Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-03-221613 3M22M1 1 TOWN OF DRYDEN SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEE TING March 22, 2011 Present, axpervisor Mary Ann Sumner, Cl Joseph Solomon, Cl ,Jason Leirer, C1 David Makar Absent: Cl Stephen telick, Jr, Elected Officials: Bambi L_ Avery, Town Clerk Other Town Sta(T -. Mahlon Rr Perkins, Town Attorney Jeffrey Kirby, Telecommunications Consultant S-opv Sumner opened the meeting at 10:00 a_Tn, J Kirby said that since the meeting last Wedne%(Iay night he and Chuck Bartosch kisited the Bone Plain site on FYiday acid visited the Midline Road sits: this morning. 'T`hc} met with Atty Parkins yesterday and reviewed the three applications in detail_ AtCV ]jerkins will be bringing documents with conditions i10 be considered. They also prepared the EAV Part 11 mid visual addendum for all three sites. The technical points have all been resolved. The ones that are really oubAanding can be dealt with within the purview of the building permit review, They are construction details_ A resident asked when the towers would go up- Chuck Bartosrh said by the terms of the grant be has to be invoiced by vendors by March 31 and pay them within 45 days of invoice, The towers will probably be working in two to three months. RESOLUTION NO. 69 (2011) RESOLUTION PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE TOWN OF DRYDEN ZONING ORDINANCE TO ENACT A NEW ARTICLE ESTABLISHING SOUND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR CERTAIN CO>f MERCrAL AND INDUSTRIAL USES Co unclipe rson Tleifer offered the: following resol uti or, and asked for its adoption= HEIEA the existing Town of Iryden Zoning Ordinance does not provide for limits on sounds emanating from commercial or industrial uses, and WHEREAS, the existing Zoning Ordinance does noc contain any objective standards to determine whether excessive noise is emanating from a commercial or industrial use, and WHEREAS, the town his a compr.11ing intercA in ensuring for its residents an environment free from excessive noise from cotntmercial or lnd%w3trial uses, and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the town board on March 15, 2011. on a Page 1 teM 1 T13 3-22-11 •proposed new Article XXIV to the Town of Dr den Zoning Ordinance, which Article is entitled "Sound Performance Standards," and WHEREAS, due to comments received in connection with the public hearing, certain revisions to the proposed sound performance standards are deemed to be desirable, and WHEREAS, revisions have now been made to the original proposed sound performance standards reflecting comments made in connection with the public hearing, now, therefore "ARTICLE XXIV: SOUND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS SECTION 2401. Policy Statement, The Town of Dryden has a compelling interest in ensuring for its residents an environment free from excessive noise from industrial or commercial uses which may jeopardize their health or welfare or degrade the quality of life. The prohibitions of this article are intended to protect, preserve and promote the health, safety, welfare and quality of life for residents of the town through the reduction, control and prevention of such loud and unreasonable noise. SECTION 2402. Applicability_ The requirements of this article shall apply to all uses in the MA zone, any Planned Unit Development District, any use for which a special permit and /or site plan review is required, any industrial or commercial use in any zone or district whether or not a permit from the town is or was required, and any industrial or commercial use for which a use variance has been granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals. SECTION 2403. Definitions. (A) Any words or phrases not defined in this Article or in the Definitions in Appendix A shall assume their common dictionary definition. (B) As used in this Article, the following definitions shall apply: (1) A- WEiGHTED SOUND LEVEL- The Sound Level, in decit;)els, reported as measured by a sound level measuring instrument having an A- weighting network which discriminates against the lower frequencies according to a relationship approximating the auditory sensitivity of the human ear. The level so read is designated "dBA." Pagc 2 of 22 BE IT RESOLVED that a public hearing be held on amending the Town of Dryden Zoning Ordinance by adding thereto a new article to read as follows: "ARTICLE XXIV: SOUND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS SECTION 2401. Policy Statement, The Town of Dryden has a compelling interest in ensuring for its residents an environment free from excessive noise from industrial or commercial uses which may jeopardize their health or welfare or degrade the quality of life. The prohibitions of this article are intended to protect, preserve and promote the health, safety, welfare and quality of life for residents of the town through the reduction, control and prevention of such loud and unreasonable noise. SECTION 2402. Applicability_ The requirements of this article shall apply to all uses in the MA zone, any Planned Unit Development District, any use for which a special permit and /or site plan review is required, any industrial or commercial use in any zone or district whether or not a permit from the town is or was required, and any industrial or commercial use for which a use variance has been granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals. SECTION 2403. Definitions. (A) Any words or phrases not defined in this Article or in the Definitions in Appendix A shall assume their common dictionary definition. (B) As used in this Article, the following definitions shall apply: (1) A- WEiGHTED SOUND LEVEL- The Sound Level, in decit;)els, reported as measured by a sound level measuring instrument having an A- weighting network which discriminates against the lower frequencies according to a relationship approximating the auditory sensitivity of the human ear. The level so read is designated "dBA." Pagc 2 of 22 'rB 3 -22 -I 1 • (2) DECIBEL (dB) - The practical unit of measurement for sound pressure level. The number of "decibels" is a measured sound is equal to twenty (20) times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the sound pressure of the measured sound to the sound pressure of a standard sound ]twenty (20) micropascals]; abbreviated "dB." (3) COMMERCIAL. USE - Any premises, property, or facility involving the purchase, sale, transfer or dealing in or with goods or furnishings of services, including but not limited to: a. Dining and /or drinking establishments; b. Banking and other financial institutions; c. Establishments for providing retail services; d. Establishments for providing wholesale services; e. Establishments for recreation and entertainment; f. Office buildings; g. Transportation; h. Warehouses; i. Hotels and /or motels. (4) INDUSTRIAL USE - a. Any activity and its related premises, property, facilities, or equipment involving the fabrication, manufacture, or production of durable or nondurable goods; or b. any activity and its related premises, property, facilities, or equipment involving the excavation and sale of topsoil, sand, gravel, clay or other natural mineral or vegetable deposit, and the quarrying of any kind of rock formation, not regulated under New York Environmental Conservation Law Article 23, Title 27; or c. any manufacturing or industrial and similar use whether conducted indoors or outdoors; or d. any industrial process, whether temporary, intermittent or regularly occurring; or e. any activity and its related premises, property, facilities or equipment, including the production or processing of any raw material, whether solid, gaseous, liquid or any combination thereof; or f. the operation of stock yards, slaughter houses, and rendering plants; or g. junk yards, automobile graveyards and disassembly plants; or h. the disposal, processing or storage of toxic wastes, solid wastes, including medical wastes, garbage or other refuse or waste products of every kind and nature. (5) SOUND LEVEL -The sound pressure level measured in decibels with a sound level meter set for A- weighting. "Sound level" is expressed in dBA. (6) PROPERTY LIFE - The imaginary line, including its vertical extension that separates one parcel of real property from another. (7) SOUND LEVEL METER - An instrument for the measurement of noise and sound. SECTION 2404. Prohibitions. (l) No use of any property to which these prohibitions are applicable shall operate or produce any source of sound in such a manner as to create a Sound Level which exceeds the limits set forth for the land use category stated below when measured at the property line nearest the receiving land use. Page 3 o (22 Receiving Land Use Category Residential Use Unique Natural Areas All others Time 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p1m. 