HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-06-24TB 6- 24 -99
TOWN OF DRYDEN
SPECIAL TOWNROARD MEETZW
.DINE 241, 1999
Supv Schug opened the -meeting at 1{]:5 am. Audience members and guests
participated 'in a moment of silence followed by the pledge of allegiance-
Roll call by Town Clerk Bambi L. Hollenbeck proved the following in attendance- 1
Beck, C1 T Hat$ekd, Supervisor Schug, Attorney Mahlon R. Perkiris, Absent, C l Grantham and
CI C Hatfield,
Supv Schug - You have received the minutes utes of our special meeting and hearings an
this Matter held on June 1, 1999.
Upon motion made, seconded and unanimously carried the minutes of June 1, 1999,
were approved.
Supv Schug - bet's move to the special permit hearing for Omnipoint at the Pinclmey
Road location. I understand Mahlon has some comments on that tnatter,
Atty Perkins - You last met on June 1 regarding this application. At that meeting the
$4ard discussed the completeness of the application and whether or not there was additional
information which should be before the Board in making its decision. As a part of that process
the applicant agreed to provide additional prop- 1gation studies which investigated existing sites -
In that investigation the applicant determined that it may indeed be possible to co, locate their
antenriw, facilities and structures on the existing Cellular One tower site off Simons Hill Road,
very close to the proposed location for the applicant's tower - The local Iaw which we have
treats co- location as a favored method of resolving these applications. With that in mind, the
local law provides that the Town Board may waive certain requirements of the local law and
after consulting with Dick Comi who is our consultant, 1 have prepared a resolution which you
have before you. The resolution basically converts the application that Ommpoint and Utusite
have already made for a tower to an application to co- locate on the Cellular One site- It goes on
to impose certain conditions on the spial use perixit to co- locate on that site and it provides
that no additional fee should be clue on the conversion from an application for a tower to an
application to co- locate. It ilia waives all the requii-ernents of the local law except those which
are speciflcaJly Provided in the resolution and it waives any further public hear gs on an
application to co-locate. Except to the extent that the special use permit is granted for co-
location, the original application is hereby denied-
Before you act on that resolutions you will need to consider SEAR- (Asl€ed ZO Slater to
make copies of the EAR) One of the other documents I handed out to you is a record of the
proceedings (copy provided to Atty Spitzer), which I hunk is comprehensive and lists all of the
documents whieb constitute the application, except for the propagation studies which weere
submitted and which are referred to in the actual re wlution- One €nf the other documents you
have before you is a proposed resolution male ng a determination that the project of co- location
will not have a significant effect on the environment and accepting the EAF, and requiring the
supervisor to file a negative declaration. Of course you cannot act on that resolution until
such time as we have the EAF back and can look at that- quo with respect to the application at
Sinnms Hill Road, that is here we are
upv Schug - Does anyofxe from the publk wish to speak or have anydiiqg to say's This
is a continuation of a public hearing,
Page l of 14
r
•
TB 5 -24 -99
Atty Perkins - Actually, to the extent that you act on this resolution to caavert it from
an aPPlicabOn to construct a tower to an application to co ocate, it is riot a public hearing.
You don't even have to have the public hearing,
Supv Schug - Co�locatian is the way to ga. Hopefully everything works out in that area,
Atty Spitzes - Do you have an extra er}py of the resolution? (Given to him by Atty
Perkins)
1 Beck - Mahlon, you mentioned certain Town law provisions that are waived when we
accept this one What types of thugs are we waiving?
Atty Perltins - We have a comprehensive local law regarding the siting of towers and co-
locating- That provision of the local law, section 8, subsection O says if you are co- locating,
which is really the preferred way to do it, the Board can waive any of the formal requirements
of the local law, including having a public hearing, So we are not going to ask Omrupoint to go
back and redo a wbole new application. We are god to accept what they have filed and a lot
of the conditions which are proposed here I think we already have or they can eamay provide us
because it is part of the original application. (Ask=ed Sixpv Schug to give Dick Corm a copy of
the resolution.)
Dick Comi - Just two questiions, and basically the first one is for Onu- dpoint. You are
going to be removing Unisite from the application then? Obviously they are not building this
thing, so somehow that ought to be acknowledged,m here that this is an Omnipoint co- location
and not Unisite_
Atty Spitzer - I think lie has done that. it think it very clearly says , .. Paragraph two
clearly says the Town Board hereby approves a. special use permit for Omnipoint, so Unisite
gains nothinS iri terms of a right to build a tower.
D Comi - OK, I had not seen this.
Atty Spitzer - You had another questi=on?
D comi - I think the second thing, Mahlon, was simply a comment more along your
Line, Some of the things that we said that Omnipoint doesn't have to do, they did propagation
studies from 200' away and showed the reed, Obviously, to have them go back and do
something 200' away and do a lot of other studies is not a requirement, so those are the .kin4 of
things that when I discussed with Mahlon, as far as I'm concerned would be an absolute waste
of everybody's time and effort, money and energy and so forth.
Cl Beck - That sounds seasonable.
Supv Scbug -And the Six or seven things we asked for shouldn't take long to Put
together Mould they?
Atty Spitzer - No, I don't thank so, Just briefly in terms of the copy of the lease, nu
problem There. The structural certification, we got that from Cell One We always require it, so
no problem there. The non - interference arid, actually there is an item in here that 11+Ir. Co d,
asked for and IS not i
an n the resolution. It says C, the applicant provide a non - interference
certificate. I4+1r. Corm had also ^ oh, I'm sorry, certificate of emissions - it is here, It is 2, ray
agolagies. Well provide that. I think that our position is as previously stated. We feel the
Town is regulating areas outside it's jurisdiction.
