HomeMy WebLinkAboutACCEPTED PB draft Minutes 2024-10-01
Pg. 1
PB 2024-10-01 (Filed 10/29)
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
OCTOBER 1, 2024
DRAFT MINUTES
Present: Fred Wilcox, Chair; Cindy Kaufman, Caitlin Cameron, Liz Bageant, Bill Arms, Gary
Stewart, and Sara Reynolds Absent: Kelda McGurk
CJ Randall, Director of Planning, Christine Balestra, Senior Planner, Nick Quilty-Koval,
Planner, Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town, David O’Shea, Director of Engineering, Justin
McNeal, Civil Engineer, Dana Magnuson, Senior Code Enforcement Officer, Ashley Colbert,
Deputy Town Clerk
Mr. Wilcox opened the meeting at 6:30p.m.
1. Consideration of Special Permit for the deposit and removal of fill relative to proposed
driveway improvements on an adjacent property immediately south of 229 Stone Quarry
Road. The project involves extending the existing driveway that serves 229 Stone Quarry
Road to provide improved vehicle access to the rear portion of the property as well as
drainage improvements along the driveway and Stone Quarry Road. The project also
involves excavating approximately 550 cubic yards of topsoil and shale and installing
temporary stormwater management facilities during construction and permanent facilities
post-construction. Richard Henry Mandl, Jr., Owner/Applicant.
Mr. Mandl provided a brief overview of the project, saying that he has owned the property for 35
years and they want to extend the driveway to be able to access the back part of their property.
SEQR Determination
There were no changes to the SEQR Form.
PB Resolution 2024-018: SEQR Special Permit
Stone Quarry Road Driveway Extension
Tax Parcel No.’s 39.-1-33.1 & 40.-3-11
Whereas:
1. This action is Consideration of Special Permit for the deposit and removal of fill relative to
proposed driveway improvements on an adjacent property immediately south of 229 Stone
Quarry Road. The project involves extending the existing driveway that serves 229 Stone
Quarry Road to provide improved vehicle access to the rear portion of the property as well as
drainage improvements along the driveway and Stone Quarry Road. The project also involves
excavating approximately 550 cubic yards of topsoil and shale and installing temporary
stormwater management facilities during construction and permanent facilities postconstruction.
Richard Henry Mandl, Jr., Owner/Applicant,
Pg. 2
PB 2024-10-01 (Filed 10/29)
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is the lead agency in
the environmental review with respect to Special Permit,
3. The Planning Board, on October 1, 2024, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short
Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) Part 1, submitted by the applicant, Parts 2 and 3
prepared by Town Planning staff, a Basic Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and set of
drawings (Sheets S2, S3, S4, & S5) titled “Mandl Driveway Expansion” dated 02/12/2024,
prepared by Richard Mandl, and other application materials, and
4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental
significance with respect to the proposed Special Permit; now, therefore be it
Resolved:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of
environmental significance in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law
and 6 NYCRR Part 617 New York State Environmental Quality Review for the above referenced
action as proposed, based on the information in the EAF Part 1 and for the reasons set forth in
the EAF Parts 2 and 3, and, therefore, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be
required.
Moved: Bill Arms Seconded: Liz Bageant
Vote: ayes- Wilcox, Cameron, Kaufman, Arms, Reynolds, Stewart & Bageant
Public Hearing
Mr. Wilcox opened the public hearing at 6:50p.m.; there was no one wishing to speak and the
hearing was closed.
Determination
Mr. Wilcox asked if they were proposing any future use of the parcel where the proposed
driveway is providing access to.
Mr. Mandl responded that there are no current plans, but it is a buildable lot, and he would not
want that ruled out for the future.
PB Resolution 2024-019: Special Permit
Stone Quarry Road Driveway Extension
Tax Parcel No.’s 39.-1-33.1 & 40.-3-11
Whereas:
1. This action is Consideration of Special Permit for the deposit and removal of fill relative to
proposed driveway improvements on an adjacent property immediately south of 229 Stone
Quarry Road. The project involves extending the existing driveway that serves 229 Stone
Quarry Road to provide improved vehicle access to the rear portion of the property as well as
Pg. 3
PB 2024-10-01 (Filed 10/29)
drainage improvements along the driveway and Stone Quarry Road. The project also
involves excavating approximately 550 cubic yards of topsoil and shale and installing
temporary stormwater management facilities during construction and permanent facilities
postconstruction. Richard Henry Mandl, Jr., Owner/Applicant,
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead
agency in the environmental review with respect to the project, has, on October 1, 2024,
made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and
accepted as adequate the Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the
applicant, and Parts 2 and 3, prepared by Town Planning staff, and
3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on October 1, 2024, reviewed, and accepted
as adequate Basic Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and set of drawings (Sheets S2,
S3, S4, & S5) titled “Mandl Driveway Expansion” dated 02/12/2024, prepared by
Richard Mandl, and other application materials; now, therefore be it
Resolved:
1. That the Planning Board hereby finds that the special permit standards of Article XXIV
Section 270-200, Subsections A – H, of the Town of Ithaca Code, have been met, specifically
that:
A. The project will be suitable for the property on which it is proposed, considering the
property’s size, location, and physical site characteristics.
