Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-03-17 - PH TOWN OF ULYSSES PUBLIC HEARING 3- 17-97 PRESENT : Supervisor Douglas Austic, Councilpeople Carolyn Duddleston, Robert Weatherby, Peter Penniman, absent Catherine Stover. Planning Board Members Greg Hoffmire and Gail Zabawsky ; Attorney Bruce Wilson ; CEO Alex Rachun. Others Present : see attached sign in sheet Supervisor Austic opened the public hearing and asked those to speak that choose to. • Norman Foley - Question of what the order of liability was concerning page 11, Section M, Removal Provisions. Who is the owner ? Town Attorney, Bruce Wilson answered that applicant would be the person applying for the permit to erect the tower. They may be the owner of the land or they may be leasing the land, so the owner would apply to the owner of the property. Mr. Foley 's second question was, since the town communications business seems to proceed and these licenses change hands so often that if Frontier Cellular ceases to exist or sells their license, they are the applicant but then whoever is currently operating the tower wasn 't the original applicant. Mr. Wilson answered that zoning follows successor owners. Mr. Foley thinks that 's obsolete , unused or unsafe towers should either be removed or repaired. Supervisor Austic replied that this was kind of covered under safety on page 9. Suzanne Hillman - If you look at Section N, Financial Guarantee, that 's subsequent to Section M, says the Planning Board may, Ms. Hillman thinks this should read, Planning Board shall. Also under Financial Guarantee. Would this also apply to the land owner, who is leasing the land. She would think that, the person would also have to put up a performance bond for the removal of the tower in the case that the applicant or tower owner goes into bankruptcy. Town Attorney Bruce Wilson replied that he felt that the word may should stay instead of changing it to shall. Concerning performance bonds Mr. Wilson said that was an area that he was not familiar with at this point. That would come in the unforeseen future. . Meredith Kwiatkowski - Asked if the wad may could be changed to shall. Norman Foley - Stated that at the initial joint meeting, that it was pretty clear to the people in#he audiencethat+here would definitely be Some kind of financial allotment fs r the eve/Alai removal of Tha flower. Thai-Somebody was ing lo have* pub x amount of dollars in escrow for removal of tower at the end of its useful life or at the end of the lease. Mr. Foley and other? thought that was pretty clear what everyone had discussed. • Bob Howarth - States that the ordinance as he reads it, states that the applicant needs to meet the FCC health regulations. Would also like to see the ordinance strengthen to say that federal and state regulations on safety change in the future that the tower would have to be brought in compliance with those and that the owner of the tower rather than the town pay the price of putting into compliance. Mr. Howarth is an environmental scientist and serves on a few different boards, he feels that in the future that it is quite likely that the regulations on radiation exposure from towers will be strengthened in the future and he would hate to see the town stuck with paying for the enforcement of that. Mr. Howarth would like to see a simple language added that, if federal or state regulations heighten in the future that the tower owner comply with those and bare the cost of verifying those. This kind of goes along with section 1 f, page 5. He suggests adding another part to section g, page 7. Is there any harm in having the (<\\° Town of Ulysses Public Hearing 3-17-97 Town Ordinance be redundant with what the FCC would otherwise do? Who does it place the burden on by checking on the license? Jean Foley - On page 7, section F c, would like to see an addition to that as a minimum of 1000 ft. from a residential property line. She is really concerned about property value and the effects of the proximity of the tower to a residence. Mrs. Foley had a conversation with David Donner, a licensed real estate salesperson who specializes in country properties and works for Connie Lewis. Mr. Donner has stated that the towers do affect property values. In real estate circles, towers are considered adverse conditions in evaluating properties and potential buyers may not be interested due to the fact of the towers vicinity and the dangers that could exist from the towers. Mr. Donner gave her a couple of examples of this. Andy Hillman - Wanted to reiterate his first comments. He also wanted to say that he liked what Jean Foley had to say about the 1000 ft. from a residential property line. Meredith Kwiatkowski - Has concerns on page 10, under 1 a. Was wondering if wording could be a little better to require that the expiration or using of existing business and plan developing districts before the use of residential area properties and that would be along with the current zoning codes that exist now and presumably you would be building on that when it needs to be done. Ms. Kwiatkowski thinks this would encourage the continuation of what is essentially a commercial type of development tower staying in a commercial type area development zone or business district as opposed to being in a residential area. She also thinks that something should be added about keeping the tower away from where large groups of children could be. Dave Gell - On the top of page 6, wants to change the wording. Thinks it should also say applicant, landowner, ect. As it turns out the applicant and the tower owner could be different. Wants to know who is liable for fixing the tower if its unsafe ? France Fadalti - Wants to know what will happen to Jacksonville if a tower is put there ? Concerns are water, property values, and health. Andy Hillman - On page 1 under legislative intent, Mr. Hillman suggests to strike the need for and just say that we recognize the increased demand for wireless communications transmitting facilities and the services they provide. If we recognize the need for, we are saying that its a requirement or a necessity, something requisite and he doesn 't think cell phones are something requisite. . 