HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-07-31 - PB Ulysses Town Planning Board, July 31 , 1997 3
Page 1
Town of Ulysses
Planning Board Meeting
July 31 , 1997
Board Members present : Peter Demjanec, Bud Stover, Krys Cail , Greg Hoffmire,
Richard Geiger.
Also present : Building Inspector Alex Rachun, Consultant Bill Sitzman.
Information was submitted on July 12`h . The Board has 30 days to call a first meeting,
and 45 days to call a public hearing and then fairly long breathing period for a decision as
to where to go and how much information to ask for.
Greg Hoffmire called the meeting to order. Residents present are welcome to listen, a
public hearing will be later. Alex referred to information provided by Jean Foley . Alex
talked with Town attorney regarding avenues open to Planning Board to question how
cell-tower is done . The communications act has put end on anyone stopping tower due to
adverse effects of radiation . However, planning board should be able to advocate whether
a tower is absolutely necessary in this location, whether communication can be served in
another way or whether another location will work .
There were concerns over language and discrepancies mentioned and a suggestion was
made to go through the application step by step to make sure it is complete and meets
submission requirements adequately .
Questions were brought up concerning the nature of the limited partnership and
relationship to Frontier and who is responsible or can act on their behalf The suggestion
was made to ask applicants to provide identifying documents .
The Board questioned a discrepancy in location of tower on site map (last map) with
ground elevation listed as 1101 . 3 ft. and where it is located is 1130 ft. , bringing into
question whether coordinates are correct . Another conflict between tower shown in
engineering drawing of 280 feet from ground level to top of ladder and in Tab . L antenna
would bring total to 295 ft. The Board felt application lacked clarity as to maximum
height of the facility .
Another discrepancy mentioned was the 80% guyed rating in written description, and
60% shown in engineering drawing 3 .
There were four no ' s to the adequacy of Items A & B & C .
Item D (type, location . & intensity of lighting) : The Board felt there was no specific
information provided , it only listed that FAA lighting will be required .
Item E : This was adequately covered , shown on map with tax no . and owner' s name .
Item F (proof of landowners intent to abide by ordinance if applicant does not own
• property) : The Board would like to see the lease agreement and landowners recognition
of responsibility .
Item G : The Board thought they should add a center of radiation from tower to show
distance to other structures . It was mentioned that the utility locations are not certified —
but this is not necessary for application .
Item H : The Board felt they have shown what they intend to do , whether or not that is
adequate remains to be seen .
Item I : A 12 ft. gravel driveway shown but lack information about location in relationship
to adjacent property boundary and whether this includes easement.
Ulysses Town Planning Board, July 31 , 1997 33
Page 2
Referring to the section called "Application" that starts on page 5 , the suggestions was
made to go through those so the Board can be complete in their response .
The first requirement is a report from professional engineer describing technical,
economic, and other reasons for design . The Board was not sure this had been
accomplished . There is a 2 page letter from an individual with an engineering degree
including his description of tower. However members felt specific information regarding
the foundation requirements of the site were lacking . The applicant should supply three
things : tower drawings , the foundation, and guy anchors . The report is not from a
professional engineer and guy anchor information is too generic . The suggestions was
made that soil samples should also be taken .
• The second requirement has to do with the antenna. The Board already discussed the
inadequacy of the description of the antenna. It was suggested that an engineer should
also examine the wind load . Another concern brought up was the requirement that they
would only co -locate with companies that had the co-locate policy on their towers . The
board felt this was something that should be discussed in the future, and some guidance
would be needed in that regard .
The third is to demonstrate the fall zone . The fall zone depicted that extends beyond site
but remains on property of the Champions . The Board felt this item was adequately
covered.
Item F concerns the electromagnetic radiation. The Board thought this item was
inadequate and the information should be analyzed for this particular site .
Item 2 : A copy of FCC license is present., but they have not filed a notice of proposed
construction or alteration with FAA . Next, a copy of certificate of need issued by the
public service commission is lacking . For the letter of intent committing tower owner of
applicant or landowner, only a policy statement has been received . The Board would like
to ask for more than internal policy . Letters A,B ,C , and D are all incumbent upon the
letter of intent so the Board didn ' t go through all of those .
Number five is a different section; evidence that existing facilities do not have space for
equipment to function effectively . They provided analysis of nine sites including fire
tower and county home as alternatives . Board members questioned whether this is
adequate and felt it appeared haphazard. The Board would like evidence the applicant has
contacted all possible facilities within a 10 mile radius and perhaps a short explanation
why other sites are not acceptable . The Board could also request that this map be done in
a more professional way with scale . All other subparts of five are encompassed in the
previous section.
Number six : visual EAF addendum to the full EAF concerning how structure will be
blended and camouflaged . It was mentioned that this may be a parallel issue because
talking about a SEQRA document that is a type 1 action and may or may not require a
public hearing on down the line . Board needs a complete document before it can address
the SEQRA issue . The Boards may be asking later whether it can be camouflaged.
Members were interested in a visual understanding of what it' s going to look like from
S Taughannock Park. It was discussed that the propagation studies are line-of- sight for
radio, which would be the same as visual . The Board felt the response to item 6 part A is
inadequate and they should show photographs from different points and (draw?) the
tower. Referring to A. under Item F : members asked whether there was something
showing what a propagation study of a 100 ft . tower would be and should the Board ask
for it. It was decided that this can be asked for later. It is not required for a complete
application.
The Board ' s first concern is to get a complete application in order to calculate the period
for public hearings and a decision . The clock hasn' t started until an adequate application
is received. Another issue mentioned by Board members concerned the amount of
unnecessary information provided . Members would prefer to see a submittal that goes
point by point through what is asked for . The Board felt what had been received is a
generic document that is the same as received at Farmington. The analysis for Wicker
Ulysses Town Planning Board, July 31 , 1997 3
Page 3
Appraisal is a Farmington file . Only EAF under SEQRA and sections H and I are directly
involved in Town of Ulysses and rest is generic .