• The property contains an existing driveway that will be extended easterly up the hill
side along the property line, as well as improvement to stormwater facilities along
Stone Quarry Road. The proposed improvements work with the site’s existing
physical characteristics.
B. The proposed structure design and site layout are compatible with the surrounding area.
• There are no proposed new structures and no changes to the site layout, other than
extending the existing gravel drive up the hillside.
C. Operations in connection with the proposed use do not create any more noise, fumes,
vibration, illumination, or other potential nuisances than the operation of any permitted
use in the particular zone.
• The use of the property will not change. The proposed driveway extension will create
temporary impacts that will cease when the work is completed.
D. Community infrastructure and services, such as police, fire and other protective services,
roadways, schools, and water and sewer facilities are currently, or will be, of adequate
capacity to accommodate the proposed use.
• The only changes to community infrastructure include redirecting of runoff to
existing town highway drop inlets from modest improvements to onsite stormwater
facilities
Pg. 4
PB 2024-10-01 (Filed 10/29)
E. The proposed use, structure design, and site layout will comply with all the provisions of
the Town Code and with the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan.
• Proposed modifications require review and approval of a Basic SWPPP by the Town
Engineering, and a culvert permit for connection to the Town owned storm system.
The attached memo from the Town Engineering Department dated September 19th,
2024, details the approval of the Basic SWPPP and comments on the requirement for
a culvert permit with the Public Works Department.
F. The site layout, with proposed vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian access, traffic
circulation, and parking and loading facilities, is sufficient for the proposed use and is
safely designed for emergency vehicles.
G. The project includes sufficient landscaping and/or other forms of buffering to protect
surrounding land uses. Existing vegetation is preserved to the extent possible.
• The site is a densely forested hillside with substantial buffer around the surrounding
area. There are several small diameter saplings between 2” and 4” proposed
relocation, and five 12” diameter trees (3 maple, one cork elm, 1 white ash) planned
for removal.
H. To the extent deemed relevant by the Planning Board, the proposed use or structure
complies with all the criteria applicable to site plan review set forth in Chapter 270,
Zoning.
• Site Plan approval is not required with Special Permit when associated with a fill
permit. This criterion is not applicable to the project.
2. That, pursuant to Town Code Section 270-217.E, the Planning Board hereby finds that
the plan adequately protects the property and surrounding properties from significant
adverse consequences of such deposit or removal, including, when completed, adverse
drainage, erosion, visual or other adverse impacts, taking into account the distance of the
operation from neighboring property and public ways, the possible detriment of such use
to the future development of the land in question, and significant nuisance or detriment of
the operation to neighboring landowners and to the community as a whole, and
3. That the Planning Board hereby grants Special Permit for the proposed Stone Quarry
Road Driveway Extension, with the following conditions:
a. All Town of Ithaca Engineering Department comments listed in the Engineering
Memorandum, written by Joe Slater, Director of Public Works and Justin McNeal,
Civil Engineer, dated September 19th, 2024, must be addressed prior to any Land
Development Activity (Per Town Code § 228- 5).
Moved: Liz Bageant Seconded: Bill Arms
Vote: ayes- Wilcox, Cameron, Kaufman, Arms, Reynolds, Stewart & Bageant
Pg. 5
PB 2024-10-01 (Filed 10/29)
2. Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for a personal
wireless service facility located at 111 Wiedmaier Court, off Slaterville Road/NYS Route
79. The proposal involves the construction of a 138' +/- monopole tower with 9 antennas, two
equipment cabinets, a generator, and other equipment within a 50' x 50' +/- chain link fenced
area. S. Roberts WC Land, LLC, Owner; Verizon Wireless, Applicant; Jared C. Lusk, Nixon
Peabody, LLP, Agent
Mr. Wilcox said that Ms. Brock, Attorney for the Town, had a brief statement to make to keep us
on track.