Page 2 of 14
TB 6 -24 -99
Atty Perkins - And for the record, we are not telling you what it has to say, we are just
® asking for the certificate.
Atty Spitzer - So we don't have to have a licensed engineer do it? Our RF engineer can
do it?
Atty
Perkins -
You have to comply with
the local law. We're not telling you what it has
to say. You
just have
to comply with the local
law.
Atty Spitzer - Ok, I understand. A copy of the written practices, I think we did that for
Unisite. Well amend it to say what Omnipoint's are. But, to the extent of the language,
inspection, maintenance, I can't force Cell One to give you something about their maintenance.
I can certainly give you for our equipment and what well do.
Atty Perkins - You can ask Cell One for a copy of it.
Atty Spitzer - I would be more than happy to. I just want that on the record that I can't
force Cell One to do anything. In terms of a bond, our intent is to file one. We've asked our
bond company to give us a bond on the tower. They said well give you a bond for the removal
of your own equipment, we can't give you a bond on the removal of Cell One's tower. You don't
own it. So, we intend to ask Cell One to, at Omnipoint's expense, obtain a bond. Obviously, if
Cell One says no, we can't go on their tower and satisfy your law. So we can look at that as a
future date. And certainly the time frame is adequate to us. The only thing of substance I
would note is that you state that you deny the application. One of the things I pointed out in
my letter to Mr. Perkins is that we intend to spend a lot of time trying to lease this. We have
been trying to lease this for a year. There is no coincidence that our gap is centered on Simms
Hill. We thought we'd be able to go on this tower from day one. But if Cell One says no, we
® don't think that it is appropriate to indicate that we have to start this process over again, with
our other application. If Cell One says no or if the structure fails so that we can't go there,
what happens at that point? This seems to indicate that you want us to submit a whole new
application. I'm not sure that's the intent. What I had suggested in my letter was that if the
conditions could not be met to satisfy Cell One within sixty days, we would give you written
notice and request that you reconsider the construction of the second tower. Doing so, of
course, would not in any way indicate that you have to give us the tower or that you think the
tower is worthwhile, or in any way commit you to anything. But to the extent that it's denied,
I'm concerned because Cell One certainly could say no. They now have a competitor in.effect
and the ability to delay us, which frankly was their prior stance. I'm not quite sure how we
want to handle that.
Atty Perkins - I think the other way to do it is since it seems that what Mr. Spitzer is
asking is for the board to table further action on the application. He has been the first to point
out to us that we are required to make decisions within a relatively short period of time. If he
doesn't want the decision that way and is consenting to the tabling of action on the existing
application, then you might consider modifying #6 of the resolveds to read something like
"upon issuance of the special use permit after compliance with the conditions herein unposed,
and except to the extent herein specifically approved for co- location, the application is hereby
denied ", which would deny it at such time as the permits are issued.
Atty Spitzer - That's fine with us.
Atty Perkins - Is that a satisfactory resolution?
Atty Spitzer - Yes.
Page 3 of 14
B 6.24.9 T
upv Schug - Wh-.e Mahlo 's doing that, why don't we take a look at the short farm
environmental assessment farm, which has to be dome sornewh.ere along our project. You have
I
t its front of you. The application sponsor looks fine. Sui =s Hill site. Modification of existing
tower, placing antennas on Cell One tower.
Cl Beck - Is that correct language? Modification of cell, tower? Do you modify the
tower?
Atty Spitzer - If you are asking me in my opinion, no, but as I understand your law you
consider any change to an existing tower to be a modification, so I followed your local law both
in that question and in paxageaph 12.
Supv Schug - By hanging stuff on it you modify it.
Atty Spityer - That is my understanding of your local law.
Atty Perkins - Although the Cellular One tower was riot subject to this local law.
ZO Slater - That is correct,
SugV Schng - OK, does any one have any questions about the short form environmental
assessment form?
fNo questions)
Atty Perkins - Before you act on that resolution, I will re -read that #6, but I guess I'd
litre to ask i r. Spitzer, are you generally in agreement with regard to what the record consists
of up to this point, other than the propagation studies which were, submitted?
Atty Spitzer - Yes.
Supv Schug - yigi red again if there were any questions and there were none.
RESOLUTION NO- 145(1999)
RESOLUTION DETER KING T AT ACTION TO APPROVE
CO-LOCATION OF ANTENNAE AND FACILITIES AND STRUCTURES ON EXISTING
TELECOMMUNICATIONS TELECOMM-UNICATIORS TOWER WILL NOT HAVE A
SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT
Councilperson Beck offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption_
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Dryden, Tompkins County, New York {the
" Toaffti") proposes to approve the issuance of a special use permit pursuant to Local Lave No.