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. •rH ; -2,2-1 t Sound Level Limit (dBA) 65 55 60 50 68 58 (2) For any source of sound which emits a pure tone, a discrete gone or impulsive sound, the maximum Sound Levels set forth above shall be reduced by five dBA. (3) Nothing contained herein shall restrict or limit the imposition of stricter noise standards by the town board in an appropriate situation in connection with any approval requiring environmental review of the proposed action under Environmental Conservation Law Article 8 and the regulations promulgated in 6 NYCRR part 16. SECTION 2405. Exceptions. The Sound Levels herein prescribed shall not apply to sound emitted or related to: (1) Natural phenomena. (2) Church bells rung as part of any official church ceremony or service, and tower clock bells ringing the hour. (3) Any siren, whistle or bell lawfully used by emergency vehicles or any other alarm systems used in any emergency situation, provided, however, that burglar alarms, including vehicle alarms, not terminated within thirty (30) minutes after being activated shall be unlawful. (4) Warning devices required by OSHA or other State or Federal regulations. (5) Lawful emergency maintenance or repairs. (6) Sound emanating from any agricultural activity, including silviculture activity. (7) The temporary use of property during construction of a facility. (8) Use of public or private school premises for any lawful activity. (9) Gun clubs. (10) Sound from recreational or personal use of internal combustion engines provided the same are operated within the parameters of the manufacturers recommendations. (11) Sound from commemorative ceremonies conducted at holidays or funerals. SECTION 2406. Measurement of Sound Levels. (1) The measurement of Sound Levels shall be made by any town code enforcement officer or his designee with a Sound Level Meter meeting the standards prescribed by the American National Standards Institute S1.4. (2) Except where otherwise prescribed, the slow meter response of the Sound Level Meter shall be used in order to determine that the average of three readings taken over a 15- minute period does not exceed the limiting sound levels set forth in this section. (3) Measurement of Sound Levels shall be made at the prescribed locations and shall be taken at least four (4) feet from the ground. (4) Compliance «with Sound Level Limits is to be maintained at all elevations at the boundary of the property. Page 4 or22 T13 3 -22 -11 . SECTION 2407. Enforcement. This article shall be enforced by the Code Enforcement Officer or his designee and at all times by any peace or police officer. SECTION 2408. Penalties. Any violation of any of the provisions of this article is hereby declared to be an offense, punishable by a fine not exceeding three hundred fifty dollars or imprisonment for a period not to exceed six months, or both for conviction of a first: offense; for conviction of a second offense both of which were committed within a period of five years, punishable by a fine not less than three hundred fifty dollars not more than seven hundred dollars or imprisonment for a period not to exceed six months, or both; and, upon conviction for a third or subsequent offense all of which were committed within a period of five years, punishable by a fine not less than seven hundred dollars nor more than one thousand dollars or imprisonment for a period not to exceed six months, or both. however, for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction upon courts, violations of this ordinance shall be deemed misdemeanors and for such purpose only all provisions of the law relating to misdemeanors shall apply to such violations. Each week' s continued violation shall constitute a separate additional violation. ", and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, that another public hearing be held before the town board on April 20, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. prevailing time and that the town clerk publish and post notice of such public hearing as required by law. 211(1 Supv Sumner Roll Call Vote Cl Solomon Yes Supv Sumner Yes Cl Makar Yes Cl Leifer Yes Clarity Connect has requested a waiver of fees in connection with their three applications for telecommunications towers. Tlie Planning Department; has prepared a list of expenses to date of $9,168. That includes $393 in printing and copying expenses, engineering fees billed by Tectonic and an estimation of fees by Tectonic that has not yet been billed. C Bartosch said there will also be a co- location application submitted soon. Supv Sumner said town has amended its local law so that it can waive a portion of the fees based on the fact that the tower is publicly funded and that it's in the public interest. The applicant has documented the portion of the project that is publicly funded and the points that support that it is in the public interest, including detailed data about the number of households reached that don't have access based on the FCC definition of high -speed access. C 13artosch said that within the town there are 2,1 15 households that do not have high speed access according to the FCC definition. Of those, Clarity will be able to serve 1,952. The monthly access fee will be $29.95 per month if paid yearly. That price is guaranteed for five years. (Time Warner's minimum promotional price is now $55.00 per month.) Clarity Connect will also provide four hotspots with a computer, and hopefully some; training. Cl Makar said that the amount paid by Clarity Connect so far ($969) is part of their contribution and the Town could pay for the balance, up to $8,200 which will not cover the Mt Pleasant project. Even though it is part of the total project, the submission is late. Pie 5 (11' 22 TB 3 -22 -11 C Bartosch said that after the grant was awarded, Supv Sumner prepared a spreadsheet estimating the Town's contribution at $60,000 in zoning fees waived and $14,000 in engineering fees waived. Supv Sumner said that: was based on twelve towers. C Bartosch said they have no more money to pay fees. Atty Perkins pointed out that the local law provides that. the application for a waiver must be submitted at the time the application is submitted, and a public hearing is required on the waiver request:. The local law could be amended to waive the timing of the request. Approvals of the applications today will have conditions attached and this can be addressed in the conditions. Waiver of the fees should have been heard at the same time as the special use permits if the request had been received timely. There can be a condition that: no construction permits will be issued until the fees have been paid or waived. C Bartosch said he can have vendors invoice him and that will keep him on schedule. The local law can be amended so that either fees can be refunded on a written request, or so that the board can waive the requirement of when the request: is submitted. Atty Perkins suggested the special use permits could be granted today, but no construction permits. Supv Sumner said they can return to this issue at the end of the meeting. Atty Perkins distributed comments from Tectonic, together with Part 2 of the EAF and Visual EAF Addendum for each site. He rnet with Jeff Kirby and Chuck Bartosch yesterday and they completed Part 2 and reviewed and revised the visual EAF. The board reviewed the Part i of the EAF for the Midline Road site. Two suggested changes were made to Part 1 and accepted and initialed by the applicant: AS - slopes were changed to 50% between 0 and 10 %, and 50% between 10% and 15 %. 