Ms. Brock stated that the Board has seen information about the appropriate legal standards from
both the applicant and the Town consultant in his report. She advised the Board to just follow
what the Town Code requires for this project. She extensively researched the law and the
provisions in the Town Code meet all legal standards. The Board only needs to consider the
things the law tells them to consider and make the findings the law tells them to make.
Ms. Bageant asked if they could go through the bullet points of Town Code 270-219 (R)2 A & B
in terms of standards.
Ms. Balestra noted that they are in the draft resolution for ease of reference.
Mrs. Brock added that there is another legal standard the Board and public should be aware of as
some comments that have been submitted have touched on a topic that the Board cannot
consider. She explained that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 imposes rules on
municipalities as to what they can and cannot do, and one of the limitations is that they may not
regulate placement, construction or modification of personal wireless service facilities based on
the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply
with the FCC’s regulations concerning such emissions. The Courts have said that the word
“environmental” effects include health effects. There is no doubt about that interpretation,
meaning the Board cannot consider the health effects of this facility if it meets the FCC’s
requirements.
Overview (Muffled audio)
Mr. Lusk introduced his team present.
Mr. Lusk noted that they gave certification of being compliant with the FCC’s standards that was
reviewed by the Town’s consultant.
He gave a summary of the area between South Hill and East Hill where there are gaps in cellular
coverage and excessive cell traffic demands, the location of the proposed cell tower and the
history of the property prior to the current owner.
Mr. Lusk reviewed the documentation showing the need for the tower to improve service area
and the height necessary.
Pg. 6
PB 2024-10-01 (Filed 10/29)
The location is in a cleared area that was associated with a previous site plan development and
the current owner was not aware of nor should she be held responsible for issues that she was not
responsible for.
He went through the submitted plan details of the tower itself and associated equipment.
Questions
Mr. Wilcox noted that the materials are voluminous. Members said it was hard to navigate to
particular exhibits that are being discussed.
Ms. Bageant noted that Exhibit H shows a comprehensive layout for the requested location, but
the analysis of the other locations is not sufficient, just stating that they are unsuitable.
Mr. Sharif gave his credentials and shared screens showing maps of the 5 different areas that
were considered for the cell tower and computer simulations of what coverage is like at each of
them.
Out of the five locations, the proposed location is the only one that shows good coverage for
Route 79 and the surrounding residential areas.
Ms. Balestra said that she did research the five chosen sites. One of the sites was Six Mile Creek
Vineyard which is a location the town staff does not recommend, one of the sites is in the Town
of Dryden adjacent to the east, and the remaining sites are immediately across the street of the
proposed location, on a residential property with a home and another behind a home with a
significant slope.
Ms. Bageant asked if Mr. Sharif could explain why the location at a lower elevation is better than
a location that is at a higher elevation.
Mr. Sharif responded that the best service is under 1K feet of ground elevation. This is a
difficult area because of the elevations. The proposed location keeps the service under the 1K
elevation of the surrounding areas that need the coverage. The other locations bring us above that
elevation and service is not improved for the area.
Ms. Randall noted that she heard the applicant state that the current owner and Verizon were not
aware of any prior restrictions on the property (Mr. Lusk nodded in the affirmative) and she said
there was a declaration of restrictions on the property filed with the County Clerk on April 23,
2010, and she was surprised the design team was not aware of that.
Mr. Morgan responded that they are aware of those restrictions and that is why the proposed
location of the tower is at the one spot on the property, an “island spot” where anything could be
built.
The current owner was not aware of the violations in the clear cutting of trees and soil.
Pg. 7
PB 2024-10-01 (Filed 10/29)
Ms. Bageant asked what the goal was for this evening and how much time the Board has to
absorb and consider this information.
Ms. Balestra went through the application timeline and the “shot clock” associated with it. After
some starts and stops for receipt of requests/necessary materials, the 150-day clock is up at the
end of November, unless the Board and the Applicant agree to extend it.
Mr. Wilcox asked what they mean about “demand” and what that means. Is that voice, data,
calls, texts?
Mr. Sharif explained that data is now all of that combined, games, calls, texts, etc. are all data.
Mr. Wilcox stated for the record that based on the information provided here, where he lives, he
would benefit from the tower, but he does not see that as a reason to recuse himself.