of the year' 1998 (a local law regulatEng the siting of telecor=unicaffons towers, antennae and
related facilities) which special use permit would permit Omnipoint Communications, Inc. to
co-locate antennae, accessary fas, hies and structures on the existing Cellular One tower off
Simms Hill Road (the "Froject'); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, Chapter 43=13
of the Consolidated Laws of New York, as amended (the "SE R Act") and the regulations
adopted pursuant thereto by the Department of Environmental ConservaEon of the State of
New York, being 6 NY RR Part 617, as amended (the "Regulations "), the Town Board desires to
determine whether the Project may have a I' significant effect ors the environmene (as said is
Page 4of14
T8 6-24 99
quoted term is defined Mi the SEAR Act and the Regulations) and therefore require the
preparation of an environmental impact statement; and
WHERKAS, to aid the Town Board in determining whether the Project may have a
significant effect upon the environment, an environmental assessment form (the "EAF") has
been presented to and reviewed by the Town Board, copies of which EAF are on file in the office
of the Town Clerk; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to
the Regulations, the Town Board
has examined
the
EAF in
aide; to make a detcrmination as to the potential environmenrtal
alp ifir_ance of
the
Project; and
WHEREAS, the Project does not appear to constitute a mrype I Action" .[as said quoted
term is defined in the Regulations),
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE TOWN BOARD OF
THE TOWN OF DRYDEN AS FOLLOWS;
(1) Based upon an examination of the EAF, and based further upon t1be Town
Board's knowledge of the area suTToundir the proposed Project and the fact that the Project
does not involve the construction of another telecommunications tower but rather advances the
policy of promotifig to- location of telecommunications antennas and accessary facilities and
structures whenever feasible and based upon the fact the tower and site already exist upon
such further investigation of the Project and the environmental effects as the Town Board has
deemed appropri ate, the Town Board makes the fallowing findings with respect to the Project:
(A) The Project consists of the installation of
telecommunications antennaw and accessory facilities and structures on
the existing Cellular One tower and site off Sirnrnc Hill Road without
creadng new access to the site and without increasing the height of the
existing towel.
(B)
No
potentially significant impacts on
the environment are
noted in the
EAF,
and none are known to the Town
Board.
() Based upon the forego ng investigat=ion of the potential environmental impacts of
the.Project and considering both the magnitude and importance of each environmental impact
therein indicated, the Town Sward makes the following findings and determinations with
respect to the Project:
(A) The Project constitutes an 'Unlisted Action' (as said
quoted term is definftd in the Regulations);
(B) The Project will result in no major impacts and, therefore,
is one which will not cause significant damage to the envirnnmrnt.
Therefore, the Town Hoard hereby determines that the Project will not
have a significant effect on the environment, and the Town Board will not
require the preparation of are environmental impact statement with
respect to the Project; and
(C) As a consequence of the faTegoing, the Town Board has
prepared a negative declaration with respect to the Project_
(3) The Town Supervisor is hereby directed to file with the Town Clerk a negative
declaration with respect to the Project which shall be avaflable for PiNic inspection during
regular business hours.
Page 5 of 14
TB 6 -24 -99
(4) This resolution shall take effect immediately. 0
Seconded Councilperson T Hatfield
Roll call Vote Cl Beck Yes
Cl T Hatfield Yea
Surp,J $chug Yes
Atty Perldns - The change to the resolution on the 15imms Hill Road application would
be as follows, Number six would read ° Upon ooxupliance with the conditions herein imposed
and the issuance of the special use permit for co- location on the Cellular One tower, then
except to the extent herein specifically approved for co- location, the application to construct a
telecommunications tower off iranxs Hill Road is hereby denied',
RESOLUTION WO, 146 (19991 CONVERT OMNIPOINT APPLICATION FOR A TOWER
ON SIMMS HILL ROAD TO A 00- LOCATION APPLICLATIION
Councilperson T Hatfield offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption.
WHEREA , the Telecommunications Acct of 1996 axed cases decided thereunder reserve
to local ,governments decisions regard siting of telecommunications towers, and
WHEREAS, the "Town of Dryden adopted Local Law No. 2 of the year 1998 entitled 'A
local law regulating the siting of telecommunications towers, =terinae and related facilities"
which local law establishes a policy of strongly encouraging the co4ocation of antennae and
accessary facilities or structures on existing structures, towers and other existing suitable
locations, and
WHEREAS, said local law imposes the requirement upon an applicant to identify such
existing towers, str iirWres and other suitable locations, and
WHEREAS, the 'Town is in receipt of an application by Omnlpoint Commllmlcations, IM-
and Un.isite (the 'applicant) to build a 150' telecommunications tower off Simms Hill Road,
amd
WHEREAS, there are existiiV Mowers in the same general location of the applicant's
proposed site which towels might prove to be suitable for flue installation of the applicant's
proposed antt=ae aad accessory facilities or structures, and
WHEREAS, the
Town Board has on numerous occasions,
through its
employees and
consultants, requested
the applicant provide propagation studies
for such existing
towers at
various heights, and
WHEREAS, at Che insisten*e of the applicant the Town Board held a public hearing on
the application on June 1, 1999, and
WHER A , at such public hearing the 'Town Board reiterated its insiaWnve that the
applicant provide proof that the existirig towers could not be used for installation of its
antennae, accessory facilities and structures and egaipment, and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing the applicant agreed to provide additional
propagation studies including those for the Cellular One tower off Simms Hill Read, the
Page 6 of 14
Tompli ns County tower at 204 Walker Road, the water tank at
College axed the Frontier tower off Bradshaw Road, and
WHEREAS, upon further ixivestigation by the applicant,
is feasible to co- lacatte its antennae, facilities and structures or
subject to the applicant being able to enter an agreement with
such tower, and
TB 6 -24 -99
TuEapkim- ortland Community
the applicant determined that it
the Cellular One tower and site
Cellular One for the joint use of
WHEREAS, when an applicant proposes to co- locate its antennae, facilities and
structures on an existing tower as opposed to the construction of a new telecommunications
Cower Section 8(Q) of the local law permits the Town Board to waive such requiretnents. of the
local law as may be for good cause shown,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
1_ The application of Omnipoint Come,- ruications, Inc. is hereby converted to an
application to co- locate its antennae and facilities and structures on the Cellular One tower
and site.
