No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-02-28206 February 28, 2001 The Lansing Town Board met in Special Session at the Lansing Town Hall Board Room at 7:00 p.m. with Supervisor Farkas presiding. The Supervisor called the meeting to order and had the clerk take the Roll Call, ROLL CALL Stephen Farkas Supervisor Present Herbert Beckwith Councilperson Absent Katrina Greenly Councilperson Present Meg Overstrom Councilperson Absent Francis Shattuck Councilperson Present Bonita Boles Town Clerk Absent Debbie Crandall Deputy Town Clerk Present Rich John Town Attorney Present VISITORS: George Totman, Lyle & Kathleen Wadell, Dale Oplinger, Dianne & Mike Walter, Donna Mazza, Kathy & Art Corbin, Shane Newell, Thomas & Becky Kirby, Bill Kirk, Jeannine Kirby, Richard & Kay Moore, Bud Howell, Ron Howell, Kathleen Keene, Tony Hall, Susan Brock, 2 gentlemen from Ithaca College Radio Station, and several other residents. Mr. Farkas informed the audience that there would be a continuation of the Public Hearing through March 21 st do to technical difficulties. There will be another opportunity on the 21 st of March to come to a final decision at that point. PUBLIC HEARING - CELL TOWER - AUBURN ROAD Proof of Notice having been furnished the Public Hearing to discuss the proposed construction of a wireless communications facility on lands owned by Jeannine Kirby off Auburn Road in the Town of Lansing was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Farkas asked if anyone wishing to comment would stand up and give their name and address and there would be three minutes to comment. He asked that no one have a second opportunity until everyone has had a first opportunity to comment. Mr. Farkas then asked Mr. Shane Newell to make a summation of the request. Shane Newell - SBA Property Specialist in SBA towers addressed the Board and the audience. They are proposing a 190 foot telecommunication tower to cover coverage gaps to the various carriers in this area. Through our contacts with the carriers that are FCC licensed providers including Verizon, Cellular One, Omni. Sprint, etc. They are all looking for improved coverage in this area. We feel we have selected a parcel that will fit the communication structure towers in this area to improve coverage in this area specifically along Route 34. Tonight we are very happy to get this opportunity to appear before the Board and the public and discuss this proposal however I am here tonight without counsel if there are any questions of legal nature they will be answered at the next meeting. However I am here to answer any questions I can. Donna Mazza - 532 Buck Road - Stated she has quite a few topics and concerns about the cell tower. One concern is the possibility of the devaluation of property surrounding the cell tower. She has information here that talks about the devaluation of property based upon not necessarily about people's perceptions and beliefs about cell towers. There is a lot of information out there throughout the media that is negative and she feels that there is a study and as an appraiser of taxes concern this is a new thing to this area that found there was a devaluation of property adjoining the cell tower and those people were out at least 25 %. She is very concerned about that. She is also very concerned that even though they say quote on quote that the cell tower won't be producing EMS that would cause health hazards, etc. She also thinks that local and state government agencies that help advise about these types of things talks about the possibility, that Date: February 28, 2001 Time: 7 :00 p.m. Place: Lansing Town Hall Board Room AGENDA 1. Call Meeting to Order. 2. Roll Call. I Public Hearing - Cell Tower - Auburn Road 4. Close Hearing - Board Discussion 5. Adjournment 207 February 28, 2001, continued certain times even though it is designed not to, will emit above FCC regulations. It also talks about the fact that there is not staff to come out and test it and who is going to come out and test it and how often is it going to be tested? In the ordinance it talked about five years to look at the structure. At an on going basis she is very concerned that even though supposedly it's not going to, how can you prove to her that it is not going to effect me and my family? I am very concerned about that and concerned about the devaluation of property. She has also read articles about wildlife in the area, migrating birds and problems with bird mortality through cell towers etc. She just fells that there are an awful lot of people in that small community, a lot of residences, a lot of property would be effected and she feels that this would not be the most significant location for the cell tower. She is not convinced, she needs proof that this is the only place, and proof that you can't find anywhere else. She would also like to know if the owner of the property was approached by the cell company of if the owner of the property approached the cell company. Why do they feel that this particular property was the only property, as stated in the ordinance, that best suits that need. She is not convinced of that and not sure that an environmental survey would convenience her of that and she thinks it needs to be looked into