Ms. Cameron asked about the Declaration of Restrictions. There are discrepancies regarding the
specific conditions on the ground, as far as trees, plantings, required trees that were planted, and
then elsewhere it is referred to as a grassy area.
Ms. Randall explained the history of the 2003 approved subdivision. The previous owners
clearcut the hillside and moved a considerable amount of soil that was not in compliance with the
approved subdivision. This resulted in a big erosion problem and the DEC was notified and took
over from there.
The DEC led the enforcement of a stabilizing plan, under their oversight, including the planting
of 250 trees in 2008. The trees were required to maintain a 95% survival rate for 5 years. The
Town monitored that part of the stabilization plan and in 2013 stated the condition had been met.
Mr. Wilcox added that the Planning Board has no enforcement arm. The previous owner did
something that was not permitted in the stormwater pollution and prevention plan. We did the
best we could by requiring stabilization of the site after the fact.
Ms. Cameron said that she wanted to be on the record to make it clear that no aspect of this
project includes removing any more trees or altering or making that stormwater management any
worse.
Mr. O’Shea said there is no disturbance zone in the proposal. They are proposing some minor
changes in grade with the driveway and the pad, but Engineering does not see any issues with
those minor changes, and they are not proposing anything in the no disturbance area, and they
are following all requirements of their SPEDES permit.
Ms. Reynolds asked if the area was zoned Conservation at the time of the major disturbance of
land.
Pg. 8
PB 2024-10-01 (Filed 10/29)
Mr. Wilcox summarized, saying the area is Conservation Zone and as part of the subdivision and
following remediation, there were additional constraints put on the subdivision to include the
remediated area as a “no disturbance area” placed upon this specific subdivided property.
Discussion followed on allowed uses and preferential locations for telecommunications.
Mr. Arms asked about the additional landscaping that was proposed.
Ms. Balestra replied that the applicant is not proposing additional landscaping and if the purpose
is to screen the tower, that would take 50 years to have an impact on screening the tower itself,
but if it is to screen accessory structures of the tower, that could be possible. The site is not
further compromised by this proposal.
Ms. Bageant stated that she lives near a cell tower. It is important that the ancillary equipment is
shielded, but, that equipment can change over time, especially as co-locations are added, so they
are not trivial. She said the generator near her is quiet, so she supports their statements about
that.
The access tower near her is curved, so visibility is less, this site is a straight shot with limited
screening opportunities, especially with the no disturbance area, and the applicant might consider
shifting it slightly to mitigate that straight shot access.
Ms. Kaufman agreed, saying that she visited the site, and she was somewhat disappointed that it
is a straight shot to the site.
Mr. Wilcox said that used to be a dirt road, and that has grown up a bit, but some screening
might be appropriate.
Ms. Bageant said she would like to see a landscaping plan for this project.
Ms. Kaufman asked if having the access driveway to the tower off of Burns Road rather than
through the residential area.
Mr. Morgan responded that the area surrounding the tower site is in the restricted area and
surrounds the location of the tower except for that existing access road on Wedemeyer Court.
Ms. Balestra added that there is a very steep slope there, existing mature trees, and required
stormwater retention ponds. Town staff strongly suggests that no additional tree cutting is
considered.
Discussion followed with elevation and slopes shown and the City properties that surround the
property as a whole.
Moving the access road line conforms to the existing boundary of the no disturbance area, with
not a lot, if any, wiggle room.
Pg. 9
PB 2024-10-01 (Filed 10/29)
Mr. Wilcox added that the original road that was planned was the same straight shot and there
were no concerns raised then.
Ms. Randall added that the hilltop was essentially leveled off, and the DEC set these restrictive
covenants, and she wasn’t sure how easily that could be modified, and it is a platted subdivision
with associated deeds.
She added that there is an angle to Weidmaier Road as you enter off of Slaterville Road, not a
completely straight shot off the highway.
Discussion continued on landscaping and gating options. Asking for a landscaping plan can be
part of the preliminary approval as a condition prior to final approval.
Ms. Cameron asked about the electrical usage of a tower of this size and the applicant responded
that it is similar to a residential house.
Mr. Wilcox stated that the legal requirement is for a public hearing after the SEQR
determination, as that determination makes the application complete. He is always open to
hearing comments prior to SEQR, but the legal public hearing is after the SEQR determination.
