejecting the application. 20 commented on the .Aesthetics and visual pollution of cell towers. Page 12 of 23 TB 6 -24-2009 ® 26 thought the tower should be located elsewhere. Only one suggested other locations. One suggested location was near NYSEG at the intersection of Routes 13 and 366 (the location of an existing Verizon tower) and the other location was on Route 79 near the town line (a location for removed from the area sought to be served by proposed tower). Seven people commented on their concerns for birds. 23 writers related that they felt. Verizon service in the area to be served by the tower was already adequate. Four had concerns about the tower location and the airport. Three commented on the need for co- location and the need to disguise or camouflage the tower. Three also were concerned about the impact on property values. Four writers felt there could be an impact on Ludgate's Market. One writer felt the town should reject any monetary offer from Verizon. The same writer felt a visual assessment should be conducted when the leaves were off the trees. One writer commented on the impact of the Cornell University Laboratory of Ornithology. towers. Another commented about the height of the tower. One suggested that the proposed site was a Unique Natural Area. One writer suggested that the town enact a moratorium on the construction of cell Many writers sent emails on more than one occasion. An analysis of the email comments reveals that over two - thirds of the writers are from outside the Town of Dryden. At the four public meetings/ hearings on the project, the town board heard Jared Lusk, Esq., Cathy Pompiano, Gregory Flanley, Ken Cowley, and Thomas Greiner, Esq., on behalf of 0 Verizon. Page 13 of 22 3 TB 6-24-2009 The board also hear(] from Herb Engman, Bill 8coanes (in writing), Hilary Lambert (in writing), Nancy Morgan (in writing), Michael Ludgate (in Wr ling), William Sorinenstahl (Northeast ]thocs. Neighborhood Associationj, Thomas Farlovw, Stephen Wagner, Brian Atzberger, Margaret Renwick (in writing), David Gcorge, Nance Munk-enbeck, Cruy Girard and Martha Roberl.n_ FINDI NC3 S Tomnlcins County Department of Plannin '7�j CP01 Pursuant to its review authority under General Municipal Law 2391 and 239 -m, the TC'PD invoked the u rmajorit,}� vote requirernen( For approval of the application unless four modifications to the application were required These modifcation% included= 1 _ A Fed craI !Aviation Administration (VA A) review due to the proximity of the tower ite to the airport, if the Cower is to be lighted, the impact on avian communities be evaluated and the Laborator}? of Ornithology be consulted, 3. 'rhe tower location be moved closer to the center of the parcel to reduce: the impact on residences and visibility from Hanshaw Road, 4. The Tompkins County Emergency Response Department be consulted regarding possible impacts on the County's Public Safety Communications System_ The Town Board hereby finds, based upon its review of the application and the materials supplementing it, including 41,ukements and representations made by and on behalf of the a.pplicarnt, which statements and representations. the Town Board relies upon as being true, aceurate and complete, that the TC PD concerns have h".n adc(I uately addressed in that; 0 (a) W-rizon provided a "Determination of No Hazard 1x> Air Navigation" from the FAA (Exhibit X to r.hrL December 8, 2008 submittal). Page 14 01'23 TB 6 -24 -2009 (b) No lighting is proposed. Should the height of the tower he extended beyond 119' lighting may be required. Such an extension would be subject to a further application to the town board. (c) The tower location has been moved toward the center of the parcel and away from the closest residences and the Ludgate property, thus minimizing the visual impact from the closest residences, the Ludgate property and Hanshaw Road. (d) Verizon has provided a "Statement of Non - Interference' (Exhibit: FI to the September 9, 2008 submittal) which clearly explains that the Federal Communications Commission requires Vernon to transmit solely on its assigned frequencies as it does Tompkins County in its "Public Safety Communications System." • Tompkins County Environmental Management Council rrCEMC) The TCEMC recommendations have been partially addressed by Verizon: (a) The tower has been moved closer to the center of the parcel, reducing the visual impact on the nearest: neighbors. (b) The town board cannot consider the effect of the tower on human health since this area of concern is specifically preempted by federal law. (c) The tower will be less visible if constructed as a lattice type structure rather than as a monopole, even if disguised as a tree. (d) Although given many opportunities to comment on the; application, the Cornell University Laboratory of Ornithology has riot: taken a position on the application. (c) Any drainage concerns in connection with the minor ground disturbance will be addressed and monitored in a St:ormwater Pollution Prevention Plan required by Town of Dryden Local Law No. 4 of the year 2007. Page 15 of 23 FR 6 -24 -2009 Public C:otr, tine nts The town hoard has carefully considered the comments received from the public. ommr}nt% were both written and verbal and received at the public hearings and thereafter- Based upon the record before it, the town board concludes. (a) To the maximum extent possible the visual impact on neighboring residences, the Ludgate property and Hanshavw Road have been mitigatcd, The no tower alternative is not an option and the proposed lattice type tower is the best