134 - Acres of vegetation removal was changed to .02 acres. Page 10 was completed and signed by applicant.. The board reviewed the prepared part 2 of the EAF and the Visual Addendum with revisions for the Midline Road site. RESOLUTION #70 - NEG SEQR DEC - APPLICATION OF CLARITY CONNECT, INC. FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A 110 -FOOT TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER ON PREMISES OF PAUL J. LUTWAK AND KATHY A. ZAHLER AT 39 MIDLINE ROAD 1/ Supv Sumner offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: WHEREAS, A. The proposed action involves consideration of the application of Clarity Connect, Inc., for a Special Use Permit and Site Plan Approval for a 1 10 -foot telecommunications tower on premises of Paul J. Lutwak and Kathy A. Zahler at 639 Midline Road. is B. The proposed action is an Unlisted Action for which the Town Board of the Town of I)ryden is the lead agency for the purposes of uncoordinated environmental review in connection with approval by the `Cowin. Page 0 ot'22 Supv Sumner said if t:he Board is authorized to offers waiver based on the amount of public funding and public interest, the amount of public funding is about one -third of the cost of the project, she would be willing to entertain a waiver of one -third of the $8,000 based on the amount of public funding. The question is how much of the rest does the board feel is a public interest benefit. C Bartosch said that after the grant was awarded, Supv Sumner prepared a spreadsheet estimating the Town's contribution at $60,000 in zoning fees waived and $14,000 in engineering fees waived. Supv Sumner said that: was based on twelve towers. C Bartosch said they have no more money to pay fees. Atty Perkins pointed out that the local law provides that. the application for a waiver must be submitted at the time the application is submitted, and a public hearing is required on the waiver request:. The local law could be amended to waive the timing of the request. Approvals of the applications today will have conditions attached and this can be addressed in the conditions. Waiver of the fees should have been heard at the same time as the special use permits if the request had been received timely. There can be a condition that: no construction permits will be issued until the fees have been paid or waived. C Bartosch said he can have vendors invoice him and that will keep him on schedule. The local law can be amended so that either fees can be refunded on a written request, or so that the board can waive the requirement of when the request: is submitted. Atty Perkins suggested the special use permits could be granted today, but no construction permits. Supv Sumner said they can return to this issue at the end of the meeting. Atty Perkins distributed comments from Tectonic, together with Part 2 of the EAF and Visual EAF Addendum for each site. He rnet with Jeff Kirby and Chuck Bartosch yesterday and they completed Part 2 and reviewed and revised the visual EAF. The board reviewed the Part i of the EAF for the Midline Road site. Two suggested changes were made to Part 1 and accepted and initialed by the applicant: AS - slopes were changed to 50% between 0 and 10 %, and 50% between 10% and 15 %. 134 - Acres of vegetation removal was changed to .02 acres. Page 10 was completed and signed by applicant.. The board reviewed the prepared part 2 of the EAF and the Visual Addendum with revisions for the Midline Road site. RESOLUTION #70 - NEG SEQR DEC - APPLICATION OF CLARITY CONNECT, INC. FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A 110 -FOOT TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER ON PREMISES OF PAUL J. LUTWAK AND KATHY A. ZAHLER AT 39 MIDLINE ROAD 1/ Supv Sumner offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: WHEREAS, A. The proposed action involves consideration of the application of Clarity Connect, Inc., for a Special Use Permit and Site Plan Approval for a 1 10 -foot telecommunications tower on premises of Paul J. Lutwak and Kathy A. Zahler at 639 Midline Road. is B. The proposed action is an Unlisted Action for which the Town Board of the Town of I)ryden is the lead agency for the purposes of uncoordinated environmental review in connection with approval by the `Cowin. Page 0 ot'22 TH 3 -22 -t t 0 W C. The Town Board of the Town of Dryden, in performing the lead agency function for its independent and uncoordinated environmental review in accordance with Article 8 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law - the State Environmental Quality Review Act "(SEQR), (i) thoroughly reviewed the Full Environmental Assessment Form (the "Full EAF"), Part 1, and any and all other documents prepared rued submitted with respect to this proposed action and its environmental review, (ii) thoroughly analyzed the potential relevant areas of environmental concern to determine if the proposed action may have a significant adverse impact on the environment by reviewing and completing Part 2 of the Full EAF and the Visual EAF Addendum, including the criteria identified in 6 NYCRR §617.7(c), NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: 1. 'rhe Town Board of the Town of Dryden, based upon (i) its thorough review of the Full EAF, Parts 1 and 2, and the Visual EAF Addendum, and any and all other documents prepared and submitted with respect to this proposed action and its environmental review, (ii) its thorough review of the potential relevant areas of environmental concern to determine if the proposed action may have a significant adverse impact on the environment, including the criteria identified in 6 NYCRR §617.7(c), hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance ( "Negative Declaration ") in accordance with SEQR for the above referenced proposed action, and determines that an Environmental Impact Statement will be required, and 2. The responsible officer of the Town Board of the Town of Dryden is hereby authorized and directed to complete and sign as required the determination of significance, confirming the foregoing Negative Declaration, which fully completed and signed Full EAF and ® determination of significance are incorporated by reference in this resolution. 211d Cl Makar Roll Call Vote Cl Solomon Yes Supv Sumner Yes Cl Makar Yes Cl Leifer Yes The board reviewed the findings, determination, and approval and conditions for the Midline Road site. Atty Perkins reminded the board that Country Planning had triggered the super- majority requirement for this site. Atty Perkins said there is still a question with respect: to site access at this location. C Sartosch said he would like to deal with that as a condition because there is research he needs to do yet. Applicant demonstrated the visibility, or lack of visibility, of the tower from the Berntsson property. Atty Perkins noted the document for approval of this site does not provide for payment of any fees. RESOLUTION #71 - ADOPT FINDINGS, DETERMINATION AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR APPLICATION OF CLARITY CONNECT, INC. FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A 110 -FOOT TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER ON PREMISES OF PAUL J. LUTWAK AND KATHY A. ZAHLER AT 639 MIDLINE ROAD Supv Sumner offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby adopts the following Findings, Determination and Conditions of Approval for the application of Clarity Connect, Inc. for a special use permit and site plan approval for a 110 400t telecommunications tower on premises of Paul J. Lutwak and Kathy A. Zahler at 639 Midl.ine Road: Page 7 0(22 •TOWN OF DRYDEN TOMPKINS COUNTY STATE OF NEW YORK In the Matter of the Application of Clarity Connect, Inc. for a Special Use Permit and Site Plan Approval for a 110 -foot Telecommunications Tower on Premises of Paul J. Lutwak and Kathy A. 7,ahler at 639 Midline Road BACKGROUND TB 3 -22 -11 FINDINGS, DETERMINATION AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Clarity Connect, Inc. (herein "Clarity"), by application dated January 28, 201.1 applied for a special use permit and site plan approval to construct a telecommunications tower, equipment: shed and site improvements on properly of Paul J. Lutwak and Kathy A. Zahler, 639 Midhne Road (Town of Dryden Tax Map No. 64.