1 Jean Foley - as ,she understands it there are different classes of public utilities f with different responsibilities / different regulations // can anyone clarify what the • telecommunications companies responsibilities. William Sitzman - any telecommunications company would fall under FCC - if you have • a specific question he would be happy to research. Jean Foley - should not lump telecommunications in with other public utilities. Bruce Wilson - they are a public utility - you can put anything you want in the zoning ordinance, but it still is considered a public utility under the mandate of what you can do. We are dealing with zoning here - an argument of " not in my back yard" I don 't know how to deal with that. All I can tell you is with a public utility they have the right to move in, they are a public utility and there are public utility laws. What we are trying to do bear is create a site review process. 2 D,1 Town of Ulysses Public Hearing 3-17-97 Jean Foley - read from the Local Officials Guide of Telecommunications Act of 1996, published by the National League of Cities. Norman Foley - he thinks what Jean is trying to address is the conception that if we want to enact an enabling ordinance so there is more say where a tower can go and not be able to get a variance easily. Doug Austic - A variance would only be based on a set of perimeters set by NYS or local for special use permits. For anyone to assume or say that just because it is a public utility or cellular tower they would have more ability to get a variance from the zoning board would be incorrect. They would have to follow the same procedures. There are legal rights to protest a decision by the board to by them or residents in the means of filing an Article 78 and that would go through the courts. Norman Foley - on public utilities - a company like NYSEG is regulated by the Public Service Commission — rates are established etc. - my understanding was that they are a public utility of a different level - where as rates are set by demand for wireless communications -- so that is why I feel they fall into a different utility bracket simply because of that. Mike Kebre - a local resident but also an account executive for Frontier Cellular - they are taxed the same as public utilities. Doug Austic - asked if there were any other comments Attorney Bruce Wilson - reviewed the letter from TC Department . of Planning Commissioner James Hanson, Jr. the Board agreed to the changes that Mr. Hanson suggested as follows; Page 6 - Change " e. " to " 5" Page 10 - Section K,1,c. Change to " whether the population density of the land in the vicinity warrants the proposed use. " Section K, 1,g. Change to " The project not regularly cause objections odors, noise, glare, vibration or electrical disturbance. Page 12 - last paragraph, change " conformity " to " non -conformity" Other that those the proposal, as submitted, will have no significant deleterious impact 011 intercommunity, State, or County interests. Therefore, no recommendation is indicated by the Tompkins County Planning Department, and the Town is free to act without prejudice. Attorney Bruce Wilson pointed out a couple of minor changes that were not made previously - Page 1, 2nd paragraph last sentence - and facilities was added after " in sitting towers. C .2 - page 4 - remove the amount of the fee and replace with " until an application is complete and application fee is paid, as set by the Town Board. Page 8 #4 ad - not mandated by FCC . Peter Penniman - it is not clear to him that this ordinance requires the applicant to provide enough information to the Planning Board to excess whether the tower is needed - or what the overall service plan is. Douglas Austic - be understands - you made that point the last time - however the Planning Board can ask for more information - another words if they don 't have 3 (Thl% Town of Ulysses Public Hearing 3-17-97 enough information to make up their minds - they can ask for more under this section. I don 't know bow you could say what we would want them to have - the planning board has to. Peter Penniman. - my understanding of this whole technology and also by our understanding of how it is regulated and what filings they are required to make with what ever regulatory body requires it than maybe some service plan that would be appropriate and. useful. • Douglas Austic •• than the planning board asks for it - I do not know how you can cover everything. Mr. Austic asked again if there were any more comments - hearing none the public hearing was closed. Closed at 8: 10 PM. 4 r • 1 C. e I . MAR 2 1 1991 TOWER ORDINANCE TOWN OF ULYSSES s. Be it enacted by the Ulysses Town Board a