option to ininitnize the visual impact, (bM There has been no empirical evidence submitted that would support the position that the construction of this tower will have an impact on property a lu[.L cif nc arl y parcels or would it affect the vitality of nearby businesses. (r) Visual simulations of the proposed tower were conducted both with foliage and willhouil foliage, (d) The proposed tower xvill allow- future co- location without an extension, (e) The proposed tower height. iL5 the minimum height necessary to serve the purpose, imcrsded. Although it may be feasible for the applicant to utilize tower(s) at lower heights, more towers would be required to achieve the radiofrequencv coverage objective and they would likely be more conspicuous than the proposed tower_ The Uhl site would likely be one of the sites needed in such o multiple tower solution_ (0 The Ubl site is a privately- ovviied, wooded area and is not listed on the Tompkins County Unique Natural Area lnvcntory, The site is partially screened by existing woods and configuration of the acycress drive, (g} Verion investigal.ecl eifi�t (8j potential sites for a new tower k�ithin tJje search :area, Page 16 of 23 TB 6-24 -2009 (h) 'There are no c .Lo- location opportunities within i;hc area designated by Veri2on as the, search area, and there is no municipally- owvned property which would be suitable, or available for a tower site. (i) The Uhl site, is the only site available, within the search area that could provide I:he radio frequency coverage objectives, b) The search arc u is within a RB -1 zoning district of the Town and a telecommunicocions tower is an allowed use subject to the issuance of a special permit and site plan approvatr (k) The Uhl sits: alJows the tower to rneet all the setback requirements and provide the, most natural screening. (1) Verizon has the status of public utility yet possesses no eminent domain power, It can only place its tower on property thrill it purchases or lease, When it leases property, ii, is subject to the requirements of the lessor as to 41 site, location. (m) At hough the Uhl site is thr ]rawest priority fora tower site, Veriaon hay demonstrated that other sites with a higher priority in the search am-a are T10t available. fin} The Uhl site is amid an area with a varicly of land uses including dense re!51denhal, highway corridors, airport, commercial, agriculture, riearby nal'Ural areas, High volinge, electric transmissiori lines and educational mid research uses in a large strnrtureI (o) No siti s, other that those identified by Wlrizon in the %carch area, were identified ley the town or t -he public as sil:es to be evaluated (other than near NY EG and on Route 79 as referred to aboveM- (pl The proposed tower would enable �enzon to serve t.hc� .1900 MH2 frequency in addition to the existing 850 MHz frequency, Page 17 of 23 T3 6 -24 -2009 (q) LocaI [aw No_ 2 of the year 2006 - Tel ec o rn rn u n ica tion % Tower Siting Law for the 'Town of Dryden (TT) has as one of its policy goals the promotion and encouragement of improved telecommunications services, (r) Verizon provided propagation studies which supported the need for additional capacity in the area. The TTS does not require a showing that a tower is needed. (s} No empirical evidence or study was submitted that would support the proposition that the tower would have significant negative impacts on birds and bats. Verizon has an industry accepted plan and protocol for dealing with maintenance and nesting birds_ (1:] No empirical evidence or study was submitted that would uppurt the proposition that the proposed tower will impact airport operatiuns, (u) The application includes a proposal to install a microwave array on the tower_ Currently no microwave "backbone" exist:% in the southern tier of the state, them-by making the proposed microwave dishes currently useless. Verizon has indicated that if the microwave dishes are approved as part of the application, that it will not install the dishes until such time as it has in place other mic;rowuve receivers and transmitters which would snake the dishes an integral part of the system. (v) Tire Town's con sultanl;, ,Jeffrey B. Kirby, P_U., provided nine (9) reviews of the VcTizon submittals_ In summary, Mr. Kirby found that: 01 The applicat:ian and accompanying 39 exhibits complies with the TTS. (ii) The proposal to move the tower and equipment shed to the south and east provides a reduction in the visual impact and the existing trees provide a r" son able depmee of screening. (iii) Although the tower will be visible from ieveral locations, the visual impact will nol: be very significant. Page 18 of ; rl B 6.24.2.0E+9 (iv) A self - supporting tower as proposed im� likely to he less visible than monopole. M Further relocation of the tower and equipmenr. shed on the Uhl property will likely increase the visual impact and be Urtrlesir:�blc- (vi) Verizon a.dequaudy� justified the need for the Uhl file. Chr Lite selection procv%L�s was sufficiently thorough and no viable alternative sires) would have significantly lesser impacts, (vii) No long -germ impact on the on -site soils or ground water is expected- W The Town's Dirocfor of Building, Zoning and Planning, henry M. Slater reviewed the Veriaon application, 39 exhibits thereto and the Kirby reviews a the Jc,r`rron sobrnittaI n Cxhibits. in summary, Mr. S lal:cr found: W That the application was complete- (ii) T]ie conditions of approval suggested by M r. Kirby in his February 6, 2009 review were appropriate- (iiil 'Thai: the 'T'own's swndard conditions of approval (January 9, 2008 Version) were approprial:e. (iv) Before construction permits could be issued there were several requirements to be fulfilled by Verizon which do not; pertain to the special permit review or site plan revim by the town Board (Kirby review of February' 2 6, 2009)- LNVI RON MENTAL REVIEW The Town Board haN carefully reviewed the Null Environniental Assessment Foam, Visual EAR Addendum and accompanying exhibits and narratives, and 1) dcL1 :vrrni1ied that the 0 project would nvt have any signifionnt adverse environmental impacts, ) determined that an Page 19 of 23 TB 6 -24 -2009 environmental impact statement: would not be required, and 3) made a. negative determination of environmental significance (Negative Declaration). DETERMINATION Based upon the application, the exhibits, the cornments received from the applicant, the public, the Town Board's consultant, and town staff, and the findings set forth above, the Town Board of the Town of Dryden hereby approves the application for a special permit and site plan for the proposed Verizon telecommunications tower subject to the Mowing conditions: 1. The tower shall not exceed 114 feet in height. plus a four -foot lightning rod. 2. The tower shall not be lighted. 3. The tower shall be designed for a possible 20400t extension with capacity- to support future antenna arrays at approximately 120 feet and 130 feet plus 0 standard FAA lighting. 4. The tower and equipment shed and other improvements shall be sited according to the Zoning Site Plan (Sheet Z -1) last revised 4/23/09, Detailed Zoning Site Plan (Sheet Z -2) last revised 4/23/09 and Zoning Detail Sheet (Sheet Z -3) last revised 11/06/08. 5. Verizon shall take steps to minimize clearing of the property and avoid unnecessary tree cutting. 6. Verizon shall submit a landscape plan to provide additional vegetative screening. Such plan will be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and designed to minimize the visual impact of improvements such as equipment shed, chain link fence and other ground appurtenances. The landscape plan shall be approved by the Town Board. 7. Verizon shall submit an Inspection and Maintenance Plan which complies with ® the requirements of ANSI /TIA- 222 -G -2005 Section 14 and shall incorporate the relevant provisions of Annex J thereto, Page 20 of 23 TB 6 -24 -2009 8. Following each periodic inspection, a written report: of such inspection, signed by a Professional Engineer licensed in New York State, shall be submitted to the Town. Such report shall detail the inspection process, note any maintenance issues and procedures and timetables t:o address such issues. The report must; be received by the Town within 30 days of such periodic. inspection. 9. In order to assure compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), Verizon shall comply with the Protocol detailed in Verizon's letter of March 11, 2009 (Barbara Fisher Clifford) and submitted by Verizon as Exhibit FF to the application. 10. Verizon shall provide and maintain a Performance Bond in the amount of $:0,000 naming the Town as obligee. The bond shall be in such form as is acceptable to the town's attorney and with a surety qualified to do business in New York State and listed on the United States Treasury's Listing of Approved Sureties (Department Circular 570). The Town Board reserves the right to annually review the amount of the Performance Bond to assure that. the amount of the bond is adequate to assure compliance, with the obligations of Verizon under Local Law No. 2 (2006) and the conditions of approval of the special permit and site plan. 11. The Town of Dryden Standard Conditions of Approval (January 9, 2008 Version), 12. Prior to the issuance of construction permits Verizon shall submit the items detailed in Mr. Kirby's letter of February 26, 2009 to the extent the same have not already been submitted. 13. Verizon shall not install the microwave dishes until such time as there exists a local "backbone" system which can utilize such technology. 2nd Cl Stelick Roll Call Vote Cl Stelick Yes Cl Solomon Yes Page 21 of 23 TB 6 -24 -2009 Supv Sumner Yes Cl Maker Yes Cl Leifer Yes Supv Sumner said she is meeting tomorrow with the 'Tompkins County Council of Governments on tower planning. She thanked the applicimt and said she had learned a lot in the process. .J Lusk said if they could be of help, they would be glad to. Supv Sumner said she hoped the committee would be reviewing the local ordinruices and coordinating them in a way to make them more user friendly for towns and applicants. PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED FEES FOR OPERATING PERMITS Supv Sumner opened the public hearing at 8:09 p.m. Reading of the notice was dispensed with. No members of the public were present. The hearing was left open. Supv Sumner advised board members that she had written a letter waiving the 34 -day waiting period for The Plantation Inn's liquor license renewal. Supv Sumner closed the public hearing at 8:15 p.m. K Ezell said he would like to clarify some discrepancies from the last meeting. The number of public assembly areas that would require operating permits is five. Those are the Bethel Grove Community Church and one of their other buildings, Dryden Baptist Church, Holy Cross Church, and NYSEG. There are many more public assembly areas, but those would not require operating permits. ® 'There is one business with potentially hazardous materials on Lalani Drive and they will need to obtain a permit, which would typically be a three -year permit.. RESOLUTION # 112 - AMENDING THE FEE STRUCTURE