- 1 -29). No street address for the tower site has yet been designated. Clarity supplemented its application by a submittal dated March 6, 2011 (Design of 110 ft and 120 ft Self Supporting Tower) and in emails dated February 16, 201.1; March 8, 201.1 and March 21, 2011. Clarity submitted a photograph of the proposed tower site taken from Irish Settlement: Road near Goodband Road. The application included a Full Environmental Assessments Form and a Visual EAF Addendum. The town board completed Part 2 of the EAF and the Visual EAF Addendum. Torn staff reviewed the Clarity submittals and commented on them in correspondence dated March 10, 2011 and March 16, 2011 (Kwasnowski memos). The town's consultant on telecommunications towers applications, Jeffrey B. Kirby, P.E., reviewed and commented on the Clarity submittals in correspondence dated February 16, 2011; March 16, 2011, and in an email dated February 2, 2011. The Tompkins Country Department of Planning pursuant to its role under General Municipal Law 239 -1 and 239 -m in a letter dated March 15, 2011., commented on the application and determined that the project may have negative inter - community or county -wide impacts thereby triggering the supermajority vote requirement: unless the project was modified according to four (4) recommendations. PUBLIC HEARINGfCOMMENTS The town board held a public hearing on the application on February 16, 2011, and closed the public hearing that: stone day. No written comments were received from any member of the public. At the public; hearing on the project, the town board heard from Charles Bartosch, on behalf of the applicant, and from Dave Wickstrom, Martin Gordon and Rose Sutfin. FINDINCAS Tompkins County Department of Planning (TCPD) Pursuant: to its review authority under General Municipal Law 239 -1 and 239 -m, the TCPD invoked the supermajority vote requirement for approval of the application unless a formal visual impact assessment using industry standard methodology was conducted and an analysis was conducted taking into account the view from the "Berntsson /Millier tract," a parcel owned by the Finger Lakes Land Trust, a private not - for - profit corporation, Page 8 of 22 `IIH 3 -22 -1 The Town board hereby finds, based upon its review of the application and the materials supplementing it, including statements and representations made by and on behalf of the applicant, which statements and representations the Town Board relies upon as being true, accurate and complete, that the TCPD concerns have been adequately addressed in that: (a) Clarity provided a "Google Parth Image" dated March 21, 2008 which demonstrates that there is no projected visibility of the tower at the "Bern tsson /Millier tract." (b) No lighting is proposed. Should the height of the tower be extended beyond 119 feet lighting may be required. Such an extension would be subject to a further application to the town board. (c) The tower site is so situated as to minimize the visual impact from the closest residences, including the "Bernt:sson /Millier tract," (d) Clarity provided a photograph and representation of the proposed tower on it taken from the area where the tower could likely be visible. From the photographic representation, taken where there is no foliage, it appears the tower will not be visible from the "Berntsson /Millier tract." It also appears from a mathematical analysis that given the tower height, the relative elevation of the tower site and that of the "Berntsson /Millier tract," the tower cannot be seen from such location. (e) No useful information will be gained from the "formal visual impact assessment using industry standard methodology" from such location and the requirements for such an assessment should be waived. Public Comments The town board has carefully considered the three comments received from the public at t:he public hearing. ® Page 9 01'22 DETERMINATION Based upon the record before it, the town board concludes and determines as follows: (a) To the maximum extent possible the visual impact on neighboring residences and the public have been mitigated. The no tower alternative is not an option and the proposed lattice type tower is the best option to minimize the visual impact. (b) No formal visual simulations of the proposed tower are required and the requirements for the same should be waived. (c) The proposed tower will not allow future co- location. Given the tower location it is not contemplated that there would be any providers who would utilize this tower site. (d) The proposed tower height: is the minimum height (110 feet) necessary to serve the purpose intended. (e) The Lutwak /Zahler site is a privately- owned, wooded area and is neither listed on the Tompkins Country Unique Natural Area Inventory nor is it a Critical Environmental Area or near one. The site is partially screened by existing woods and configuration of the access drive. (1) There are no co- location opportunities within the area designated by Clarity as the search area, and there is no municipally - owned property which would be suitable or available for a tower site. (g) The Lutwak /Zahler site is the only site available within the search area that could provide the radio frequency coverage objectives. (h) The search area is within a RC zoning district: of the Town and a telecommunications tower is an allowed use subject to the issuance of a special permit and site plan approval. (i) The Lutwak /Zahler site allows the tower to meet: all the setback ® requirements and provides the most natural screening. Page 9 01'22 TH 3 -:2 -11 (j) Clarity can only place its tower on property that it: purchases or leases. When it leases property, it is subject to the requirements of the lessor as to site location. (k) Clarity has demonstrated that other- sites with a higher priority in the search area are not available. (1) The Lutwak /Zahler site is amid an area with a variety of bind uses including rural residential, agriculture, and heavily wooded areas. (m) No sites, other that those identified by Clarity in the search area, were identified by the town or the public as sites to be evaluated. (n) Local law No. 2 of the year 2006 - Telecommunications 'Power Siting Law for the Town of Dryden (ITS) has as one of its policy goals the promotion and encouragement of improved telecommunications services. (o) Clarity provided propagation studies which supported the need for the type of telecommunications services provided by Clarity in the area. The TTS does not require a showing that a tower is needed. (p) The tower does not need to be designed for a possible extension. (q) The Town's consultant, Jeffrey B. Kirby, P.E., provided three (3) reviews of Clarity's submittals. In summary, Mr. Kirby found that: W The proposed prcliect is consistent with the overall policy and goals of the TTS and the design incorporates most of the recommended features at an appropriate site location. (ii) The tower foundation has been designed based on the presumption of "normal" soil. The Applicant previously requested a waiver of the requirement for soil borings, and has not performed any borings to date. The soil conditions will need to be verified, and the tower foundation design may have to be modified as a result, prior to construction. (iii) Although the very top of the tower may be visible from same locations along Midline Road, the visual impact will not be very significant. (iv) Clarity adequately justified the need for the Lutwak /Zahler site. (r) The Town's Director of Planning, Dan Kwasnowski, reviewed the Clarity application, exhibits thereto and the Kirby reviews on the Clarity submittals and exhibits. In summary, Mr. Kwasnowski found that the special use permit: could be approved if several conditions were attached to the approval. Before construction permits can be issued there are several requirements to be fulfilled by Clarity which do not pertain to the special permit review or site plan review by the town board (Kirby review of March 16, 2011 and Kwasnowski memo of March 16, 201.1). ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Town Board has carefully reviewed the Full Environmental Assessment Form, including hart 1 as amended by the applicant:, hart 2 and Visual EAF Addendum completed by the town board and accompanying exhibits and narratives, and 1) determined that the project would not have any significant adverse environmental impacts, 2) determined that an environmental impact statement would not be required, and 3) made a negative determination of environmental significance (Negative Declaration). APPROVAL AND CONDITIONS Based upon the application, the exhibits, the comments received from the applicant, the public, the Town Board's consultant, and town staff, and the findings and determination set isforth above, the Town Board of the Town of Dryden hereby approves the application for a 1'. ,Ve 10 of 22 TIC 3 -22 -11 special use permit and site plan for the proposed Clarity telecommunications tower on the Lutwak /Zahler property subject to the following conditions: 1. The tower shall not exceed 1.10 feet in height. 2. The tower shall not be lighted. 3. The tower and equipment shed and other improvements shall be constructed is high speed internet available in all those and sited according to the application as finally amended. 4. Clarity shall take steps to minimize clearing of the property and avoid areas and that is not the case. unnecessary tree cutting. 5. No landscape plan to provide additional vegetative screening is necessary. 