The Town Board hereby approves a special use permit for Omnipodnt
ammunicativns, lncr to ca- locate its antennae and facilities on the existing Cellular Oene
tower, without Mi creas9 its beight, on the following conditions:
(a) The applicant provide a copy of the lease and landowner
consent or satisfactory proof demonstrating an agreement permitting co-
location;
(b) The applicant provide a structural certification of the
suitability of the Cellular One tower including soil samples, foundation
reports and the suitability of the structure to ho4se (he applicant's
antennae:
(c) The applicant provide a non- interference certificate;
(d)
The applicant
provide a copy
of the written practices for
inspection
and maintenance
of the tower. site
and facilities;
(c) The applicant provide 21 certificate of missions;
(#} The applicant provide proof of the insurance required by
the local law;
(9) That a bored or other security in the amount of Ten
Thousand Dollars ($10,0.00.00.) _be _provided to insure the removal of the
Cellular One tower and the applicant's equipmerit upon cessation of the
use of such tower by Cellular One and/or the applicant;
(h) That all of the foregoiPg be submitted to the Town within
six (6) months from the date hereof and prior to the issuance of any
building permit and construction at said site_
3. That upon compliance with the terms of the conditions of this resolution, the
Code Enforcement Officer is instructed to issue a. building permit and special use permit to the
applicant.
Pagc 7 of 14
TB &2.4 -99
4, Since this approval is for co- location on an exiStLng tower and site, except as
herein specified, aU other requirements of the local law are hereby waived including the
requirement of a public hearing. 0
5. Nn additional fee shs11 be charged the applicant for the conversion of its
application.
6_
Except to the extent
herein specifically approved
for co-
location, the application
to construct
a telecommunications
tower off Simms Hill load is
hereby
denied_
Seconded C ouncilperson Becks
Roll Call Vote Cl Beck Yes
Cl T Hatfield Yes
Supv Schug Yes
Atry Perkins - At the same time On June I that you asked for fiuther propagation
studies on the Simms Hill application you also asked for additional propagation studies for the
Pinckney Road area and you are in receipt of those, or your experts are in receipt of those, and
based on those additional propagation studies, there is another proposed resolution. {Copies
givers to Atty Spitzer and Dick Conk
Atty Spitzer - There's a tower at Nei= and Hanshaw Road?
M Crosby - There is no tower there yet.
Atty Perkins - Yet being the operative word.
Atty Spitzer - Certainly ur terms of the important part, the resolution appears... was have
no objection, its fore. In the last two whereas paragraphs, we were asked to look at that site at
the supervisor's suggestion that we received on June 7. Your law requires us to look at
existing sites. That is not an existing site It's a proposed site for the future_ We agreed to do
propagations because it basically seemed to be in the same area, It's your resolution, so you
can pass, whatever you like, but it is not necessarily correct to suggest that this tabling is at the
request of the applicant_ We just don't have arry objection to it because if it p out that we
can build a tower a lot cheaper by going on someone else's we certainly want to. We also want
to see when this site is up whether that shadowing is really there like out propagations all
show that it is, evexi at this site. So 1 guess I'm -thin kin like a lawyer a little bit here and being
nitpicky. I don't have any problem with the action you are taking, but I would respectfully
suggest that simply the words 'at the request of the applicant" be removed from the last
whereas and it just say the Town Board has agreed.
uPv Schug - And who would we be agreeing with other than you'd
Atty Spitzer - With all of us, We are certainly agreeing with Your action here, but we
haveri't requested this. You requested us to look at a site Outside the scope Of the laver and we
said line_ It's your resolution, and the important part is I have no problem with your resolution
part, but for the record, I dont want there to be any questions afterward, If it turns Out that
that tovier never gets built and we're back in Mere asldng within twelve months for you to
reac xaiva ghat application, where it all came about. Agai
t n, the resolution is quite clear in the
third whereas on the second page that it is a proposed tower. I thitrk we all recognim that it's
not an existing site. Ifuiy comments that I just made are rioted in the minutes.._ It would be
nice if you'd take out 'at the request of the applicant", but if my comments that I just made are
noted in the minutes that may be sufficient.
Page 8 of 14
T$ 6624 -99
Petty Perkins -Let me ask you this. How would you feel if it read "Wh.ereas upon
agreement between the applicant and the Town Board, they have both agreed to table farther
action_"
Atty Spitzer - We'd be perfectly happy with that. Thank you for your consideration,
Supv S chug - I we you guys brought all your colored maps with you that you worked so
hard on. When we pass this resolution we'll give you ten minutes to show us all the hard Ivor.
1 T HatFeld - I'd like to see it,
Atty Perkins - In connection with the Pinckney Road application I also prepared a
record of proceedings (copy to Mr. Spitzer). Again, except the propagation studies, I think this
fairly represents where we axe_ l would ask Mr. Spitzer if he agreed that this reflects what we
have so far, so that if we take this up at some time in the future, the only thing we haven't got
referred to herein is the propagation studies, which we have not really addressed as, a town
board yet.