FOR OPERATING PERMITS AS ESTABLISHED BY RESOLUTION NO. 65 (200 7) Supv Sumner offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: WHEREAS, by Local Lactic No. 1 of the year 2007 (a local law providing for the administration and enforcement of New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building code and other Town of Dryden local laws and ordinances), the Town of Dryden, in enforcement of the Uniform Code, requires operating permits for certain activities or categories of buildings as set forth in Section 10(a) of such local law, and WHEREAS, Section 16 of such local law authorizes the Town Board by resolution to establish a fee schedule for - among other permits - operating permits, and WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 65 (2007) the Town Board established a fee schedule which included a fee of $200 for operating permits required by such local law, and WHEREAS, the Torn Board is now desirous to amend such fee schedule as it pertains to the fee for operating permits, now, therefore, BE, iT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: isl . The fee for operating permits shall be $25.00. Page 22 o f.' 23 TB 6 -2:4 =2009 The fee schedule shall be amended to reflect such reduction. 3_ This resolution shall take effeci: following a }public hearing on at least ten (l{}} days prior notice a� provided by Section 16 of such local law- 2nd Cl Makar Roll Call Vote C[ Stetick Ycs Cl Solurrion Yes upv Sumner Y(.-Ls Ci Mak: r Yes Cl Leifer Yes There being no further business, on moilion made, seconded and unanirnously carried, the meeting was Ekgjourned all 8:20 p_tri, RespccOfully submitted, Bambi L. Hollenbeck Town Clerk Page 23 of"23 tL MI FJ oar @Dply PART 2 - PROJECT IMPACTS AND THEIR MAGNITUDE ResponsIbilityof Lead Agency General information (Read Carefully) I In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by the question: Have my responses and determinations been reasonable? The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst, I The Examples provided arc to assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts and wherever passible the threshold of magnitude that would #ringer a response in column 2. The examples are generally applicabie throughout the S #ale and for most situations. But, for any specific project or ails other examples and Ior lower thresholds may he appropriate for a Potential Large Impact response, thus requiring evaIua#ioii in Park 3, 1 The impacts of each project, on each si #e, in each locality, will vary, Therefore, the examples are illustrative and have been offered as guidance. They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each ques #ion, 1 The number of examples per ques #ion does not indicato #ha importance of each question. 1 In identifying impacts, consider long terra, short terra and cumulative effects, lnstructions (Read carefully) a, Answer each of the 20 quasti0ns in PART 2. Answer Yes if there wi11 be any impact, b, Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers, C, If answering Yes to a question then check the app ropria€e box(col urn n 1 or 2 )to indicate the potential size of the impact. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided, check column 2, If impact will occur but threshold is lower Than example, check column 1. d. Identifying that an Impact will be potentially Large (column 2) does not mean #h e# it is also necessarily significant, Any large impact mu s€ be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance, Identifying an impact in column 2 simply asks #h at it be looked a€ further. $, If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact then consider tha impact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3. f, If a potentially large impact checked in caIumn 2 can be mitigated by changes) in the project to a small to moderaie impact, also check the Yes box in col4imn 3. A No response indica #es that such a reduction is not possible_ This must be explained in Part 31 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change lmpact on Land 1, will the Prop osedActian result in a physical change to the project site? NO ❑ YES Examples (hat would apply to colurna 2 Any construction on slopes of 15% or grealer, (15 foot © ❑ ❑ Yes KNO rise per 100 foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10%, Cons #ruction on land where the depth to the water table ❑ ❑ Yes ONO is less than 3 feet, Canstruc #ion arpaYed parking area for 1,000 or more ❑ ❑ Yes FFNo vehicles_ • Cons#ruc #ion on land whia re bedrock is exposed or © ❑ ❑ Yes 1210 generally within 3 feet or existing ground surrace_ Construction #h at will continue for more than 1 year or ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes 19L involve more than one phase or Stage, Excavation for mining purposes that would remove ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes o mare than 1.000 tons of natural material (i,e., rock or sail) per year. Page 11 of 21 • Construction or exgension of a santary landfill, • Construction in a d(�signated flDadway. • Other impacts: s 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact ProllectChange ❑ 0 ©Yes ONO ❑ ❑ Eyes ❑No ❑ C]Yes CINO 2, Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? (1, e,, cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc.) TNo ❑YES Specific land forms= ❑ ❑ Impact on Water Dyes EDNo 3, Will Proposed Action affect any water body designated as protected? (Linder Articles 151 24125 of the Environmental Canservation Law, ECL) TNO ❑ YES Exampies that would apply to column 2 Developable area of site contains a protected water body, ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes 17 Na Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of ❑ 171 Yes ❑ No a protected stream, • Exiensi0n of utility distribution facilities through a protecled water ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ NQ body. Construction in s designated frQshwater or tidal wetland. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No Other impacts= ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No 4. Will Proposed Action affect any non - protected existing or new Body of water? ONO ©YES Examples that would apply to column 2 Ati 1 Q°la increase or decrease in the surface area of arty body of ❑ ❑ [:]yea ❑ No ~water or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease, Co ristru ctia n of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No area. Otharlmpatts; ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No Page 12 of 21 - Will Proposed Action affect surface of groundwater quality ar quantity? FVJN0 ❑YES Examples that would apply to c0umn 2 • Proposed Action wiII require a discharge permit. Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not have approval. to serve proposed (project} action. 1 2 3 Small to potential Can Impart Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ ❑ [Dyes ❑ No Proposed Action requires water supply from wells witty greater ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No than 45 gallons per n)inute pumping onpacityI • Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑N1) supply system, • Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater. ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No Liquid effluent wviII be conveyed off the site to facalitieswhich ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity. • Proposed Action would use water in iaxcess of 20,000 gallons ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No per day- Proposed Action will likely cause sillatiDn or other discharge into an existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. Proposed Action will require the a #❑rage of petroleum or chernical products gre@tef than 1 ,9 DO gallans. Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without wvater and/or sewer services- Proposed Action locales commercial andfer industrial uses which may require new or expansion of existing woale treatment and /or storage facilities, other impacts; Page 13 of 21 El ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ 14 o ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ Eyes ❑ No 1 2 3 Small to Polentisl Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact PrvjaCt Change 6- WiII Proposed Action alter drainage flaw or patterns, or surface water runoP ®NO []YES Examples that would apply to column 2 Proposed Action would change flood water rows ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑ Na Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion. ❑ ❑ Dyes 1:1 No Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage poltorns, ❑ ❑ ❑yes ❑ NO • Proposed Action will allow development in a designated ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes No floodway- • 0therirnpacts, ❑ El ❑Yes No IMPACT ON AIR 7, WI II Pra osed Action affect air quality? NO ❑ YES Examples that would apply to column 2 Proposed Action will induce 11 aa0 or more vehicle Irips in any given hoot. Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of refuse per hour, • Emission rale of total contaminants will exceed 6 lbs. per hour or a heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour, Proposed Action will allow an increase irr the arnount of land cornmitted to industrial use, • Proposed Action will allow an increase in the density of irsduslrial development within existing industrial areas, • Other impacts: IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS B, Will Pro sed Action affect any threatened or endangered species? END ❑YES Exarnpfes that would apply to colurnn 2 • Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York a Fedefar list, using the site, over or near the site, or found on the site. Page 14 of 21 ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ ❑yes ❑INo ❑ ❑ Dyes ONO ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑No El ❑ ❑Yes ❑hlo ❑ Dyes ❑No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No a � 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Ee Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change • Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat, ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑No • Application of pesticide or harbicide mare than twice a year, ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑too other than for agricultural purposes. • Other impaCIS: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No g. Will Proposed Action substantially affect non - threatened or rnon- endangered species? NO ❑ YES Examples that would apply to column 2 Proposed Action would substantially inlerfere wish any resident ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No or migratory fish, shellfish pr wildiifa species. Proposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acres of ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes No mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important vegetation. Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 10. Will Pro osedl Adion affect agricultural land resources? NO ❑ YES Examples that would apply to column 2 The Proposed Action would sever, cross or limit access to ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No agricultural land (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc.) Construction activity would excavate or compact the sail profile of ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No agricultural land, Tn$ Proposed +fiction would irreversibly convert more than 10 ® ® ❑ Yes 171 No acres of agricUltur @l land or, if located in an Agricultural District, more than 2.5 acres of agriculture! rend, Page 15 of 21 A 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be MDderete Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change • The Proposed Action would disruptorprevent installation of ❑ ❑ El Yes ❑ No agricultural land management systems (e, g-, subsurface drain lines, outlel ditches, strip crapping); or create a need for such measures (e.g, cause a farm field to drain poorly due to hicreasod runoff). • Other imp@ cis: ❑ LJ ©Yes © No IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURC E5 11. Will Proposed Action affect aesthetic resources? (If necessary, use the Visual E:-AF Addendum in Section 617.20, Appendix 51) ❑NO F1 YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ratio from Or in sharp toMrast to currenf surrounding land use patterns, whether man-made OF natural. • Proposed land uses, or project components visiWo to users 0 © ❑ ❑ Yes LJ No aesthelic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource, protect components that will result in the elimination or ❑ ❑ []Yes ❑ Na significant screening of scenic views known to be Important to the area_ • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No IMPACT ON HWORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12. Will Proposed Action impact any site of structure of historic, pre histo�c or paleontological importance? ❑y NO ❑YU Examples thal would apply to column 2 Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or �J ❑ ®Yes No 9ubMantially contiguaus to any facility of site listed on the State Of NatiarraI Resister of historic places. Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within ❑ © Yes No the project site. • Proposed Action wilt ocour in an area designated as sensitive ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ Na far arch aeologic.al sites on the NY Site Inventory. Page 16 of 21 A • Other impacts. IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 93. Will prop❑sedAction affect the quantity orquality of existing orfuture open spaces or recreational opportunities? ❑ NO [ZYES 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Irnpaci 5e Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change El ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No Examples that would apply to column 2 The permanent Foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ NO • A major red+xctiop of an open space important to the corn munity, ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No Other impacts; ® ❑ ❑ Yes []No k IMPACT ON CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS 14, Will Proposed Action impact the exceptional or unique 0 characteristics of a critical environmental area (C EA, established pursuan o subdivision 6NYCRR 617.14 &g O ❑ YES List the environmental characteristics that caused the designation of the CEA_ Examples that would apply to coJurnn 2 • Proposed Action to locate within the CEA7 ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes No • Proposed Action will result in a reduction is the quantity of the ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ faro resource? • Proposed Action wvilI result in a reduction iri the quality of the ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑N resource? Proposed Action will impact the use, funcilion oreryoyment of the © ❑ []Yes ❑hl❑ resource? • 01 herirnpacts - ® ❑ ❑Yes []No Page 17 of 21 r 1 2 3 Small to Potential Carr Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impacl Impec# ProjectGhange IMPAG -r ON TRANSPORTATION 15, VVilltheFe be an effect to existing transporla #ion systems? [ONO ❑ YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Alteration of present pattems of movement of people andlar ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑ No goods, Proposed Ac tion wHI result in major traffic problems. �❑l ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No Other impac #s; I—J ❑ Oyes ONo IMPACT ON ENERGY 16. Will Proposed Ac #ion affect the community's sources of fuel or one rgy supply? ONO ❑YES Ex am pies That woLild apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will cause a greater than 5% increase in the ❑ ❑ � Yes ❑ No use of any farm of energy in the muMci pal ity- Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an ❑ []Yes ❑ No energy transmission or supply systerri to serve mare titan 50 single a two family residences or to serve a major commercial or industrial use, Other impacts' ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No NOISE AND ODOR IM PACT 17, Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the Proposed Action? ❑'hb ❑YES Examples that would apply to column 2 Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other serwsiflve ❑ ❑ [Dyes Q No rablity, Odors will occur routinely {more khan one hour per day }, ❑ Yes D Na Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the ❑ ❑ Dyes 0 No local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures, pp�� Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a L1 ❑ ❑Yes ❑ N° I10ise screen • Other impacts; ❑ ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No Page IS of 21 1 2 3 • Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 18. Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety? ❑•NO ❑YES • Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No hazardous substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there may be a chronic low level discharge or emission. • Proposed Action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes' ® ❑ ❑Yes ❑No in any form (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc.) • Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquefied ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ No natural gas or other flammable liquids. • Proposed Action may result in the excavation or other ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑ No disturbance within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑No IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD 19. Will Proposed Action affect the character of the existing community? ❑ NO OES Examples that would apply to column 2 • The permanent population of the city, town or village in which the ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No project is located is likely to grow by more than 5 %. • The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑ No services will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this project. • Proposed Action will conflict with officially adopted plans or ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No goals. • Proposed Action will cause a change in the density of land use. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑No structures or areas of historic importance to the community, • Development will create a demand for additional community ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑No services (e.g. schools, police and fire, etc.) Page 19 of 21 Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects. Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment. Other impacts: 1 r. 20. Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environment impacts? ❑NO FYES 5` 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change 0 ❑ D Yes ® No ❑ ❑Yes No ® ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No If Any Action in Part 2 Is Identified as a Potential Large Impact or If you Cannot Determine the Magnitude of Impact, Proceed to Part 3 Page 20 of 21 .. Part 3 - EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS Responsibility of Lead Agency Part 3 must be prepared if one or more impact(s) is considered to be potentially large, even if the impact(s) may be mitigated. Instructions (If you need more space, attach additional sheets) Discuss the following for each impact identified in Column 2 of Part 2: 1. Briefly describe the impact, 2. Describe (if applicable) how the impact could be mitigated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by project change(s). 3. Based on the information available, decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is Important. To answer the question of importance, consider: 1 The probability of the impact occurring I The duration of the impact I Its irreversibility, including permanently lost resources of value I Whether the impact can or will be controlled 1 The regional consequence of the impact I Its potential divergence from local needs and goals I Whether known objections to the project relate to this impact. Page 21 of 21 Reset. r Yl or�r�o�oa� �o ®u�Qa� 617.20 Appendix B @@Ply State Environmental Quality Review VISUAL EAF ADDENDUM This form may be used to ,provide additional information relating to Question 11 of fart 2 of the Full EAF, (To be completed by Lead Agency) Distance Between Visibility Project and Resource (in Miles) 1. Would the project be visible from: 0 -% q -% 1.4-3 3 -5 5+ ! A parcel of land which is dedicated to and available ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ to the public for the use, enjoyment and appreciation of natural or man -made scenic qualities. ! An overtook or parcel of land dedicated to public [I ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ observation, enjoyment and appreciation of natural or man -made scenic qualities? ! A site or structure listed on the National or State ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Registers of Historic Places? I State Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 1 The State Forest Preserve? ❑ ❑ F] ❑ ❑ National Wildlife Refuges and State Game Refuges? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 1 National Natural Landmarks and other outstanding ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ natural features? 1 National Park Service lands? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ! Rivers designated as National or State Wild, Scenic ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ or Recreational? I Any transportation corridor of high exposure, such ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ as part of the Interstate System, or Amtrak? 1 A governmentally established or designated interstate ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ or inter- county foot trail, or one formally proposed for establishment or designation? A site, area, lake, reserver or highway designated as ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ scenic? 1 Municipal park, or designated open space? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ! county road? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ State road? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ I Local road? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 2. Is the visibility of the project seasonal? (i. e_, screened by summer foliage, but visible during other seasons) ❑Yes ❑No 3. Are any of the resources checked in question 1 used by the public during the time of year during which the project will be visible? ❑Yes ❑No DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING VISUAL ENVIRONMENT 4. From each item checked in question 1, check those which generally describe the surrounding environment Within *Y4 mile '1 mile Essentially undeveloped ❑ ❑ Forested ❑ ❑ Agricultural ❑ Suburban Resbdential ❑ ❑ Industrial ❑ ❑ Commerical ❑ ❑ Urban ❑ ❑ River, Lake, Pond ❑ ❑ Cliffs, Overlooks ❑ ❑ Designated Open Space ❑ Flat ❑ ❑ H17fy ❑ ❑ Mountainous ❑ ❑ Other ❑ ❑ NOTE: add attachments as needed �. Are there visually similar projects within: *X mile []Yes ❑No 1 mile ❑ Yes ❑ No 2 miles ❑ Yes ❑ No 3 miles ❑ Yes "Distance from project site is provided for assistance. Substitute other distances as appropriate. EXPOSURE 6. The annual number of viewers likely to observe the proposed project is ? NOTE: When user data is unavailable or unknown, use best estimate. CONTEXT 7. The situation or activfty in which the viewers are engaged while viewing the proposed action is: FREQUENCY Holidaysl Activity Daily Weekly Weekends Seasonally Travel to and from work O O O O lnvolvod in recreational activities O O O O Routine travel by residents O O O OO At a residence O O O O At worksitc O O O O Other 0 0 0 aAlo e I COPY VZW - Sapsucker Project No. 4109 8/14/2008 SUPPLEMENTAL DATA FOR VISUAL EAF ADDENDUM A.) Cornell Recreational Park Trail 1.00± miles P. Coun Roads Distance Between Project County Roads and Resource Miles C.R. 109 (Ha.nshaw Road ) 0.07± S.) Local Roads Local Roads Distance Between Project and Resource (Miles Freese Road 0.50± Bluegrass Lane 0.63T Plantations Road 1.46± Mt. Pleasant Road 1,421 Monkey Run Road 0.87± 5. Spectrasite tower 1.46 miles from proposed site. Spectrasile tower 1.59 miles from proposed site. UNlsite tower 1.61 miles from proposed site. 3G Solutions 2.56 miles from proposed site. i ?4 der 6. Established by assuming a percentage of travelers within the viewshed who %grill actually observe the project ADT information taken from 2007 NYSDOT Local Traffic Volume Report for Tompkins Co. Road Name ADT x 2,000 x 5% S Gz s/ Total Average Daily Viewers Est. # of Viewers x 365 days per yea) r Total Estimated Viewers per Year = 36,-5OW year* /D? Freese Road is the closest road to the project site with available traffic counts, therefore these traffic counts were used for the above estimation. 14 -14 -11 (9195)-9c 61 7.20 Appendix B State Environmental Quality Review Visual EAF Addendum SEQR VZW — Sapsucker Project No. 4409 81/4/2008 form may be used to provide additional information relating to Question 11 of Part 2 of the Full E (To be completed by Lead Agency) Distance Between Visibility Project and Resource (in Miles) 1. Would the project be visible from: 0-1/4 114 -112 112 -3 3 -5 A.)A parcel of land which is dedicated to and available to the public for the use, enjoyment and appreciation of natural or man -made scenic qualities? 13.)An overlook or parcel of land dedicated to public observation, enjoyment and appreciation of natural or man- made scenic qualities? C_)A site or structure listed on the National or State Registers of Historic Places? D,)State Parks? E.)The State Forest Preserve? F.)National Wildlife Refuges and state game refuges? G.)National. Natural Landmarks and other outstanding natural features? H.)National Park Service lands? J.)Rivers designated as National or State Wild, Scenic or Recreational? K_)Any transportation corridor of high exposure, such as part of the Interstate System, or Amtrak? L.)A governmentally established or designated interstate or inter- county foot trail, or one formally proposed for establishment or designation? M.)A site, area, lake, reservoir or highway designated as scenic? N.)Municipal park, or designated open space? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ 5+ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ P,)County road? " ■ ■ ■ ❑ ❑ R.)State? • ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ S.)Local road? • ■ ■ ■ ❑ ❑ 2. Is the visibility of the project seasonal? (i.e. screened by summer foliage, but visible during other seasons? Yes ■ No ❑ 3. Are any of the resources checked in questions 1 used by the public during the time of year during which the project will be visible? ■ Yes ❑ No • I ��w DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING VISUAL ENVIRONMENT 4. From each item checked in questions 1, check those which generally describe the surrounding environment. Within 1114 mile • 1 mile Essentially undeveloped ■ ■ Forested ■ ■ Agricultural ■ ■ Suburban residential ■ ■ Industrial D Commercial ❑ Urban D ❑ River, Lake, Pond ■ Cliffs, Overlooks D ❑ Designated Open Space ❑ D Flat ■ ■ Hilly ❑ Mountainous ❑ ❑ Other ❑ ❑ Note: add attachments as needed 5. Are there visually similar projects within: 1/4 mile D Yes ■ No' 1 mile ❑ Yes ■ No 1'/ miles ■ Yes ❑ No' 3 miles ■ Yes ❑ No Distance from project site are provided for assistance. Substitute other distances as appropriate. EXPOSURE 6. The annual number of viewers likely to observe the proposed project is 36,500 . NOTE: When user data is unavailable or unknown, use best estimate. CONTEXT 7. The situation or activity in %PMich the viewers are engaged while vievring the proposed action is Activity FREQUENCY Holidays/ Daily Weekly Weekends Seasonally Travel to and from work ■ D D D Involved in recreational activities ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Routine travel by residents ■ Q D D At a residence ■ ❑ ❑ At worksite ■ ❑ ❑ Other D ❑ ❑ *Refer to atta h d 1 c e s ieet II �m CL 0 to �o c N Zd 0 yOW �CL W M cls V fV O O v � O W. l t