6. Clarity shall submit an Inspection and Maintenance Plan for approval by the town, which plan complies with the requirements of ANSI /T1A- 222 -G -2005 Section .14 and shall incorporate the relevant provisions of Annex J thereto. Such submittal shall be in all respects satisfactory to the individual charged with reviewing it. Clarity shall inspect and maintain the tower in accordance with such plan. 7. Following each periodic inspection, a written report of such inspection, signed by a Professional Engineer licensed in New York State, shall be submitted to the Town. Such report shall detail the inspection process, note any maintenance issues and procedures and timetables to address such issues. The report must be received by the Town within 30 days of such periodic inspection. 8. Clarity shall assure compliance with the Migratory gird Treaty Act (MBTA) and shall furnish a written protocol detailing the steps it will take to assure such compliance. Such submittal shall be in all respects satisfactory to the individual charged with reviewing it. 9. Clarity shall provide and maintain a Tower Removal Bond in the amount of $20,000 naming the Town as obligee. The bond shall be in such form as is acceptable to the town's attorney and with a surety qualified to do business in New York State and listed on the United States Treasury's Listing of Approved Sureties (Department Circular 570. The Town Board reserves the right to annually review the amount of the Tower Removal Bond to assure that the amount of the bond is adequate to assure compliance with the obligations of Clarity under Local Law No. 2 (2006) and the conditions of approval of the special use permit and site plan. 10. The Town of Dryden Standard Conditions of Approval (August 14, 2008 Version. 11. Prior to the issuance of construction permits Clarity shall submit the items detailed in Mr. Kirby's letter of March 16, 201 1 to the extent the same have; not already been submitted, and such submittals shall be in all respects satisfactory to the individual charged with reviewing them. 21,11 Cl Makar [doll Call Vote Cl Solomon Yes Supv Sumner Yes Cl Makar Yes Cl Leifer Yes Jolm Chapman, who works for Frontier telephone, said the statement in the newspaper about where internet service was not available was incorrect. Frontier services every house on Midline Road and Beam Hill Road, and to the corner of Sheldon Road on Bone Plain Road. Time Warner also services those areas. 'There is high speed internet available in all those areas. Only a portion of Niemi Road is served. The newspaper said those are underserved areas and that is not the case. Page 11 of 22 41'6 3 =22 -11 J Chapman said he is not against: these towers, but wanted people to know that the Frontier service area does offer high speed internet. Frontier has spent a lot of money and time to offer service in the rural areas. Supv Sumner said that the article said under- served, and that is part: of the difference. She said she will encourage the paper to correct their information. The board reviewed the Part 1 of the EAF for the Bone Plain Road site. Suggested changes were made to Part 1 and accepted and initialed by the applicant: A2 -Total acreage was changed 102, and roads /buildings /paved areas changed to approximately 0.05. A5 - Slopes changed to 100% between 0 -10 %. Blb - Acreage of development changed to 0.19. B4 - Acres of vegetation removal was changed to 0.08 acres. Page 10 was completed and signed by applicant. The board reviewed the prepared Part 2 of the EAF and the Visual Addendum with revisions for the Bone Plain Road site. There is a fairly large pond on this property- and a fairly substantial wetlands area. There is no river or take. RESOLUTION #72 - NEG SEQR DEC - APPLICATION OF CLARITY CONNECT, INC. FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A 100 -FOOT TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER ON PREMISES OF ROSS GERBASI OFF BONE PLAIN ROAD Supv Sumner offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: WHEREAS, A. The proposed action involves consideration of the application of Clarity Cormect, Inc., for a Special Use Permit and Site Plan Approval for a 100 -foot; telecommunications tower on premises of Ross Gerbasi off Bone Plain Road, B. The proposed action is an Unlisted Action for which the Town Board of the Town of Dryden is the lead agency= for the purposes of uncoordinated environmental review in connection with approval by the Town. C. The '1'cnvn Board of the Town of Dryden, in performing the lead agency function for its independent and uncoordinated environmental review in accordance with Article 8 of the New York State Environmental Conservation l..aw - the State Environmental Quality Review Act "(SEQR), (i) thoroughly reviewed the Full Environmental Assessment Form (the "Full EAF"), Part 1, and any and all other documents prepared and submitted with respect to this proposed action and its environmental review, (ii) thoroughly analyzed the potential relevant. areas of environmental concern to determine if the proposed action may have a significant adverse impact on the environment by reviewing and completing Part 2 of the Full EAF and the Visual EAF Addendum, including the criteria identified in 6 NYCRR §617.7(c), NOW, THEREFORE, BE iT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: ].. The 'Down Board of the Town of Dryden, based upon (i) its thorough review of thr; Full EAF, Parts 1 and 2, and the Visual EAF Addendum, and any and all other documents prepared and submitted with respect to this proposed action and its environmental review, (ii) its thorough review of the potential relevant areas of environmental concern to determine if the proposed action may have a significant adverse impact on the environment, including the Page 12 WM TB 3-22-11 • criteria identified in 6 NYCRR g617.7(c), hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance ("Negative Declaration ") in accordance with SEAR for the above referenced proposed action, and determines that an Environmental Impact Statement will be required, and 2. The responsible officer of the Town Board of the Town of Dryden is hereby authorized and directed to complete and sign as required the determination of significance, confirming the foregoing Negative Declaration, which fully completed and signed Full EAF and determination of significance are incorporated by reference in this resolution. 21A Cl Leifer Roll Call Vote Cl Solomon Yes Supv Sumner Yes Cl Makar Yes Cl Leifer Yes The board reviewed the findings, determination, and conditions of approval for the Bone Plain Road site. RESOLUTION #73 - ADOPT FINDINGS, DETERMINATION AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR APPLICATION OF CLARITY CONNECT, INC. FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A 100 -FOOT TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER ON PREMISES OF ROSS GERBASI OFF BONE PLAIN ROAD Supv Sumner offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby adopts the following Findings, Determination and Conditions of Approval for the application of Clarity Connect, Inc. for a special use permit and site plan approval for a 100 -foot telecommunications tower on premises of Ross Gerbasi off Bone Plain Road, TOWN OF DRYDEN TOMPKINS COUNTY STATE OF NEW YORK In the Matter of the Application of Clarity Connect, Inc. for a Special Use Permit and Site Plan Approval for a 100 -foot 'Telecommunications Tower on Premises of Ross Gerbasi off Bone Plain Road BACKGROUND FINDINGS, DETERMINATION AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Clarity Connect, Inc. (herein "Clarity "), by application dated .January 28, 2011 applied for a special use permit and site plan approval to construct a telecommunications tower, equipment shed and site improvements on property of Ross Gerbasi, 561 Bone Plain Road P c 13 of 22 Ili 3 -22 -I (Town of Dryden Tax Map No. 30. -1- 21.2). No street address for the tower site has yet been designated. Clarity supplemented its application by a submittal dated March 6, 2011 (Design of 100 ft and 120 ft Self Supporting Tower) and in emails dated February 16, 2011; March 8, 2011. and March 21, 2011. Clarity submittals also included a photograph of the proposed tower site taken from Bone Plain Road. The application included a Full Environmental Assessment: Form and a Visual EAF Addendum. The town board completed Part 2 of the 6AF and the Visual EAF Addendum. Town staff reviewed the Clarity submittals and commented on there in correspondence dated March 1.0, 2011 and March 16, 2011 (Kwasnowski memos). The town's consultvlt on telecommunications towers applications, Jeffrey B. Kirby, P.E,, reviewed and commented on the Clarity submittals in correspondence dated February 16, 2011; March 16, 2011, and in an email dated February 7, 2011. The Tompkins County Department of Planning, in a letter coated March 15, 2011, on a different Clarity application, commented on the application and recommended a "formal visual impact assessment using industry standard