a whole lot more, other then just saying here we are going to put up a cell tower and this is the best location and that's it. Tom Kirov - 10 East Lansing Road - Mr. Kirby asked what the size of the tower is, is it a triangular tower, how big is the base and how big is the top. At the December 20th meeting the Town Board asked the cell tower company to provide an alternate site and if the tower would have lights. Mr. Kirby asked please if those questions could be answered. Sue Brock - 355 Luce Road - She has the following comments on the cellular tower near Auburn Road proposed by SBA, Inc. The Town's cellular tower ordinance needs to be followed. This means co- location on existing structures must be analyzed, and any new tower must minimize adverse effects on the community and environment. The Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires you to treat all tower applicants the same, so it is important that every aspect of our ordinance is complied with in this case to set the precedent for future applicants. 1. The tower ordinance requires the applicant to show need for the tower. That has not been done. SBA has not submitted any information showing what coverage needs exist that would be met by this tower. Until SBA submits such information, SBA can not show (I) that this tower is needed at all (because carriers may be satisfied with current coverage or may plan to meet their needs with other facilities), no (ii) that this tower will take care of unmet needs. SBA should provide the Town with: Copies of contracts with wireless carriers showing they will locate on this tower if it is built at the location and height they need. If SBA does not provide such contracts, then any need for the tower at the proposed location and height is speculative at best. Propagation studies showing I) current coverage provided by existing tower /facilities, and ii) projected coverage provided by the proposed tower. The studies of the proposed coverage should be run at a number of different tower heights so you can determine what minimum height is necessary to meet the coverage needs. All of the assumptions the applicant uses in running its propagation studies (signal strength and frequencies, type of equipment, software program used, etc.) so that you can independently analyze the studies. The Town's tower ordinance (paragraph 9(d) permits you to require the developer to pay for a Town consultant to assist you February 28, 2001, continued in matters such as these, and I urge you to hire a consultant for this and other matters related to the application. 2. The tower ordinance requires the applicant to show that it has made reasonable efforts to co- locate and provide an inventory report of existing facilities. SBA has presented no information on these issues. Enclosed with this letter is a list of 87 towers /tall structures in Tompkins County prepared by the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council and Planning Department. Also enclosed is a map showing the locations of these towers, together with.the County's "Metadata Report" explaining how the data was compiled. In addition, the County has an option on land near the existing WSKG tower near Davis Road to build a new emergency communications tower. SBA should be required to use this list to comply with of the requirements in paragraph 3 of the ordinance regarding co- location efforts and demonstrations. 3. The tower ordinance (paragraph 2 (e) requires the applicant to show that the proposed site is "the most appropriate site among those available within the technically feasible area." SBA has not submitted any information on this issue. SBA should be required to make this showing. Among other things, the Town already has a tower nearby at the Town Barn. Perhaps this location would be more appropriate, given the nearby land uses (Town Highway Department, sand/salt storage, asphalt company, gas station). 4. The Town should require the applicant to submit computer simulations and perform balloon tests of the tower as proposed and at alternate heights /locations. It should also require the applicant to submit information showing where the tower will be visible from so visual impact can be assessed and minimized. A consultant (paid for by the applicant) can help the Town formulate its requests and analyze the results. Any Town approval should stipulate the height, location and appearance of the tower, as well as the size and appearance of antennas, dishes, etc. located on the tower. Tower height should be restricted to the minimum height necessary to meet the proven need. 5. Before the Town can make its SEQRA determination of significance, the applicant needs to submit missing information, such as letters from N.Y.S. DEC and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Also, the applicant states in the EAF that the tower is compatible with land uses within 1/4 mile - - - -- I disagree with that assertion. This tower is not compatible with existing uses and will have a tremendous visual impact over a large area. In addition, the tower site is located on or near wetlands listed in the National Wetlands Inventory. If the applicant maintains the tower is needed at this location and at this height (195 feet), then I urge the Town to make a positive declaration and require an Environmental Impact Statement so potential alternatives and mitigation measures are considered more thoroughly. 