Atty Spitzer - I concur_
RESOLUTIE MNO. 147 (1999 ) - TABLE APPLICATION OFOM.NIPOINT & UNISITE
FOR A TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOURER ON PINCKNEY ROAD
Courkalperson T Hatfield offered the following resolution and asked for its adoptions;
WHEREAS! the 'Telecommunications Act of 1996 and cases decided thereunder reserve
to local gmernments decisions regarding siting of telecommunications towers, and
WHEREAS, the Town of Dryden adopted Local Law No. 2 of the year 1998 entice "A
local lave regulating the siting of telecommunications towers, antennae and related facilities"
which local law establishes a policy of strongly encourages the co- location of antennae and
accessory facilities or structures on existing structures, towers and other existing suitable
locations, and
WHEREAS, said local lave imposes the requirement upon an applicant to identify such
existing towers, structures and other suitable locations, and
WHEREAS, the 'C'own is in receipt of an application by Omnipoint Communications, Iinc.
and Urtisite (the applicant") to build a 150' telecommunications tower on Pinckney Road, and
WHEREAS, there are existing towers in the same general location of the applicant's
proposed site which towers might prove to be suitable for the installation of the applicant's
proposed anten.nac and accessory facilities or structures, and
WHIEF A , the Town Board has on numerous occasions, through its employees and
consultants, requested the applicant provide propagation studies for such eNastir towers at
various heights, and
WHEREAS, at the insistence of the applicant the Town Berard held a public hearing on
the application on June 1, 1999, and
WHEREAS, at such public hean'ng the Town Board reiterated its insistence that the
applicant provide proof that the existing towers could not be used for installation of its
antennae, accessory facilities and structures and equipment, and
Page 9 of 14
TB 5- 24 -99
WHEREAS, at said public 'hearing the applicant Agreed to provide additional
propagation studies including those for the proposed site at different heights, the Town water
tank above the New York State Electric & Gas Corporation property, the T*3np,ins County
tower on Mt_ Pleasant Road, the WHCU tower on Mt. Pleasant Road, the Town of Dryden
communications tower on Beam Hill Road, and a proposed tower at the southwest corner of
Neimi and Hanshaw Road, and
WHEREAS, txpotY fu1't11er:Lnvesi Ahon by the applicant, the applicant determined that it
may be feasible to co- locate its antennae, facilities and structures on other sites including the
site at the southwest corner of Nero d and Hanshaw Roads, and
WHEREAS, at the
request
of the applicant the Town Board has
agreed
to table further
action on the applicatuon
pending
further invesbgation of the possibility
of the
installation of a
tower at the southwest
corner of
Ne;m; and Hanshaw Roads which
would
permit the co-
location of several users
of such
tower thereby furthering the public
policy
of the Town in
promoting such co- location, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWSL
1. FUrther consideration on the application of Omnipoint Communications, Inc.
and nisite is hereby{ tabled until such time as the applicant shall request the Town Board
further consi
fur der the application.
This action is without pTejudice to the Town with respect to action on the
application including a determination of its completeness and compliance with the provisions
of the local law.
3. The applicant may request that the Town Board consider its application at any
time within the rxext twelve (12) months and upm such written request the 'down Board shall
itchedule a public hearing on such application,
Seconded CouncUperson Beck
Roll Call Vote C1 Beck Yes
Cl T Hatfield Yes
Supv Schug ides
Poi Crosby - I brought the same plots as I had last tithe, so there is noting new other
than the three ring binder that was submitted. These are the same plots that I had last time
and I agreed that I would bnng them back as submitted-
Supv Schug - OK, does it cover the holes you are looking far, %vh.cther its in our town or
outside the town, does it do the job you want.
Atty Spitzer - The Sims Hill? Yes,
M Crosby - I didn't brims new plots of the Cellular One co- location, but I do have . , .
Supv Schug - But you do have your location, 200 feet can't make that much difference.
M Crosby - These two here show basicaAY what was proposed. (Pointed out Route 13
for a reference point) The proposed D.Tyden site on Shows Hill Road is here, and the Fag Creek
site is here. One of the masons like Dau said about having the second Hanshaw Neimi load
built is that yowl have a much better and more acc- arate depiction of the coverage once you
Page 10 of 14
TB 6 24 -99
can do an actual live test rather than simulating on the computer. But this is basically what
we would look like with the building permit on the Cell One.
Supv Schug - Now what's it going to look like in that Pinckney Road site if we go on the
Neimi tower, on the computer model.
M Crosby - According to the plots that were submitted in the three ring binder, you
should see very similar supplemental coverage along 13 and 366, being its up in this area. The
site would be right here, so we'd get a little bit more up into this area. Probably not a whole lot
more over in the Lansing area. That's again with the propagation model. It's really one of
those areas with all the terrain as you get out to the west side there. You really won't know for
sure until ....
Supv Schug - When you get up there and then you go up 150 - 200 feet, or whatever
the tower is, it's pretty flat up on top of the hill. Then you get across the airport and part of
Lansing starts to drop off, but not that serious.
M Crosby
- There's
two
dips going up to
the
airport, two that are crucial. And it's
covered from the
same cell
one
location, so you
can
tell what their coverage does.
Supv Schug - Thanks for all your hard work.
Atty Spitzer - We thank the board, particularly Mr. Perkins for all his hard work in the
last week getting all of these resolutions done on such short notice.
easier.
Supv Schug - I'm glad the co- location worked out for you. It really makes life a lot
Atty Spitzer - It certainly does for us.
Atty Perkins - Asked that the propagations be left as part of the record and they were.
Supv Schug - You have a copy of a memo from Kevin to me regarding the HP Plotter for
GIS Mapping. There is no line item for this. The machine has been moved twice. It needs
some update, service and repair. As Kevin said, he will see about getting a service contract on
it. I would like to have a resolution approve this, not to exceed $911.00 for repairing the HP
Plot-ter, and authorize the transfer of $911.00 from contingency A1990.421 to Mapping
A6510.4.