methodology." Such a recommendation did not trigger the supermajority vote requirement under General Municipal Laws 239 -1 and 239 -m. PUBLIC HEARING /COMMENTS The town board held a public hearing on the application on February 16, 2011, and closed the public hearing that same day. No written comments were received from any member of the public. At the public hearing on the project, the town board heard from Charles Bartosch, and from K. Tuttle and Stephen Southwick, FINDINGS Tompkins County Department of Planning (TCPDI The TCPD has no review authority under General Municipal Law 239 -1 and 239 -m. Public Comments The town board has carefully considered the two comments received from the public at the public hearing. DETERMINATION Based upon the record before it, the town board concludes and determines as follows: (s) To the maximum extent possible the visual impact on neighboring residences and the public have been mitigated. The no tower alternative is not an option and the proposed lattice type tower is the best option to minimise the visual impact. (t) No formal visual simulations of the proposed tower were conducted. Photographs of the tower site were provided. They were taken when there was no foliage. Lased on the remote location of the tower site from adjoining properties, the height of the tower, and the surrounding tress, the requirement of a more formal photo simulation should be waived. (u) The proposed tower will allow future co- location with an extension. (v) The proposed tower height (100 feet) is the minimum height necessary to serve the purpose intended. (w) The Gerbasi site is a privately- owned, wooded area and is neither listed on the Tompkins County Unique Natural Area Inventory nor is it a Critical Environmental Area or near one. The site is partially screened by existing woods and the length of the .access drive. Page 14 ot'22 0 11 3 -22 -I 1 (x) There are no co- location opportunities within the area designated by Clarity as the search area, and there is no municipally - owned property which would be suitable or available for a tower site. V) The Gerbasi site is the only site available within the search area that could provide the radio frequency coverage objectives. (z) The search area is within a RC zoning district. of the Town and a telecommunications tower is an allowed use subject to the issuance of a special use permit and site plan approval. (aa)The Gerbasi site allows the tower to meet. all the setback requirements and provides the most natural screening. (bb) Clarity can only place its tower on property that it purchases or leases. When it leases property, it is sul >ject to the requirements of the lessor as to site location. (cc) Clarity has demonstrated that other sites with a higher priority in the search area are not available. (dd) The Gerbasi site is amid an area with a variety of land uses including rural residential, commercial, agriculture, heavily wooded tracts and high voltage electric transmission lines. (ee) No sites, other that those identified by Clarity in the search area, were identified by the town or the public as sites to be evaluated. (ff) Local laws No. 2 of the year 2006 - Telecommunications Tower Siting Law for the Town of Dryden (17S) has as one of its policy goals the promotion and encouragement of improved telecommunications services. (gg) Clarity provided propagation studies which supported the need for the type of telecommunications services provided by Clarity in the area. The TTS does not require a showing that a tower is needed. (hh) The Town's consultant, Jeffrey B. Kirby, P.E., provided three (3) reviews of Clarity's submittals. In summary, Mr. Kirby found that: (i) The proposed project is consistent with the overall policy and goals of the TTS and the design incorporates most of the recommended features at an appropriate site location. (ii) The tower foundation has been designed based on the presumption of "normal" soil. The Applicant previously requested a waiver of the requirement for soil borings, and has not performed any borings to date. The soil conditions will need to be verified, and the tower foundation design may have to be modified as a result, prior to construction. (iii) Although the very top of the tower may be visible, the visual impact will not be very significant. (iv) Clarity adequately justified the need for the Gerbasi site. The site selection process was sufficiently thorough and no viable alternative site(s) would have significantly lesser impacts. (ii) The Town's Director of Planning, lean Kwasnowski, reviewed the Clarity application, exhibits thereto and the Kirby reviews on the Clarity submittals and exhibits. In summarv, Mr. Kwasnowski found that the special use permit could be approved if several conditions were attached to the approval. Before construction permits can be issued there are several requirements to be fulfilled by Clarity which do not pertain to the special use permit review or site plan review by the town board (Kirby review of March 16, 201.1 and Kwasnowski memo of March 16, 2011). NVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ® The Town Board has carefully reviewed the Full Environmental Assessment Form, including Part: .I as amended by the applicant, Part: 2 and Visual EAF Addendum completed by Page 15 or22 TR 3 -22 -11 the town board and accompanying exhibits and narratives, and 1) determined that the project would not have any significant adverse environmental impacts, 2) determined that an environmental impact statement would not be required, and 3) made a negative determination of environmental significance (Negative Declaration). APPROVAL AND CONDITIONS Based upon the application, the exhibits, the comments received from the applicant, the public, the 'Town Board's consultant, and town staff, and the findings and determination set forth above, the Town Board of the Town of Dryden hereby approves the application for a special use permit and site plan for the proposed Clarity telecommunications tower on the Gerbasi property subject to the following conditions: 1. The tower shall not exceed 100 feet in height. 2. The tower shall not be lighted. 3. The tower shall be designed for a possible 20 -foot extension with capacity to support future antenna arrays. 4. The tower and equipment. shed and other improvements shall be constructed and sited according to the application as finally amended. 5. Clarity shall take steps to minimize clearing of the property and avoid unnecessary tree cutting. 6. No landscape plan to provide additional vegetative screening is necessary. 7. Clarity shall submit an Inspection and Maintenance Plan for approval by the town, which plan complies with the requirements of ANSI /TIA- 222 -G -2005 Section 14 and shall incorporate the relevant provisions of Annex J thereto. Such submittal shall be in all respects satisfactory to the individual charged with reviewing it. Clarity shall inspect and maintain the tower in accordance with such plan. 8. Following each periodic inspection, a written report of such inspection, signed by a Professional Engineer licensed in New York State, shall be submitted to the Town. Such report. shall detail the inspection process, note any maintenance issues and procedures and timetables to address such issues. The report must be received by the "Town within 30 days of such periodic inspection. 9. Clarity shall assure compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (META) and shall furnish a written protocol detailing the steps it will take to assure such compliance. Such submittal shall be in all respects satisfactory to the individual charged with reviewing it. 1.0. Clarity shall provide and maintain a Tower Removal Bond in the amount of $20,000 naming the Town as obligee. The bond shall be in such form as is acceptable to the town's attorney and with a surety qualified to do business in New York State and listed on the United States Treasury's Listing of Approved Sureties (Department Circular 570). The Town Board reserves the right to annually review the amount of the Tower Removal Bond to assure that the amount of the bond is adequate to assure compliance with the obligations of Clarity under Local. Law No. 2 (2006) and the conditions of approval of the special use permit and site plan. 11. The Town of Dryden Standard Conditions of Approval (August 14, 2008 Version). 