6. The applicant has submitted correspondence with the N.Y.S. Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation showing that a house on Auburn Road appears to meet eligibility criteria for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. I spoke today with Nancy Todd, the staff member who made this determination. She said her office inadvertently failed to send this application on to the Technical Services Division, which will probably require the applicant to prepare information showing visual impact on the property. Her office may require the applicant to mitigate the effects of the tower if it can not be relocated. She indicated the applicant needs to contact her at this point. 209 February 28, 2001, continued The Town should make any approvals it gives contingent on final sign -off by the N.S. Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation. 7. SBA has also failed to submit the following information required by the Town's ordinance: Agreement to remove tower, etc. within 90 days if it becomes technologically obsolete or ceases to perform its function for more than 12 months (see paragraph 10(a) of ordinance). The one page SBA submitted from the lease with the landowners does not contain these stipulations. SBA should submit the entire lease (including signatures), or if that does not contain the required stipulations, a separate agreement. Information showing SBA leases or has easements on the project site (including the fall zone) (paragraph 4 (a)). Safety analysis certifying that FCC radiation exposure standards will be met (paragraph 9 (c)). The Town may also want to require SBA to perform periodic checks on its equipment to make sure it is operating properly and standards are being met. Proof of landowner's consent to erection of the facility and agreement to abide by the ordinance (paragraph 11 © (vi)). An agreement that the applicant will negotiate in good faith with subsequent Applicants seeking co- location (paragraph 11 (d)). Copies of all documents submitted to the FCC (paragraph 11 (f)). 8. The bond submitted by SBA is not adequate, as it references and relies on a "written agreement" with the Town and a Conditional Use Permit, neither of which exists. 9. Who is the applicant? The special permit/building permit application says "SBA Properties, Inc." The EAF says "SBA, Inc." Shane Newell's 12/12/00 letter to George Totman says SBA Towers, Inc." This needs to be clarified - - -- among other things, we need to make sure the developer is listed as an insured on the certificate of insurance. 10. SBA should get a determination from the federal government as to whether the tower will need to be lit if it ends up in this location. The FAA requires all towers over 200 feet to be lit, but it also requires some towers under that height to be lit or marked in visible ways. If lighting is not required, the Town should make any approval contingent on the tower remaining unlit and without special markings. 11. The special permit application is missing the landowner's signature. Susan Brock thanked the Board for the opportunity to provide comments. Dale Opling_er - 241 Drake Road - Chief of Lansing Fire Department - He would like, along with the officers and chiefs, to ask the Town Board to look into an agreement with SBA Towers if this is approved for their fire district to provide an antenna at this site if needed for future use. There are a lot of coverage issues. The second request is that the Fire Department is asking the Town be in total support of the County Emergency Plan. There are huge coverage issues in North Lansing which this tower would be very helpful to them not only as a radio tower but as a cellular tower also. Mr. Oplinger stated that he would appreciate feedback either by phone or letter in regards to this proposed agreement. Kathy Corbin - 443 Auburn Road - She is concerned about the visual impact, wildlife, and the fall 210 February 28, 2001, continued zone and if there will be a fences around it. This will be completely visible from her backyard and deck. She lives in the country and in Lansing to have that reserve and would like to ask the Board to protect their rights, to have wildlife and the ability not to have something commercial. She has heard it described as 1200 feet from Buck Road and would like to know the mandates of how far it should be from Route 34. Can you guarantee safety? Not only what it emits but whether it can staff it. If it has lights that would be a terrible thing. Mike Walter - 572 Buck Road - It is clear that this would be an ugly sort of thing in this community. He doesn't know how this was picked that this was the site. There are all relatively new or renovated homes all around this thing. It seems as though this was odd that after these houses are built that this tower is picked to go right in the middle of them. He certainly has land value concerns. Donna Mazza - Back when Lansing decided to do zoning she attended several public hearings. This particular part of Buck Road is very residential, there is some farmland but it is growing