The Board decided to make a resolution.
Peter Demjanec moved that the Planning Board deem the application submitted by New
York RSA No . 4 Limited. Partnership ' s (the "Telephone Company") for approval to
construct and operate a Cellular Telephone Communications Facility off Mekeel Road, in
the Town of Ulysses to be incomplete and remanded to the applicant for the addition of
the following information in accordance with the Town Tower Ordinance for the
following reasons :
• Referring to page 3 , exact location including geographic coordinates . We have a
discrepancy concerning the exact location, particularly concerning the elevation, it is
identified as 1130 ft. on the UFG map and 1101 . 3 ft. on the application itself We would
like to know precisely what the elevation is, and we would like to know precisely where
the tower is located, and those coordinates scaled onto the map .
Relative to item B , the maximum height of the proposed facility is identified as a 280 ft .
tower on page 3 of the engineering drawing, and as a 280 ft. tower of page 3 of the
application. The FAA consultant identifies is as 290 ft. with the antennas and page 3 of
the engineering drawing show the antennas projecting above the 280 ft. elevation . We
would like to know what the exact height of the tower plus antenna add on will be .
Detail of the tower type including engineering drawings from the tower manufacturer.
The drawings identified as being guyed 60 percent mark. Tab K identifies it as being
guyed 80 percent mark . It would be nice if they were consistent. We would like to know
exactly how it is going to be guyed .
Item. B , location, type, and intensity of any lighting on the tower. No reference made in
the application other than a comment in the FAA report that lighting will be required . We
would like to know what the type and intensity is .
Item F, proof of the land owner consent to abide by the ordinance if the applicant does
not own the property . We would like to see a copy the of the lease agreement with the
Champions in which they recognize their obligation to dispose of the tower in the event
that the applicant abandons the tower.
Item G, location of all of the structures on the property and within 100 ft. of the property
boundaries . We do have a site map that shows the proposed site and adjacent buildings on
adjacent properties . There is no indicator on how far it is from the tower to any one of
those adjacent structures . We would like to see either specific dimensions from each
building to the tower or a radius place on the enter of the tower identifying the distance to
each of those structures .
Item AI , location and nature of disposed utility easements and access roads if applicable .
There is no indicator on the site plan of where the 10 ft . wide utility easement is going to
be located or the 12 ft. gravel driveway is going to be located. We would like to see
dimensions from the adjacent property line to each ofthose easements and the relative
relationship between the utility easement and the 12 ft . wide gravel driveway .
Further requirements we ask of the applicant are :
A report from a professional engineer (ie . Someone licensed to practice engineering in
the State of New York) that does address the issue of why a tower of 280 ft. height is
required both economically and technically . We would like to see from this PE not only
the tower drawings, but also a description of the pier supporting the tower, what its
specific size is going to be for the specific soil conditions at this site, backed up by soil
tests at this site . Also the foundation for the guyed wires, there specific size, depth for
this site, again backed up by the soil tests for this site . We do recognize that we have
generic tabulations in the submittal but we can ' t tell from them whether or not they ' re
adequate for this site or even which of these foundations are proposed for this site .
Ulysses Town Planning Board, July 31 , 1997 331C)
Page 4
We have requested a wind load analysis and under both the proposed antennas and the
maximum antennas that could be contemplated for this tower.
Item C&D , describe not only what type and kind of antennas are currently proposed, but
also how many additional antennas could possibly be mounted on this tower, what their
location might be and how they might look.
Item F , demonstrate that the proposed electromagnetic radiation will not exceed the level
for uncontrolled environment recommended and FCC 96326 . We do have a generic
statement concerning EMF radiation for the tower but it is not specific . We would like to
see a site specific analysis addressing that point.
Item 2 , a copy of the applicant ' s FCC license is included in the report. We have not
received an FAA notice of proposed construction or alteration, form 7460- 1 .
Copy of the certificate of need issued by the Public Service Commission has not been
received .
Letter of intent committing the tower owner or applicant, or landlord to negotiate in good
faith or shared use by a third party . We have received a general statement of policy from
the applicant, it does not specifically address the point of our ordinance, it' s not on
anyone ' s letterhead, it has no signature . We would request a commitment consistent with
the requirements in the ordinance .
Item 5 , evidence that existing facilities do no have space on which planned equipment
can be placed so that it can function effectively . We have received propagation studies
for 9 sites closely bundled in the Town of Ulysses . We request that the applicant contact
every facility within a 10 mile radius of the proposed site . We know of several facilities
within the 10 mile radius that are not addressed and we would like to see that map
expanded to include all of those facilities . The map itself should accurately depict the
location of every site . Some of them are inaccurately located and the map should be done
to scale , properly labeled , etc .
Item 6, the visual EAF should include reference to applicable methods of blending with
the view shed . We would suggest at least a photo survey from several vantage points
depicting the ultimate height and appearance of the tower. Particular concern is from the
Taughannock Park view shed .
An amendment was suggested requesting information or partnership materials to help the
Board better understand the relationship between Frontier and the applicant.
No other amendments were offered. Richard Geiger seconded the motion . The Board
voted .
Peter Demjanec Aye
Richard Geiger Aye
Greg Hoffmire Aye
Bud Stover Aye
® Krys Cail Aye
The motion was passed .
The public who attended and others were invited to put their thoughts on paper which
will be kept on file .
The meeting was adjourned at 9 : 21pm .
Respectfully submitted ,
Debra Austic
Confirmed,
Greg Hoffmire, Acting Chair