zoning ordinance to amend Article IV Section 1 ( n ) of use regulations of the Ulysses Town Zoning Ordinance . Legislative Intent . The Town of Ulysses recognizes the increased demand for wireless communications transmitting facilities and for the services they provide . Often these facilities require the construction of a communications tower . The intent of this ordinance is to protect the Town ' s interest in siting towers in a manner consistent with sound land use planning by : 1 . Minimizing visual effects of towers through careful design , siting and vegetative screening ;- - 2 . Avoiding potential damage to adjacent properties from tower failure or falling debris through engineering and careful siting of tower structures and facilities ; and 3 . Maximizing use of any new or existing tower and encouraging the use of existing buildings and/ or structures to reduce the number of towers needed ; while also allowing wireless service providers to meet their ' technologicaleand service objectives for the benefit of the public . There is hereby added after Article IV ( 1 ) ( n ) a new sub - section n ( 1 ) as follows : ii • • • {s. . " n ( 1 ) COMMUNICATION TRANSMISSION TOWERS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES . • A . PURPOSES . In addition to . other public utilities uses provided herein , communication transmission towers and telecommunication facilities may be constructed and maintained in residence districts subject to the provisions of this section . B . DEFINITIONS . • 1 . TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES - Towers and/ or Antennas and Accessory Structures used in connection with the provisions of cellular t elephone service , personal communications services ( PCS ) , paging services , radio and television broadcast services and similar broadcast services . 2 . TOWER - A structure designed to support Antennas . It includes , without limit , free - standing towers , guyed towers , monopoles and similar structures which employ camouflage technology . 3 . ANTENNA - A system of electrical conductors that t ransmit or receive radio frequency signals .. Such signals shall include but not be limited to radio , t elevision , cellular , paging , PCS and microwave communications . 4 . ACCESSORY STRUCTURE - An accessory facility or structure serving or be3 ng used in conjunction with a Telecommunications Facility or Tower and located on the same lot as the Telecommunications Facility o r Tower . Examples of such structures include u tility or transmission equipment , storage sheds or cabinets . 5 . CO - LOCATED ANTENNAS - Telecommunications Facilities which utilize existing Towers , buildings or other structures for placement of Antenna ( s ) and which do not require construction of a new Tower . C . FILING APPLICATION AND PLANNING BOARD PROCEDURES . 1 . The applicant will submit a written application for such a permit with the Building Inspector . The applicant will submit such information and 2 t.60411 .. 0-owiveinih, . // q• documents as the Building Inspector ( or any other officer or Town agency having jurisdiction) may require . Included in these documents must be a development plan and copies of all documents submitted by the applicant to the Federal Communications Commission or any other governmental agency having jurisdiction .. Further , the applicant shall submit an Environmental. Assessment Form ( Long Form ) , with Visual Addendum , and an analysis demonstrating that location of the Telecommunications Facility as proposed is necessary to meet the frequency reuse and spacing needs of the applicant ' s telecommunications system and to provide adequate service and coverage to the intended area . In addition , each applicant shall submit a site plan prepared to scale and in sufficient detail and accuracy showing at a minimum : a _ The exact location including geographic coordinates of the proposed Telecommunications Facility and/ or Tower , together with any guy wires and guy anchors , if applicable ; b . The maximum height of the proposed Telecommunications Facility and/ or Tower to include all appurtenances ; c .. A. detail of Tower type to include engineering drawings from Tower manufacturer ( monopole , guyed , free - standing or other ) ; d . The location , type and intensity of any lighting on the Tower ; e . Property boundaries and names of adjacent land owners ; f . Proof of the landowners ' consent to abide by the ordinance if the applicant does not own the property ; g . The location of all other structures on the property and all structures on any adjacent property within one hundred ( 100 ) feet of the property lines , together with the distance of those structures to any proposed Tower ; h . The location , nature and extent of any proposed fencing , landscaping and / or screening ; and 3 • • KM (0 ie. The location and nature of proposed utility easements and access road , if applicable . 2 . The Building Inspector will not be required to proceed under this law , until an application is complete and application fee is paid as set by the Town Board _ . 