12. Prior to the issuance of construction permits Clarity shall submit the items detailed in Mr. Kirby's letter of March 16, 2011. to the extent the same have not already been submitted, and such submittals shall be in all respects satisfactory to the individual charged with reviewing them. 2ni1 Cl Makar Roll Call Vote Cl Solomon Yes Page 16 v1 *22 OrB 3 -22 -1 I Supv Sumner Yes Cl Makar Yes Cl Leifer Yes The board reviewed the Part 1 of the EAF for the Beam Hill Road site. Suggested changes were made to Part .1 and accepted and initialed by the applicant: A5 - Slopes were changed to 50% between 0 -10 %) and 50% between 10 -151 %. Blb - Acreage of development was changed to 0.086. B19 - Odors is No. Page 10 was completed and signed by applicant. The board reviewed the prepared Part 2 of the EAF and the Visual Addendum with revisions for the Beam Hill Road site. Atty Perkins noted there a slightly different explanation of the impact for this site because it is an existing tower site and the new tower will be taller. The existing tower will be removed. RESOLUTION #74 - NEG SEQR DEC - APPLICATION OF CLARITY CONNECT, INC. FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A 120 -FOOT TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER ON PREMISES OF THE TOWN OF DRYDEN AT 285 BEAM HILL ROAD Cl Makar offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: WHEREAS, A. The proposed action involves consideration of the application of Clarity Connect, Inc., for a Special Use Permit and Site Plan Approval for a 120 -foot telecommunications tower on premises of the Town of Dryden at 285 Beam Hill Road. B. The proposed action is an Unlisted Action for which the Town Board of the Town of Dryden is the lead agency for the purposes of uncoordinated environmental review in connection with approval by the Town. C. The Town Board of the Town of Dryden, in performing the lead agency function for its independent and uncoordinated environmental review in accordance with Article 8 of the New York State Environmental Conservation l.aw - the State Environmental Quality Review Act "(SEQR), (i) thoroughly reviewed the Full Environmental Assessment Form (the "Full EAF"), Part 1, and any and all other documents prepared and submitted with respect to this proposed action and its environmental review, (ii) thoroughly analyzed the potential relevant areas of environmental concern to determine if the proposed action may have a significant adverse impact on the environment by reviewing and completing Part 2 of the lull EAF and the Visual EAF Addendum, including the criteria identified in 6 NYCRR g617.7(c), NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Town Board of the Town of Dryden, based upon (i) its thorough review of the Full EAF, Parts 1. and 2, and the Visual EAF Addendum, and any and all other documents prepared and submitted with respect to this proposed action and its environmental review, (ii) its thorough review of the potential relevant areas of environmental concern to determine if the proposed action may have a significant adverse impact on the environment, including the criteria identified in 6 NYCRR §617.7(e), hereby snakes a negative determination of environmental significance ( "Negative Declaration ") in accordance with SEQR for the above Page 17 of22 T13 3 -22 -11 referenced proposed action, and determines that an Environmental Impact Statement will be required, and 2. The responsible officer of the Town Board of the Town of Dryden is hereby authorized and directed to complete and sign as required the determination of significance, confirming the foregoing Negative Declaration, which fully completed and signed Full EAF and determination of significance are incorporated by reference in this resolution. 2nd Cl Solomon Roll Call Vote Cl Solomon Yes Supv Sumner Yes Cl Makar Yes Cl beifer Yes The board reviewed the findings, determination, and conditions of approval for the Beam Hill Road site. Supv Sumner noted this location is the highest priority for location and has been the most complicated to review because of other users on the existing tower. It was noted the removal bond amount was greater in this approval because the tower is larger. There is a condition that prior to the issuance of construction permits, all outstanding invoices from the town shall be paid unless they have been waived by the town board pursuant to law. There is also a condition that no construction permit will be issued until a valid lease with the town has been executed. RESOLUTION #75 - ADOPT FINDINGS, DETERMINATION AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR APPLICATION OF CLARITY CONNECT, INC. FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A 120 -FOOT TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER ON PREMISES OF THE TOWN OF DRYDEN AT 285 BEAM HILL ROAD Supv Sumner offered the following resolution and asked for its adoption: RESOLVED, that this Town Board hereby adopts the following Findings, Determination and Conditions of Approval for the application of Clarity Connect, Inc. for a special use permit and site plan approval for a 120 400t telecommunications tower on premises of the Town of Dryden at 285 Beam Hill Road, TOWN OF DRYDEN TOMPK.INS COUNTY STATE OF NEW YORK In the Matter of the Application of Clarity Connect, Inc. for a Special Use Permit and Site Plan Approval for a 120 -foot Telecommunications Tower on Premises of the Town of Dryden at 285 Beam Hill Road BACKGROUND FINDINGS, DETERMINATION AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Clarity Connect, Inc. (herein "Clarity "), by an undated application, applied for a special use permit and site plan approval to construct a telecommunications tower, equipment shed Pugc IS of 22 0113 3 -22 -11 and site improvements on property of the Torn of Dryden, 285 Beam Hill Road (Town of Dryden Tax Map No. 60. -1 -7). The street address for the tower site is 285 13earn Hill Road. Clarity supplemented its application by a submittal dated March 7, 201.1 (Design of 120 ft/ 130 ft Self Supporting Tower) and an email dated February 16, 2011. Clarity submitted six photographs of the proposed tower site, site taken from locations where the proposed tower would likely be visible. The application included a Full Environmental Assessment: Form and a Visual EAF Addendum. The town board completed Part 2 of the EAF and the Visual EAF Addendum. Town staff reviewed the Clarity submittals and commented on them in correspondence dated March 10, 2011. and March 16, 2011. The town's consultant on telecommunications towers applications, Jeffrey B. Kirby, P.E., reviewed and commented on the Clarity submittals in correspondence dated February 15, 2011; March 15, 2011, and in emails dated February 8, 2011 and March 8, 2011. The Tompkins County Department of Planning, in a letter dated March 15, 201 1., on a different Clarity application, commented on the application and recommended a "formal visual impact assessment using industry standard methodology." Such a recommendation did not trigger the supermajority vote requirement under General Municipal Laws 239 -1 and 239 -m. PUBLIC HEARING /COMMENTS The town board held a public hearing on the application on February 1.6, 201.1, and closed the public hearing that same day. No written comments were received from any member of the public. At the public hearing on the project, the town board heard from Charles Bartosch on behalf of the applicant, and from LeRoy Holman, Mitch Collingsworth and Mark Bell. FINDINGS fTompkins County Department of Planning CPD The TCPD has no review authority under General Municipal Law 239 -1 and 239 -m. Public Comments The town board has carefully considered the three comments received from the public at the public hearing. DETERMINATION Based upon the record before it, the town board concludes and determines as follows: To the maximum extent possible the visual impact on neighboring residences and the public have been mitigated. The no tower alternative is not an option and the proposed lattice type tower is the best option to minimize the visual impact. The proposed tower is slightly taller than the existing telecommunications towers already existing on the site. (kk) No formal visual simulations of the proposed tower were conducted. Photographs of the tower site were provided. They were taken when there was no foliage. Based on the remote location of the tower site from adjoining properties, the height of the tower, and the surrounding trees, the requirement of a more formal photo simulation should be waived. (11) The proposed tower will allow future co- location with an extension. (mm) The proposed tower height (120 feet) is the minimum height necessary to serve the purpose intended. (nn) The Town -owned site is a publicly- owned, wooded area and is neither listed on the Tompkins County Unique Natural Area inventory nor is it a Crii:ical Environmental Area or near one. The site is partially screened by ® existing woods and