RESOLUTION #148 - REPAIR HP PLOTTER & TRANSFER FUNDS FOR SAME
Cl T Hatfield offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby approves repair to the HP Plotter for GIS
Mapping in an amount not to exceed $911.00, and further authorizes the transfer of funds in
the amount of $911.00 from Contingency A1990.421 to Mapping A6410.4.
2nd Cl Beck
Roll Call Vote
Cl Beck Yes
Cl T Hatfield Yes
Supv Schug Yes
Page 11 of 14
TB 6-24 -99
Supv Schug - Back on the 1611 I sent you a copy of the agreement between the Town
and the Village for Zoning Officer services. Henry found a couple of minor problems with this •
and we sent it back to the Village. One is in 2(a), the inspections, commercial or general
occupancy, and multiple dwellings should be inspected every other year. 'Their law calls for
multiple dwellings to be done every three years, so Reba's going to change that and get it back
to me for signing. The other thing is on the back page. They are now going to pay us by the
month, but Reba said the reports could be done quarterly and see how it works out. They
actually do their own reports. There is a $500.00 increase.
RESOLUTION 0 149
- AUTHORIZE
SUPERVISOR TO
SIGN CONTRACT WITH
VILLAGE OF
DRYDEN FOR
ZONING & CODE
ENFORCEMENT
Cl T Hatfield offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby authorizes the Supervisor to sign the contract
with the Village of Dryden whereby the Town will provide zoning and code enforcement services
to the Village, as amended.
2nd CI Beck
Roll Call Vote Cl Beck Yes
Cl T Hatfield Yes
Supv Schug Yes
Supv Schug - As you know, we own part: of the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Plant
and we are presently in the middle of working on and they have received a grant in the amount
of $11,000,000 to do a lot of work. A SEQR project has to be done. The six owners, the Town
of Dryden, Town of Ithaca, City of Ithaca, Village of Cayuga Heights, Village of Lansing and .
Town of Lansing would like to have DEC be lead agency in this matter. You have a copy of a
proposed letter to Ralph Manna, Regional Permit Administrator at DEC in Syracuse,
designating DEC as lead agency for that permit.
form.
Atty Perkins - This letter says it encloses a copy of a full environmental assessment
Supv Schug - The engineers will be doing that.
Atty Perkins - Right, but the action is a Type I action. In my opinion it is going to
require an environmental impact statement. Does the engineering agreement provide for that
money.
Supv Schug - That's the next item, yes. They will do all that.
Atty Perkins - They will prepare the environmental impact statement for that $52,400?
Supv Schug - $84,000 which will be ...
Atty Perkins - That brings me to my next question. The amendment to the agreement
says that the engineering services are $52,400.
Supv Schug - And $14,000 that I'm going to ask for is moving it forward by another
$30,000, and that is the engineering agreement. The monies we are going to spend and the
additional $30,000 is for Sterns & Wheler to do their unified engineering report, SEQR,
environmental review, clean water /clear air bond act grant application. The State got money to
help clean up the Finger Lakes and clean up sewers dumping into the Finger Lakes. They put
Page 12 of 14
TB 6- 24-99
up $25,000,000 and there are only two sewer plants discharging into the Finger Lakes and that
is ours and Cayuga Heights. Therefore there is another $8,000,000 available that the
engineers have to apply for by August. They will prepare that and we have a good shot at
getting another $8,000,000 to keep upgrading the plant and bring us in to compliance.
Atty Perkins
- So there
is not attached to
this cost sharing agreement the additional
agreement of Sterns
& Wheler
for the additional
money, the difference between ....
Supv Schug - Right it is not, but it was agreed to.
Atty Perkins - You approved the $52,400 already.
Cl T
Hatfield - I remember you reporting at
the last meeting the
need for the additional
dollars that
were available. This is the next step, we have the request in writing.
Supv Schug - As far as the lead agency, the Town of Dryden doesn't want to do it and
it's better if the DEC does it.
Cl T Hatfield - Your concern, Mahlon, is what?
Atty Perkins - I'm only pointing out that you don't have anything here that says that the
additional cost is what Sterns & Wheler has agreed to do. You just have an agreement to share
those costs among the six parties, up to the limit of $14,000. This has half the exhibits
attached to it that it should have. The other thing I'll point out to you is that this is an equal
cost sharing of these engineering services without regard to what percentage of ownership
anybody has in the plant. You might want to make your resolution clear that the fact that the
Town has agreed to share equally in these costs does not constitute a commitment or a
precedent for any future cost sharing.
RESOLUTION #150 - AUTHORIZE SUPERVISOR TO SIGN LETTER REQUESTING THAT
NYS DEC BE LEAD AGENCY IN IAWWTP APPLICATION
Cl T Hatfield offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby authorizes the Supervisor to sign a letter to
Ralph Mann, Regional Permit Administrator at the NYS Department of Environmental
Conservation in Syracuse, New York, requesting that the NYS Department of Environmental
Conservation serve as lead agency in the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Plant's application
for Clean Water/ Clean Air Bond Act grant funds for regional wastewater improvements.