3 _ As soon after the applicant has filed all documents and supplied all the information required by such Officer , but not later than 30 days from the date completed application is fired , the Officer shal file such application. and all other documents wit the Clerk of the Planning Board , who shall place the application on the agenda for the next meeting o f the Planning Board . . The application shall be reviewed at such meeting and the Chairman shall set a date for a public hearing , notice of which shall be ( i ) posted and ( ii ) published at least once in the official newspaper , the first publication of which shall be at least 10 days prior to the date set. for the hearing and ( iii ) mailed to owners of property lying within 1 , 000 feet of, the proposed site and to such other owners of property in the vicinity of the proposed site as the Chairman of t he Board shall determine at applicant ' s cost . It shall be sufficient if the determination of the ownership is based on the current assessment roll and assessment. map , but the failure to notify all such owners shall not render defective any action o f the Planning Board .. The date - of such public hearing shall be within. 40 days from the date on which. the completed application was filed with. the Clerk of the Planning Board .. 4 . . The Planning Board may at any stage of th proceedings require additional information documents or testimony , and may adjourn fina consideration of its recommendation for a reasonable period for the foregoing purpose and for further study and review , but no more than 60 days after the first date set for the hearing . 5 . The special permit may be granted , denied or granted with conditions by the Planning Board . D . LIMITED PERMIT . Any permit granted under this section will be valid only for the dimensions and number of Antennas or Towers in the original • 4 • • ac6 application _ Changes must be by new application to the Planning Board . • E _ THE APPLICATION _ . The applicant shall submit to the Planning Board the following ': materials 1. _ A report from a professional engineer which shall a .- Describe the tower and the technical , economic and other reasons for the tower design ; b . Demonstrate that the tower is structurally sound ; c .. Describe how many and. what kind of antennas are proposed ; • d . Describe how many and what kind of antennas are possible on the tower ; e _ Demonstrate that the site can contain on - site substantially all ice - fall or debris from tower failure ; f . Demonstrate that the proposed electromagnetic radiation will not exceed the levels for uncontrolled environment recommended in Federal. Communication Commission in FCC - 96 - 326 Table 1 entitled " Limits for Maximum. Permissible Exposure " ( MPE ) , to include any current limits by FCC . at time of application , at the following locations : • 1 .. Base of the tower or point near the tower with the highest radiation levels ; 2 . The nearest point on the property line ; 3 . The nearest habitable space regularly occupied by people . 2 . A copy of the applicant ' s Federal Communications Commission ( FCC ) license including any requirements from the Federal Aviation Administration ( FAA ) . 3 . A copy of the certificate of need issued by the Public Service Commission . 4 . A letter of intent committing the tower owner applicant and / or landowner to negotiate in good faith for shared 5 • • (-)S1 • use by third parties . This letter , which shall be filed. with the Building Inspector prior to issuance. . of a building permit , ( assuming the telecommunications tower is approved ) , shall commit the tower owner and his or her successors in, interest to : a . Respond, in a timely , comprehensive manner to a request for information from a potential shared- use applicant .. b . Negotiate in good faith for shared. use by third. . parties . c .. Allow shared use if an applicant agrees in writing to pay charges _ d . Make no more than a reasonable charge for shared use. , based on generally accepted accounting principles . The charge may include but is not limited to a pro rata share of the cost of site selection , planning , project administration , land costs , site design , construction and maintenance , financing , return on equity , and depreciation , and all of the costs of adapting the tower or equipment to accommodate a shared user without causing electromagnetic interference or causing uses on the site to emit electromagnetic radiation in excess of levels described above . 5 .. Evidence that existing facilities do not have space on which planned equipment can be placed so it can function effectively . This shall include the following : a . The applicant shall contact the owners of all existing or approved towers within a ten ( 10 ) mile radius of proposed site .. b . The applicant shall provide each contacted owner with the engineer ' s report required above .. c . The applicant shall request each contacted Owner to assess the following : 1 . Whether the existing tower could accommodate the antenna to be attached to the proposed tower without • causing structural instability or electromagnetic interference . 2 . If the antenna cannot be accommodated , 6 J 1 id' 1x rj 2565 assess whether the existing tower could be structurally strengthened or whether the antennas and related equipment could be protected from interference .. 3 . whether the owner is willing to make space available .. 4 _ The projected cost of shared use . 