the location of the access drive. (oo) The Town -owned site is the highest priority in the site selection process. Page 19 of 22 4146 3-22-11 • (pp) The only co- location opportunity within the area designated by Clarity as the search area is the Town -owned property which is an existing tower site. The existing towers are unsuitable for co- location. (gq)The Town -owned site is the only site available within the search area that could provide the radio frequency coverage objectives. (rr) The search area is within a RC zoning district of the Town and a telecommunications tower is an allowed use subject to the issuance of a special use permit: and site plan approval. (ss) The Town -owned site allows the tower to meet all the setback requirements and provides the most natural screening. (tt) Clarity can only place its tower on property that it purchases or leases. When it leases property, it is subject. to the requirements of the lessor as to site location. (u u) Clarity has demonstrated that no other sites with the highest priority in the search area are available. (vv)The Town -owned site is amid an area with a variety of land uses including rural residential, agriculture and large wooded tracts. (ww) No sites, other that those identified by Clarity in the search area, were identified by the town or the public as sites to be evaluated. (xx) Local law No. 2 of the year 2006 - Telecommunications Tower Siting Lawn for the Town of Dryden (TTS) has as one of its policy goals the promotion and encouragement of improved telecommunications services. (yy)Clarity provided propagation studies which supported the need for the type of telecommunications services provided by Clarity in the area. The TTS does not require a showing that a tower is needed. (zz) The tower is designed for a possible 20 -foot extension. (aaa) The Town's consultant, Jeffrey B. Kirby, P.E., provided three (3) reviews of Clarity's submittals. In summary, Mr. Kirby found that: (i) The proposed project is consistent: with the overall policy and goals of the TTS and the design incorporates most of the recommended features at an appropriate site location. (ii) The tower foundation has been designed based on the presumption of "normal" soil. The Applicant previously requested a waiver of the requirement for soil borings, and has not performed any borings to date. The soil conditions will need to be verified, and the tower foundation design may have to be modified as a result, prior to construction. (iii) The tower will not be visible from very many locations, and the visual impact %will not be very significant. (iv) Clarity adequately justified the need for the Town -owned site. (bbb) The Town's Director of Planning, Dan Kwasnowski, reviewed the Clarity application, exhibits thereto and the Kirby reviews on the Clarity submittals and exhibits. In summary, Mr. Kwasnowski found that the special use permit could be approved if several conditions were attached to the approval. Before construction permits can be issued there are several requirements to be fulfilled by Clarity which do not pertain to the special use permit review or site plan review by the town board (Kirby review of March 16, 2011 and Kwasnowski memo of March 16, 2011), ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Town Board has carefully reviewed the Full Environmental Assessment Form, including Part 1 as amended by the applicant, Part 2 and Visual EAF Addendum completed by the town board and accompanying exhibits and narratives, and 1) determined that the project would not have any significant adverse environmental impacts, 2) determined that an Page 20 o('22 TB 3 -22 -11 environmental impact statement would not be required, and 3) made a negative determination of environmental significance (Negative Declaration). APPROVAL AND CONDITIONS Based upon the application, the exhibits, the comments received from the applicant, the public, the Town Board's consultant, and town staff, and the findings and determination set forth above, the Town Board of the Town of Dryden hereby approves the application for a special use permit and site plan for the proposed Clarity telecommunications tower on the Town -owned property subject to the following conditions: I. The tower shall not exceed 1.20 feet in height. 2. The tower shall not be lighted. 3. The tower and equipment shed and other improvements shall be constructed and sited according to the application as finally amended. 4. Clarity shall take steps to minimize additional clearing of the property and avoid unnecessary tree cutting. 5. No landscape plan to provide additional vegetative screening is necessary. 6. Clarity shall submit an Inspection and Maintenance Plan for approval by the town, which plan complies with the require=ments of ANSI /TIA- 222 -G -2005 Section 14 and shall incorporate the relevant provisions of Annex J thereto. Such submittal shall be in all respects satisfactory to the individual charged with reviewing it. Clarity shall inspect and maintain the tower in accordance with such plan. 7. Follow=ing each periodic inspection, a written report of such inspection, signed by a Professional Cngineer licensed in New York State, shall be submitted to the Town. Such report shall detail the inspection process, note any maintenance ® issues and procedures and timetables to address such issues. The report must be received by the Town within 30 days of such periodic inspection. 8. Clarity shall assure compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and shall furnish a written protocol detailing the steps it will take to assure such compliance. Such submittal shall be in all respects satisfactory to the individual charged with reviewing it. 9. Clarity shall provide and maintain a Tower Removal Bond in the amount of $30,000 naming the Town as obligee. The bond shall be in such form as is acceptable to the town's attorney and with a surety qualified to do business in New York State and listed on the United States Treasury's Listing of Approved Sureties (Department Circular 570). The Town Board reserves the right to annually review the amount of the Tower Removal Bond to assure that the amount of the bond is adequate to assure compliance with the obligations of Clarity under Local Law No. 2 (2006) and the conditions of approval of the special use permit and site plan. 1.0. The Town of Dryden Standard Conditions of Approval (August 1.4, 2008 Version). 1.1. Prior to the issuance of construction permits Clarity shall submit the items detailed in Mr. Kirby's letter of March 16, 2011 to the extent the same have not already been submitted, and such submittals shall be in all respects satisfactory to the individual charged with reviewing there. 12. Prior to the issuance of any construction permits, all outstanding invoices from the town for reimbursable expenses, and application fees shall be paid, unless expressly waived by the town board pursuant to law. 13. No construction permits shall be issued unless and until a valid lease with the tow=n has been executed by the town and Clarity. 2nd Cl Solomon Page 21 of 22 Roll Call Vote Cl Solomon Yes Supv Sumner Yes Cl Makar Yes Cl Leifer Yes TH 3 -22 -I 1 Cl Makar has an email from C Bartosch dated August: 19, 2010 requesting a waiver of fees in connection with the application. This was prior to the date the applications were submitted. An agreement was then signed with Clarity detailing the public interest and funding. Based on this, the Town Board will schedule a public hearing on the issue of waiving the fees. Special permits can be issued prior to that hearing, but construction permits cannot be issued until the fee is paid or waived. Supv Sumner will determine the amount of fees that the Town will consider waiving and get it to Atty Perkins for the public notice. The sense of the board is the consider waiving the fees for all three towers and the associated engineering fees. Supv Sumner said the amount waived could be proportionate to the amount of public funding and public interest. There will be five hotspots and computer equipment made available and one town meeting a year will be streamed over the internet. Supv Sumner will draft: a proposal and share it with the board. The meeting to consider the waiver will be held April S at 10:00 a.m. Atty Perkins cautioned the board to justify any waiver as future providers will also likely be seeking a waiver. CI Leifer said the state funding makes the difference. There being no further business, on motion made, seconded and unanimously carried, the meeting was adjourned at 12:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, I � L B bi L. Avery Town Clerk Pngc 22 (it' 2120