more and more residential. She talked about why it could also have an R3 rating which would not allow this type of thing. Right across the street from where this is, is R3 which does not allow cell towers. She doesn't understand the difference between 200 feet this way and 200 feet that way. She is sure that the people in R3 are very concerned. She is sure that they were very happy that they were not going to be allowed to have any cell towers. Those people will still be affected by this one visually and possibly land devaluation. She has tried to get her area zoned R3 and it was kind of like, don't do it now, wait, don't do it, okay, it was put to her that it was a waste of her time to try to attempt it. She is very sorry that she took the thoughts of the government and decided not to do it. It was a sad mistake on her part and there are more residences where she is than across the way where it is supposedly R3, there are more farms than where we are. She is not adverse to having farmland etc, it is part of the country, but when you are talking about junkyards, cell towers and all those kind of things, as Ms. Corbin said, that is why we moved to Lansing. Dianne Walter - 572 Buck Road - Twenty six years ago they found a piece of land on Buck Road that they fell in love with it, the solitude, the beauty of the country and the virgin woodland. They thought what a beautiful place to raise our family which they have done, their youngest daughter is now a junior in high school. They fell in love with everything about Buck Road, the quietness and the calm of the area. They were the third house built on the road which allowed for mail delivery to come up on the road. As they were clearing out their property one of neighbors, who was a local farmer came by and her husband said this is certainly a beautiful place and he responded by saying well it was until people started coming out here building houses. In time this person became a very valued friend and neighbor. Since that time he also sold off pieces of his farmland so people could live and build their houses on Buck Road. As more and more houses came up they grew to like the feeling of neighborhood. People had obviously seen something that they saw. There is not a lot of noise in that area, whether it be the area represented on Route 34 or the houses on Buck Road. It is quite and peaceful and people build out there because of that. You can go out at night and look up into the sky and see nothing but the stars. We value that, everyone values that, we choose this area to live. She is asking the Board to consider that we choose this area to live in for the tranquility and the rural aspect of it. There was no vision at all that there would be anything that remote in our area. Lyle Wade ll - 468 Auburn Road - He stated he came tonight with a neutral mind. He doesn't have that neutral mind anymore. He was thinking of a tower a foot square with come guide wires holding it up and that was all there was to it. If you are thinking of a tower with a 23 foot base, buildings, etc., then all these concerns are very valuable and need to be looked at very carefully. 211 February 28, 2001, continued He is across the road, it is not in his backyard and won't be able to see it. He still appreciates this and he doesn't have a neutral mind about it anymore. Kathy Corbin - She has read that in 3 to 5 years that these towers will be outdated. She would like an answer from the developer concerning this. Jeannine Kirby - Route 34 - A dairy farmer. She stated that she herself has checked with the DEC in Cortland and talked with John Merriman and they went over the wetland map and he stated he had absolutely no problem with the site as it was located a long way from the wetlands. This particular area has a major power line that was put in about 50 years ago and really is much more dangerous than this would ever present. The poles are very large. If anything has cost for a devaluation of property they would and she doesn't believe people that live around these property lines have had a devaluation of property ever. The tower that is proposed is in an area that is zoned for towers. It was stated that the south side of Buck Road that it was R3, it is not, it is RA, rural agriculture. Sue Brock - Speaking on the wetlands issue, it is not a DEC map wetlands, but shows up on National wetland inventory. This might explain why DEC said we don't have a problem. There still might be wetlands on the location. Jeannine Kirby - Mrs. Kirby stated that the wetland was on the map that John Merriman gave her in that particular square. Mike Coles - 18 E Lansing Road - Real Estate Appraiser - There have been a lot of good points that have been made here tonight that you have to take into consideration. There have been some very good points made in terms of what needs to be addressed with heights and that sort of thing. In some work that he has done around the state relative to power lines evaluation, there was one power line that was proposed in Orange County and they asked the man why he built next to a power line when he knew the power line was going to be there. He answered that he knew the power line was going to be there but he didn't know how big the power line was going