6 . Visual EAF addendum to the full EAF . • a _ The applicant shall indicate how the structure can be blended with. the viewshed , including any attempts at, camouflage . . b .. The Planning Board may require submittal of a more detailed visual analysis based on the results of the Visual EAF ( visual EAF addendum to be drafted by the Planning Board and adopted by the Town Board ) .. • F ... AREA REQUIREMENTS : a . The tower or antenna shall be less than one hundred feet in height unless a different height is demonstrated by- applicant as necessary and proof as to coverage needs is fully provenfor additional height . b . Minimum parcel size shall be five [ 5 ] acres . c . Minimum setback from the property line for the base of the tower shall be twice the . height of the tower .. d . Accessory structures , guy anchors and fencing shall be set back according to the . yard requirements in the district . e . The base of the tower shall be at least 300 feet from the nearest dwelling . G . LIMITS OF PERMISSIBLE EXPOSURE AND INSPECTION THEREOF . The Town shall verify by testing annually at applicant ' s or owner ' s expense , electric and magnetic field limits and power density conforming to FCC 96 - 326 Table 1 . The annual inspection shall include structural safety . Both structural safety and emission standard are to be governed by then. current state and t ederal regulations . The actual levels of electromagnetic radiation as measured in the field , in. the same locations as those calculated in the original engineer ' s report , number of antennas .., and transmitter power shall be verified on an annual basis by the owner ' s expert . It shall be reviewed by a licensed expert retained by- the Town of Ulysses . The applicant shall deposit. with the town , on an annual basis , a . sum sufficient to pay for the verification. of the annual information required . Any portion of the fee not used to pay for the retention of an expert by the Town of Ulysses shall be refunded to the owner of the telecommunications tower . H . AESTHETICS . Telecommunications Facilities shall be located and buffered to t he maximum extent which. is practical and technologically feasible t o help insure compatibility with surrounding. land uses .. In order t o minimize adverse aesthetic effects on neighboring residences to t he extent possible , the Planning Board may impose reasonable conditions on the applicant , including the following : • 8 • 4 c4‘: .4 :h d\ -7 • 1 .. The Planning Board may require reasonable landscaping consisting of trees or shrubs to screen the base of the Tower and Accessory Structures to the extent possible from adjacent residential property _ Existing on - site trees and vegetation shall be preserved to the maximum extent possible ; 2 .. The Planning Board may require that the Tower be designed and sited so as to avoid , if possible , application of Federal Aviation Administration ( FAA ) lighting and painting requirements , it being generally understood. that Towers should not be artificially lighted , except as required by the FAA ;. 3 _ The Tower shall be of galvanized finish or painted matte grey unless otherwise required by the FAA and accessory facilities should maximize use of building materials , colors and textures designed - to blend with -the natural surroundings ; and 4 . No Tower shall contain any signs not mandated by the FCC _ I . ACCESS AND SAFETY . 1 . . A road turnaround and two ( 2 ) parking spaces shall be provided to assure adequate emergency and service access . Maximum use of existing roads , public or private , shall be made . Road construction and public utility services of this site shall , at all times , minimize ground disturbance and vegetation cutting and road grades shall closely follow natural contours to assure minimal visual disturbance and reduce soil erosion potential .. 2 . All Towers and guy anchors , if applicable , shall be enclosed by a fence not less than six ( 6 ) feet in height or otherwise sufficiently secured to protect them from trespassing or vandalism . 3 . The applicant must comply with all applicable state and federal regulations including , but not limited to , FAA and FCC regulations . 4 . Upon written request from the Town , applicant shall provide a certification from a qualified , licensed engineer , certifying that the Tower or Telecommunications Facility meets applicable structural safety standards . 9 • . r(*c6 J . SHARED USE OF TOWERS . In the interest of minimizing the number of new Towers , the Planning Board may require , as a condition of either site plan or Tower Permit approval , that the applicant indicate in writing its .w commitment to co - location of Telecommunications Facilities as set forth under E ( 4 ) herein , and that the applicant design the. Tower to. have a minimum height and carrying capacity needed to provide future shared usage . The condition for co - location may not be required if the applicant demonstrates that provisions of future shared usage are not feasible or impose an unnecessary burden based upon : ( 1 ) the number of Federal Communications Commission ( FCC ) licenses forseeably available for the area ; ( 2 ) the kind of Tower site and structure proposed ; ( 3 ) the number of existing and potential licensees without tower spaces ; ( 4 ) available spaces on other existing and approved Towers ; and ( 5 ) potential adverse visual impacts by a Tower designed for shared usage .. K . ALTERNATE SITE REVIEW . The Planning Board before rendering its decision ; shall consider the following standards and matters :. 