2«d Cl Beck
Roll Call Vote Cl Beck Yes
Cl T Hatfield Yes
Supv Schug Yes
RESOLUTION #151 - AUTHORIZE $14p000 PAYMENT FOR ENGINEERING
SERVICES FOR IAWWTP
Cl Beck offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption:
RESOLVED, That this Town Board hereby authorizes the payment of a sum not to
exceed $14,000 to the City of Ithaca Comptroller, to be used exclusively for engineering
® services rendered by Stems & Whelcr in connection with the application of the Ithaca Area
Wastewater Treatment Plant for grant moneys from the Clean Water/ Clean Air Bond Act, and it
Page 13 of 14
TB 6 -24 -99
is further resolved that this action shall not set a precedent of equal sharing for any other
costs, including constriction costs, ownership percentages, etc.
2nd Cl T Hatfield
Roll Call Vote Cl Beck Yes
Cl T Hatfield Yes
Supv Schug Yes
Supv Schug - Thanked Atty Perkins for his work in connection with the Omnipoint and
Unisite applications.
Cl T
Hatfield
- This was the
best answer.
There's no question about that and the Town
doesn't end
up with
another tower
in the middle
of it.
Atty Perkins - It points up that if you insist on compliance with your local law you can
wake them do it. The only thing they hadn't done was complied with the part of the local law
that says identify other possible sites and show us you can't use them.
Cl Beck - And they had no intention of doing that until we forced them to.
Cl T Hatfield - I think you're right, and it works.
Cl T Hatfield - I think I can report that with the school district having moved forward
and retaining a new superintendent, the Time Warner contract and issues have been in limbo.
I spoke with Linda Carr at the school and have been assured that as soon as the new
superintendent is on board, within the first week, I'll have a chance to sit down with her and •
get that back into motion.
Supv Schug - I didn't hear back from Monroe about whether they wanted to do
anything with that agreement.
Cl T Hatfield - I wanted to ask him today, but I knew they'd been busy with this
Omnipoint deal. Maybe we can follow up on it now.
Supv Schug - I'll follow up with them. The application for the trail is coming along.
Dianne has been working hard on that.
Upon motion made, seconded and unanimously carried, the meeting was adjourned at
11:05 am.
Respectfully submitted,
/Bambi L. 'OH
Town Clerk
Page 14 of 14
-------------------------------
® In re: The Application of
Omnipoint Communications, Inc.
and Unisite for a 150'
Telecommunications Tower off
Simms Hill Road
------------------------- - - - - --
RECORD
OF
PROCEEDINGS
16 Daniel A. Spitzer letter dated 8/18/98 (2 pp)
2. Undated "Special Use Permit Application" 05 pp)
36 Consent of Owner dated 6/23/97
Exhibits A - M to Special Use Permit Application
4. Exhibit A - Site Plans (provided under separate cover)
5. Exhibit B - Technical Data (5 pp)
69 Exhibit C�- Technical Data (1 pg)
7. Exhibit D - Safety Analysis (7 pp)
8. Exhibit E - Questions & Answers - Wireless Communications
® Technology (7 pp)
90 Exhibit F - Radio Station Authorization (2 pp)
10. Exhibit G - Environmental Site Assessment (19 pp)
11. Exhibit H - Coverage Areas (5 pp)
12. Exhibit I - UNR - ROHN letter dated 7/26/97 (2 pp)
13. Exhibit J - Full EAF (8 pp) with visual Addendum (2 pp)
14. Exhibit K - Visual Resource Representation (10 pp + map)
15. Exhibit L - Search History, Dryden (8/5/98) (1 pg)
16. Exhibit M - New York State Office of Parks, Recreation
and Historic Preservatoin letter dated
7/23/98 (1 pg)
17. Daniel A. Spitzer letter dated 8/21/98 (1 pg)
18. Application for Special Permit and Building Permit dated
8/31/98 (2 PP)
19. Application for Dryden Town Zoning Permit dated 8/31/98 (4 pp)
1
20. Daniel A. Spitzer letter to Tompkins County Commissioner of
Planning dated 8/21/98 (1 pg)
21. Letter from Richard Comi to Tom Ball dated 10/20/98 (1 pg)
22. Letter from Daniel A. Spitzer to Richard Comi dated 10/23/98
(2 PP)
23. Letter from Mark Kulik to Richard Comi dated 10/23/98 (1 pg)
24. Letter from Richard Comi to Mark Kulik dated 11/4/98 (3 pp)
25. Letter from Daniel A. Spitzer to Richard Comi dated 11/27/98
(5 pp)
26. Letter from Richard Comi to Mark Kulik dated 12/12/98 (3 pp)
27. Letter from Mark Kulik to Richard Comi dated 1/15/99
28. Letter from Richard Comi to James F. Schug dated 2/22/99
( 4 pp)
29. Letter from Richard Comi to Mark Kulik dated 2/24/99 (1 pg)
309 Letter from Daniel A. Spitzer to Mahlon R. Perkins dated
5/7/99 (7 pp)
31. Letter from Daniel A. Spitzer to Henry M. Slater dated 5/12/99
(3 PP)
32. Henry M. Slater memo dated 5/19/99 re: SEQR lead agency
33. Letter from Henry M. Slater to James F. Schug dated 5/20/99
(1 pg)
34. Letter from Henry M. Slater to Mark Kulik dated May 20, 1999
(1 pg)
35. Letter from Henry M. Slater to Tompkins County Commissioner of
Planning (1 pg)
36. Letter from Tompkins County Fire & EMS Service to Mark Kulik
dated 5/26/99 (8 pp)
37. Letter from Mark Kulik to Tompkins County Fire & EMS Service
dated 5/28/99
(1 pg)
38. Letter from James W. Hanson, Jr., Tompkins County Commissioner
of Planning to Henry M. Slater dated 5/28/99 (2 pp)
39. Letter from Evan and Tracy Kurtz to Henry M. Slater dated
5/31/99
40. Memo from Henry M. Slater to James F. Schug dated June 1, 1999
41. Minutes of public hearing held June 1, 1999 (30 pp)
42. Letter from Richard Comi to Michael R. Crosby dated June 4,
1999 ( 3 pp)
43. Letter from Richard Comi to Michael R. Crosby dated June 7,
1999 (1 pg)
44. Letter from Daniel A. Spitzer to Mahlon R. Perkins dated June
21, 1999 (2 pp)
45. Letter from Daniel A. Spitzer to Mahlon R. Perkins dated June
23, 1999 (2 pp)
-------------------------------
® In re: The Application of
Omnipoint Communications, Inc.