to be. The tower was 300' and a helicopter flew into it all put together. The man new the power line was going to be there but he didn't know it was going to look like this. The ladies point of the balloon and getting up there so people have some idea of what it is going to look like and how tall is a 195 feet at that location is a very good point. Relative to the devaluation of properties, the power lines back right up to his property. When you go into buy a property with the power lines all ready there basically that's different from going in and owning the property and then having the power line go in, in terms of whether it effects the property or not. If the buyer is knowledgeable that the power line is there, its visual, then basically the market is responded to that at the time that they are making the purchase. As far as the effects of the devaluation of the property goes the question arises, as they look at it, in your mind if you are the buyer are you going to buy that property with that tower in that location and it wouldn't make a difference to you has how much you would pay for the property, with the tower there or without the tower there. Again, all you can do is let the market respond and those studies are pretty hard to come up with and nail down on specific properties and to what extent they affect the properties and how far out that damage can go. What he found when he reviewed the application today the questions arose, that it appears in the zoning, that if there i$ 4 less obtrusive site then the developer is obligated to the zoning, which is to find what and where that site might be. He finds that there was no effort made on that part to find that site. This is the first time that we have one of these towers going in, let's run the process all the way through. Dianne Walter - In as far as the health hazards that may come about, I'm sure we can be 212 February 28, 2001, continued reassured with ultimate assured that this would absolutely not cause any health hazards. I'm sure that SBA has all the documentation to be able to tell us this. The power line companies will tell you the same thing. However, I do know that the power lines that go across, the same power lines that we are talking about, that there is a home on East Lansing Road, call it coincidence, where two people that live in that house died of cancer. We can say it is a coincidence or we can say perhaps it did have something to do with the power lines, but we are always assured that these things never happen as a health hazard to us. She is not willing to take that risk. Donna Mazza - As far as the R3 goes, she has the zoning map and yes possibly directly across from where the cell tower might be might be alright, but within a few hundred yards it is R31 At Buck Road on this side this far past the road itself is still R3 and it is right there on the map. Bill Kirk - 400 Auburn Road - Asked how this tower is different from the one on Lansingville Road. The only time that one can be seen is basically in the winter. That seems to be very well laid out and asked if it is the same style or not. Steve Farkas - Asked if anyone else wished to comment. He stated that there will be a continuation of the Public Hearing on March 21 st at 7:00 p.m. Steve Farkas - Asked Mr. Newell if there was anything he would like to comment on now or would he like wait until the 21 st. Shane Newell - Stated that there are some independent studies that he could provide the Board with, but he would only want to do that once he was assured that the Board would accept those independent studies. Whether they be on devaluation of property or EMR emissions or just indication of need, just who you want to do the studies or whether the Board will be hiring an outside firm to conduct those. He could order some of these studies to be done. They typically run into the question of devaluation of property they could request a study be done Pomeroy Associates. They will canvas the properties in the area, show studies comparable of communications tower that were installed after properties that were bought and sold and give some answers to some of these questions. At least that study they should probably compile. Also, a study that is done by an expert on electric magnetic radiation could be presented to the Board that would satisfy questions in that regard. The rest of it will be handled as they come forward at the next meeting. With the Board's permission, he would like to get those reports submitted in the interim. Katrina Greenly - Asked what other further justification would we need to be worked on. Mr. Newell stated that particular justification an independent company that does this type of analysis, not necessarily aligned with one particular area, that will show the things that they do, existing structures, what coverage is from there, and what the proposed coverage would do. Mr. Newell asked if they would like that study as well. Rich John - Stated that it might be helpful if Mr. Newell could provide some background on Pomeroy Associates and the other people that he would be using for these studies. The Board would then have some idea of their credentials. Shane Newell - Stated he would send those in the interim and wait for the Board's request for the reports to be ordered. Rich John - Stated that if the Board knew that they wanted them it would make since to give Mr. Newell more time to get going on it, if the Board felt comfortable making a decision tonight on whether the Board wants the studies done Francis Shattuck - Stated that a number of people have spoke and the Board will get together a list of all the questions they have and submit the list to SBA. The Board will also look the list over and some of those we could have answers for tonight and some of those SBA could have answers for but is probably better to wait until we have others. If you have or your neighbors have other questions, in the meantime if they could be submitted in writing within the next 213 February 28, 2001, continued two weeks so the Board and SBA has time to research them. The Board will address all or as many of those as we can. If you don't have a copy of the ordinance you can get one at the Town Hall or get a copy from one of your neighbors. SBA has a copy and knows what rules and regulations the Town Board expects them to follow. The Board will make their decisions based on all of that. The hearing will be continued next month. Steve Farkas - Stated that the Cellular Ordinance is on the Town's website. The issues around co- location and that there might be other sites that might provide the need. Francis Shattuck - Stated that on the map that there is a leased area of 195 feet with a 23 foot pedestal which has corners on it and if a tornado drew off a the corner of one of those that will be 11 Meet more to the center line which is going to make it 207 feet. So you might want to re- look at what it would be if it tipped from the corner for a full fall zone. Steve Farkas - Stated that he has had a number or phone calls come in from people that are in the Buck Road area that are not upset and do not have a problem with having a cell tower there. Diane Walter - Asked a question for the Board to consider - If this tower was going in your backyard or new your home would you want it there? She stated she thought that this was a very important thing for you to consider. Francis Shattuck - Stated we will consider everything. Steve Farkas - Thanked everyone for coming and stated at this continuation on the 21 st, he will be in Florida at that time. All persons desiring to be heard having been heard this portion of the public hearing was closed at 7:50 p.m. RESOLUTION TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING RESOLUTION, offered by Mr. Shattuck and seconded by Mrs. Greenly: WHEREAS, the Town of Lansing has adopted a Town of Lansing Cellular Tower Ordinance as Appendix II to the Town of Lansing Land Use Ordinance adopted on July 1, 1998, regulating the placement and operation of cellular communication towers in the Town of Lansing; and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Lansing has received an application pursuant to the Town of Lansing Cellular Tower Ordinance for the placement of a cellular communication tower in the Town of Lansing near the intersection of State Route 34 and Buck Road: and WHEREAS, the Town of Lansing Town Board scheduled and advertised a public hearing for February 28, 2001, at 7:00 p.m. to receive public comment on the proposal to place and operate a cellular communication tower in the Town of Lansing near the intersection of State Route 34 and Buck Road, and a copy of the application including the site map were made available for inspection at the Lansing Town Hall; and WHEREAS, after receiving input from the public and from the owner of the property where the cellular communication tower would be sited and from the representative of the applicant, and due deliberation it was decided to continue the public hearing in order to receive more information and public comment concerning the proposal; therefore, it is hereby RESOLVED, that the Town of Lansing Town Board hereby schedules the continuation of the public hearing for March 21 st at 7:00 p.m. to receive further public comment on the proposal to place and operate a cellular communication tower in the Town of Lansing near the intersection of State Route 34 and Buck Road, and a copy of the application including the site BE February 28, 2001, continued map shall be available for inspection at the Lansing Town Hall. Vote of Town Board ... (Aye) Katrina Greenly, Councilperson Vote of Town Board ... (Aye) Francis Shattuck, Councilperson Vote of Town Board ... (Aye) Stephen Farkas, Supervisor STORMY VIEW AND BEAN HILL ROAD Mr. Larson contacted Mr. John and asked about the ends of Stormy View Road and Bean Hill Lane at the southern terminus and whether the Town has rights all the way to the end of Cima's development into the adjoining property to the south. On the map that is filed in the Clerk's Office it goes to the southern end. On the deed it stops 50 feet short. Mr. John called Mr. Larson back and he indicated he had called Mr. Cima who said that on the advice of his attorney he had withheld that 50 feet and retains ownership. It was the consensus of the Board to research this. MEETING ADJOURNED Meeting adjourned at the call of the Supervisor at 8:05 p.m. Minutes taken and executed by the Deputy Town Clerk. /oXv9.��0 [ //okY1&-