1 . The need in the community for the proposed use . a . The availability of alternative sites . b . The physical features and the general character , present use and probable future use of the land in the neighborhood . c . Whether the population density of the land in the vicinity warrants the proposed use . d . The distance from existing and proposed public rights of way and from existing residential • development ; nature of access to and from the 10 . - • . • `o, site _ e _ The adaptability of the site for the proposed use topography , natural buffers , screening and fencing .. f _ The size of the site chosen for the proposed use _ The radio transmission tower must be located on an unoccupied parcel having an area of sufficient size that no part of the tower will fall on neighboring property should the structure collapse and the size shall provide a buffer to other properties in the neighborhood. _ The size shall be at least five ( 5 ) acres _ g . The project not regularly cause objectionable odors , noise , glare , vibration or electrical disturbance as a result of the project ' s • operation .:. h .. The effect of the proposed use on the other properties in the neighborhood and the enjoyment by the inhabitants of their properties and whether it will materially affect the value of such properties and the use and enjoyment of such properties by the occupants and any other effect of such use on the health , welfare and safety of the occupants of such properties . L . OTHER PERMITS . No building permit shall be issued until final approval has been granted to the applicant by any County , State and Federal Agency having jurisdiction in the matter and any and all other permits which may be required have been issued to the applicant . The applicable procedures of the State and Local SEQR Laws shall be complied with . All provisions of the Town ' s Zoning Ordinance and other applicable laws not inconsistent with this law shall govern all proceedings . • M . REMOVAL PROVISIONS . 11 The applicant and / or owner shall agree , in writing , to remove the Tower and Antennas if the Telecommunications Facility becomes obsolete or ceases to be used for its intended purpose for twelve ( 12 ) consecutive months . Removal of such obsolete and / or unused Towers or Antennas shall take place within twelve ( 12 ) months of cessation of use which can be extended by the Planning Board for good cause . Such agreement shall also include a commitment by the applicant to impose a similar obligation to remove any unused and / or obsolete Tower or Antennas upon any person subsequently securing rights to co - locate on the Tower or Telecommunications Facility _ N . FINANCIAL GUARANTEE . The Planning Board may, as a condition of special use permit approval , require the applicant and / or owner to provide a letter of credit , performance bond or other financial guarantee to the Town that funds will be available for the facilities in the event of non - compliance with the provisions of this ordinance . 0 .. NON - CONFORMING . Upon the effective date of this ordinance , it shall be deemed that existing erected towers as of that date shall be allowed as non - conforming uses . However , it is deemed necessary for the public ' s health and safety that all non - conforming uses be in compliance with this ordinance within ten ( 10 ) years of the effective date of the ordinance . Each existing structure that is a non - conforming use shall within said ten ' ( 10 ) years apply for a special permit under this 12 rt . q ''" r° ,t . o. t :,) i ,-(() ordinance to continue to be allowed by this zoning ordinance Failure to do so shall be a continuing violation of this zoning ordinance _for each and every day after the expiration of said ten ( 10 ) year grace period .. I . 13 i ' I ) r X TOWN OF ULYSSES VVV 111 SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING MARCH 17TH, 1997 PRESENT : Supervisor Douglas Austic, Councilpeople Carolyn Duddleston, Peter Penniman and Robert Weatherby. Catherine Stover Absent. Attorney Bruce Wilson ; CEO Alex Rachun ; Planning Board Members Greg Hoffmire and Gail Zabawsky; Town Clerk Marsha L. Georgia. Others Present : see list attached to public hearing minutes • Supervisor Austic opened the meeting at 8: 10 pm . The Board discussed some minor changes as previously reviewed. Alex Rachun, CEO reviewed the SEGR Full Environmental Assessment Form, Appendix A and B. Mrs. Duddleston moved, seconded by Mr. Weatherby the following ; RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ulysses, after review of the SEQR Full Environmental Assessment Form, Appendix A and B, declares a " NEGATIVE DECLARATION. " Mr. Austic aye Mrs. Duddleston aye Mr. Penniman aye Mr. Weatherby aye Adopted. Tompkins County Planning has reviewed and commented pursuant to 239-1 and -m of the New York State General Municipal Law and state that no significant deleterious impact on intercommunity, County or State interests and therefore no recommendation is indicated by the Tompkins county Planning Department, and the Town is free to act without prejudice. Mrs. Duddleston moved, seconded by Mr. Penniman the following ; RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ulysses approves the newly revised " TOWER ORDINANCE". (COPY ATTACHED) Roll call vote was taken by Mrs. Georgia, Town Clerk as follows: Mrs. Duddleston aye Mr. Penniman aye Mr. Weatherby aye Mr. Austic aye Adopted. Attorney Bruce Wilson stated that this becomes effective on filing in clerk 's office. Legal Notice will be published in the Ithaca Journal. Hearing no further discussion Mrs. Duddleston moved, seconded by Mr. Weatherby to adjourn the meeting at 9: 45 PM.