Ms. Brock noted that the Town Code requires the applicant to show that there is a compelling
need to address any significant gaps in the personal wireless services. The Town Code defines
personal wireless services the same way the Telecommunications Act and the Second Circuit
Court has defined it, which is “the ability of wireless telephones to make and receive voice calls
to and from landlines that are connected to the national telephone network.”
Speaking to the applicant, Ms. Brock stated “In the exhibits you've given us to show need, you
talk about a lack of capacity and need for better service for both voice and data. What we really
need to see, because our Town Board very specifically restricted this to the requirement that the
need be shown for wireless telephones to make and receive voice calls to and from landlines that
are connected to the national telephone network, and that is not what you have shown.”
Ms. Brock asked if the Applicant’s engineer can answer to what extent some of these exhibits
might need to be revised to show the specified need and not just the lack of capacity for data and
things like that.
Inaudible responses. From notes – voice calls use the same system, so increased voice and data
loads affect the same.
Ms. Brock asked if the propagation maps could show just calls and not data.
Mr. Lusk responded that they are showing coverage, there is no delineation of calls or data. If
signal strength or signal quality is poor, it is bad for both calls and data.
Ms. Brock asked for verification that the drop call data is for voice calls and it's not somebody
trying to connect for data purposes.
Pg. 10
PB 2024-10-01 (Filed 10/29)
Mr. Wasif confirmed that is correct, stating “The data we provide for a dropped call is for voice
data, a voice call. Drive test data is also not specific to call or data usage. They are showing you
the signal strength and quality. You can’t make a good call without both.”
Ms. Reynolds asked about the Telecommunications Act of 1995 , expressing that the law was
enacted over 25 years ago. Ms. Brock responded that it has not been updated and it is up to
Congress to do that, but the Town decided to follow that standard.
Ms. Reynolds continued, saying that there is no way to tease the two apart at this point in
technology. Ms. Brock responded that the Town Board has set the law and you have to apply the
law that they've set. They've made a policy decision that they want to impose a high bar for
telecommunications or personal wireless service providers to show need because they don't want
what in their view is an unnecessary proliferation of these facilities.
Mr. Wilcox added that this is the first learning example of the lack of discretion we have.
Opportunity for the public to speak. (Again, audio was horrible)
(Written comments submitted at the meeting or after posting of the official mailout packet and 24 hours
after the meeting can be found in the updated packet online and will be filed permanently with the project
folder along with any other comments received after the post meeting deadline.)
Mr. Wilcox stated for the benefit of the public: “We as the Planning Board have not completed
the environmental review. If we were to make a negative determination of potential
significant environmental impact, we would then move on to the legally required public hearing.
Since we haven't gotten to that point, we are not holding the legally required public hearing but
what we will do is give everybody here a chance to speak. We ask you to keep your comments
brief and to the point because that will benefit everybody who is still attending this meeting and
paying attention.”
James Hamilton spoke about the devastation of the property by the previous owners and the
remediation efforts. He said there are not 250 trees, and you can tell that from the satellite views.
He wanted efforts to honor the nature of the Conservation Zone here held to. He would like to
see the area remediated to the natural state it was in.
Gentleman – hold them to the strictness of the Town Law.
Unknown Lady – said she has lived in the area for 4 years and there were gaps, but she hasn’t
experienced any lately. She said she is concerned about the heavy emissions and the FCC
standards are junk, and she got really sick living near some high towers.
Mr. Wilcox stated that a lot of the written comments refer to the proposal not meeting our current
Code etc. They mention exposure levels and radiation levels, but don’t cite a specific violation of
our Code. He asked staff if there was any Code requirement the proposal does not meet.
Pg. 11
PB 2024-10-01 (Filed 10/29)
Ms. Balestra responded that is does not meet our height restrictions, but it meets everything else.
Ms. Brock reiterated that as long as they comply with the levels that the FCC has set for
exposure to radiofrequency emissions, the Board cannot base their decision on the perceived
health impact of that exposure. The Applicants have provided a certification and report saying
that they meet those FCC requirements.
Molly Kornblum – asked that the application be denied because it is too close to homes and
apartments and there is no evidence from an independent report that there are dropped calls and
that should be analyzed by an independent source. She also referenced a number of health
concerns.
Andrew Molinar spoke, saying that he suffers from affects of cell radiation and cannot sleep at
his parents’ house because it is within 1,000 feet of a tower. He cited numerous studies showing
harmful health effects from towers and internal communications showing Verizon themselves
know there are significant health effects. (Multiple written comments submitted)
Marie Skwier spoke, thanking the Board for looking at this carefully. She was concerned about
the time spent on the citing and screening and the only concern should be determining whether
there is a lack of coverage for voice calls.