and Unisite for a 150'
Telecommunications Tower on
Pinckney Road
------------------------- - - - - --
RECORD
OF
PROCEEDINGS
19 Daniel A. Spitzer letter dated 8/18/98 (2 pp)
2. Undated "Special Use Permit Application" (5 pp)
3. Consent of Owner dated 7/4/97
Exhibits A - M to Special Use Permit Application
4. Exhibit A - Site Plans (provided under separate cover)
5. Exhibit B - Technical Data (5 pp)
6. Exhibit C - Technical Data (1 pg)
7. Exhibit D - Safety Analysis (7 pp)
8. Exhibit E - Questions & Answers - Wireless Communications
® Technology (7 pp)
99 Exhibit F - Radio Station Authorization (2 pp)
10. Exhibit G - Environmental Site Assessment (23 pp)
11. Exhibit H - Coverage Areas (5 pp)
12. Exhibit I - UNR - ROHN letter dated 7/26/97 (2 pp)
13. Exhibit J - Full EAF (11 pp) with visual Addendum (2 pp)
14. Exhibit K - Visual Resource Representation (10 pp + map)
15. Exhibit L - Search History, Dryden (8/5/98) (1 pg)
16. Exhibit M - New York State Office of Parks, Recreation
and Historic Preservatoin letter dated
7/23/98 (1 pg)
17. Daniel A. Spitzer letter dated 8/21/98 (1 pg)
18. Application for Site Plan Review and Building Permit dated
8/31/98 (7 pp)
19. Application for Dryden Town Zoning Permit dated 8/31/98 (2 pp)
N
20. Daniel A. Spitzer letter to Tompkins County Commissioner of
Planning dated 8/21/98 (1 pg)
21. Letter from Richard Comi to Tom Ball dated 10/20/98 (1 pg)
22. Letter from Daniel A. Spitzer to Richard Comi dated 10/23/98
(2 PP)
23. Letter from Mark Kulik to Richard Comi dated 10/23/98 (1 pg)
24. Letter from Richard Comi to Mark Kulik dated 11/4/98 (3 pp)
25. Letter from Daniel A. Spitzer to Richard Comi dated 11/27/98
(5 PP)
26. Letter from Richard Comi to Mark Kulik dated 12/12/98 (3 pp)
27. Letter from Mark Kulik to Richard Comi dated 1/15/99
28. Letter from Richard Comi to James F. Schug dated 2/22/99
(4 PP)
29. Letter from Richard Comi to Mark Kulik dated 2/24/99 (1 pg)
309 Letter from Daniel A. Spitzer to Mahlon R. Perkins dated
5/7/99 (7 pp)
31. Letter from Daniel A. Spitzer to Henry M. Slater dated 5/12/99
(3 PP)
32. Henry M. Slater memo dated 5/19/99 re: SEQR lead agency
33. Letter from Henry M. Slater to James F. Schug dated 5/20/99
(1 pg)
34. Letter from Henry M. Slater to Mark Kulik dated May 20, 1999
(1 pg)
35. Letter from Henry M. Slater to Tompkins County Commissioner of
Planning (1 pg)
36. Letter from Tompkins County Fire & EMS Service to Mark Kulik
dated 5/26/99 (8 pp)
37. Letter from Mark Kulik to Tompkins County Fire & EMS Service
dated 5/28/99
(1 pg)
38. Letter from James W. Hanson, Jr., Tompkins County Commissioner
of Planning to Henry M. Slater dated 5/28/99 (2 pp)
39. Memo from Henry M. Slater to James F. Schug dated June 1, 1999
r.
40. Minutes of public hearing held June 1, 1999 (30 pp)
41. Letter from Richard Coma, to Michael. R. Crosby dates] June 4,
1999 (3 pp)
42. Letter from Richard Comi to Michael R. Crosby dated June 7,
1999 (1 Pg)
43. Letter fre�m Daniel A. Spitzer to Mahlon R. Perkins dated June
21, 1999 ( PIS)
L
PLEASE PRINT
Name
TCWN Cr M)ymIEN
TrnN•n Board Meeting
June 1999
v1 q
1
Address
v��A�az , k)k.W yaiz<
u
60v%e%0, ul /�-
ivirf.m !,
, 0 11� �+ acs ) 1� a
/P,� SP�TzC2 Esg /- /oy6E5o� � �as5
ice:
�I r
�1�a5 "��r �•� ��r�C�ei✓ l n � ✓ �r � rJ.�J2n1 /�
Address
v��A�az , k)k.W yaiz<
u
60v%e%0, ul /�-
ivirf.m !,
, 0 11� �+ acs ) 1� a
/P,� SP�TzC2 Esg /- /oy6E5o� � �as5
ice:
�I r
�1�a5 "��r �•� ��r�C�ei✓ l n � ✓ �r � rJ.�J2n1 /