We spent a lot of time crafting a law that restricted the proliferation of cell towers to allow for
voice calls. She believes there should be an independent study showing gaps in voice calls and
then if it is determined, then the options on the least cell tower we need. The least intrusive to
cover that gap. Get to that need before wasting time on aesthetics.
She then stated that there is the aesthetic aspect which the Board can use to deny the application.
This is a natural area and recreation area.
Brian spoke, saying his thoughts were on whether this is needed and if the drive test data is
valid. He supported the other comments regarding looking into the legitimate need to
specifically address what the Code says it should address.
Daniel Seib spoke, saying he lives about 500 feet from the location and he and his family have
concerns about the viewshed and environmental impacts. He doesn’t know much about the
health aspects, but it would affect their view.
Marilee Murphy spoke, saying he lives about half a mile away and he has never had a problem
with cell service or a problem with dropping calls in the area.
Mr. Wilcox thanked them for their comments and reiterated that commenting tonight did not
remove their ability to comment during the public hearing.
Discussion
Ms. Brock wanted to comment on the Consultants’ report before moving on.
Pg. 12
PB 2024-10-01 (Filed 10/29)
Ms. Brock said that the Consultant put in a lot of legal information that was not in the scope of
work into the report, and she would like all of that pulled out of his report. He was to be looking
at the need for the project and I would like him to use the wording the standards in the Town
Code to tell us whether, in his opinion, the applicant has met the showing of need and go back to
that wording, “Compelling need to address any significant gaps in the applicant's personal
wireless services...” Define, as I've described it “…through the proposed facilities and not
through any other solution…”
I would like him to draw his conclusions, using the standards that are in the in the Code. Our
Code says, “to determine whether a gap is significant,” and it tells you what you look at, and
what to write a report based upon. The Code says “voice” and that is what should be looked at.
Mr. Arms responded, saying that people consider it communication, not just “voice”
communications. Ms. Brock said that is what you have to do, that is what our Code says.
Mr. Lusk asked where that was, specifically, in the Code.
Ms. Brock responded that it is in the Definitions section, and in Section R, Findings, Purpose,
and more. She added that we had talked about this before.
Discussion followed on where “voice calls” was in the Code.
Ms. Kaufman said she would still like a better explanation about why such a large singular tower
is needed as opposed to smaller, maybe more numerous towers would address the gap.
Discussion followed on the possibilities of various sizes and locations.
Ms. Balestra listed what the Board wanted to see to make a determination on SEQR:
1. Revised Consultant report
2. Show options for smaller, short towers instead of one tower
3. Landscaping plan
Members added that some people are expressing that they are not experiencing dropped calls and
how would we ascertain that? Do we want to get an independent report?
Ms. Randall said the intention is to give these questions to our Consultant, who will review their
report and attend the next meeting and provide answers to your questions on the report.
Mr. Wilcox asked if the parcel was a buildable lot and the response was yes, it could have a
house or a house with an accessory dwelling unit. There are environmental impacts to that type
of build out also.
Mr. Lusk spoke but it was inaudible. Mr. Wilcox was asked to paraphrase what he said.
Pg. 13
PB 2024-10-01 (Filed 10/29)
Mr. Wilcox said Mr. Lusk was talking about the cost of the Consultant report, which they are
paying for, and what the Board was asking for may be outside what they should be paying for.
Mr. Wilcox said the report clearly says “preliminary” and the next step is to provide these
questions so a final report can be produced by the Consultant.
SEQR Determination: Personal Wireless Service Facility (Tower) – 111 Wiedmaier
Court – Site Plan Approval & Special Permit.
4. Other Business
Ms. Randall brought up the request for the Planning Board to move their meeting from election
night to another night.
Discussion followed with the question of the members’ ability to attend and sufficient time for
materials that were requested to be ready.
Motion made to reschedule the November 5th meeting to October 29th to accommodate early
voting at Town Hall. Moved by Mr. Wilcox, seconded by Ms. Bageant, unanimous.
5. Persons to be Heard – None
6. Approval of Minutes – Motion made by Mr. Wilcox to approve the minutes of August 6,
2024, seconded by Ms. Bageant, unanimous.
7. Next Agenda – Possible items reviewed.
Meeting adjourned upon motion by Mr. Wilcox, seconded by Ms. Bageant, unanimous.
Submitted by
Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk