Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-12-11 - TB H. GO Planning Board Public Hearing, December 11 , 1997 Page 1 Ulysses Town Planning Board December 11 , 1997 Public Hearing Present : Chair David Tyler, Members Krys Call, Peter Demjanec, and Greg Hoffmire, Code Enforcement Officer Alex Rachun, Town Counsel Bruce Wilson, Consultant Tom Aiston. Recording minutes : Debra Austic Public present : Robert Brown, Bob Howarth, Grace Wolf, Jean Foley, Curt Dunnam, Richard Coogan, George Kennedy, Susan Brock, Meredith Kwiatkowski, Don Sola, Lysle Gordon, Andy Hillman, Dave Gell, Carolyn Duddleston, Peter Penniman, Vincent Soderholm, Bob Weatherby, Beckie Cardina, Timothy Cardina, Aulia Tisch, Francesco Tisch, Serphina Tisch, Tom Reitz, Wayne Titterington, Suzanne Hillman, Norman Foley, Bob Burgdorf, Barbara Fisher, Rich Jacobson . Dave called the public hearing to order at 7 : 05 p . m. and introduced the subject of the hearing to be the new site, site 15 . Dave announced that Burgdorf would be allowed time to address site 15 first, then individuals would be allowed 5 minutes each to speak. Bob Burgdorf presented an overview of site 15 . Burgdorf showed a site plan and explained site 15 was about 1 /3 mile east of the original site 2 . Burgdorf explained site 15 was chosen because it was further from houses and in the tree line. The tower would be 195 ft, guyed, with a 30 inch face . Dave asked for the average tree height in the area. Dave Gell suggested the trees in that area were 75 to 100 ft. Burgdorf submitted additional information requested by the Board at the previous meeting . These included a fax letter from the tower manufacturer regarding the number of antennas the tower could support and at what heights . Burgdorf also submitted a map of all towers in the FCC and FAA database within an 11 mile radius . Propagation studies of Seneca Rd. and Bostwick Rd . towers were included showing insufficient coverage and overlap with Ithaca cell . Krys questioned the height at which the studies were done . Burgdorf pointed out they were for an unlit height, 195 ft. Krys suggested the studies should have been done for the actual height of the towers . Dave asked where the tower location information had come from and Rich Jacobson answered that it came from a standardized database provided by the vendor of the software. Burgdorf mentioned the CPCN certificate of need requested by the Board and stated these were no longer issued. He referred to a section of the 1996 Telecom Act, 332C-A, and provided a copy to Bruce Wilson. Board members briefly discussed which towers where shown on the map and which were missing . Bob Howarth suggested he had spoken to the FCC, which indicated only towers built within the past 14 months, or lit towers would necessarily be listed. Don Sola questioned whether site 5 was in the database . Burgdorf suggested it was not. The Board briefly discussed site 5 . Propagation studies have been submitted, but there was never a formal application for site 5 . Dave opened the hearing for public comment. Andy Hillman read a prepared statement that he submitted to the Board, along with an article from the Ithaca Journal and a series of panorama photos from the Perry City Rd . water tower. Hillman suggested the need for a regional plan to utilize existing towers and protect natural beauty . Hillman also suggested there had been a number of errors in the applications submitted and the application should be rejected . Dave Gell displayed copies and blow-ups of propagation studies of site 6 at 195 ft and 280 ft, which showed identical coverage and claimed there was a technical error. Gell also showed copies of the cell grid and suggested a system following the natural topography rather than grid . Krys asked Gell how he got the coordinates of the Interlaken water tower. Gell responded he used his odometer. There was a discussion of the location of the water tower. Bob Howarth suggested the applicant had underestimated the visual impact. Howarth claimed that the silo of his barn could be seen from the National Forest and /\C\ Planning Board Public Hearing, December 11 , 1997 Page 2 Finger Lake Trails . Krys suggested on the visual EAF there are places to note for recreation trails and national forests . Curt Dunnam stated that Dave Gell ' s presentation suggested that the tower height was above the height for increasing returns . Dunnam also read a fax statement from Mark Hutchins regarding the signal strength, of which copies were submitted to the Board . Krys questioned the FCC requirements for coverage in comparison to Frontier' s desired strength and whether it was accurate to compare . Dunnam also questioned the 30 inch face proposed for site 15 . Barbara Fisher confirmed the towers are normally 30 or 42 inch face . Lysle Gordon suggested all proposals over 100 ft as specified in the ordinance should be rejected because applicant hasn' t proven need since 2-tower option would work. Gordon also read 2 quotes from the 1996 Telecom Act. Wayne Titterington claimed that site 2 would obstruct the view from his home and enjoyment of his property . Meredith Kwiatkowski felt the tower would obstruct the viewshed and that the Board should stick to the 100 ft height in the ordinance and protect the residential and agricultural area. Krys asked whether Kwiatkowski whether she would prefer to see the tower in a commercial or industrial area, even if that meant downtown Trumansburg or Jacksonville . Kwiatkowski agreed that would be where a tower should be . Susan Brock summarized a statement she submitted to the Board, along with caselaw. Brock suggested there was still no meaningful investigation of surrounding towers for co-location . Brock suggested many towers in other cells were not in center of search area on the grid so Frontier could look further for Ulysses tower. Brock said Frontier told the Cortlandville Zoning Board of Appeals they would not co-locate there because of expense and the FCC did not want co-location . Brock claimed Frontier has not proven the need for a tower over 100 ft. Brock reviewed the legal rights of the Planning Board and caselaw. Brock suggested the Board could require Frontier to use two towers and could certainly take into consideration the impact on property values . Since the proposed tower would not service Route 89 , Brock suggested the Ulysses cell will end up requiring two towers ultimately . Brock stated Frontier has not shown that a second tower would be prohibitively expensive . Brock urged a positive declaration under SEQRA and an environmental impact statement if the Board approved a site and suggested the permit be conditional upon no lighting on the tower. Dave asked Brock whether a positive declaration under SEQRA based on aesthetic impact is weakened by the number of towers already visible in scenic areas of upstate New York . Brock suggested the balancing would be done at the end of the EIS process and a positive declaration only suggests the possibility for an impact. Dave asked Burgdorf whether they had contacted the owner of the Perry City Road tower and the Trumansburg Fire Tower. Burgdorf confirmed that the towers were identified and the owner of Perry City Road tower did express interest in leasing. B urgdorf stated that site 5 would not work. Krys said the propagation studies suggested that site 5 in conjunction with the Perry City Road water tower would work better. B urgdorf claimed it showed significant coverage but there would be technical problems of putting two transmitting facilities into a cell designed for one . Dave asked whether a directional antenna could solve the technical problems . B urgdorf suggested the problem was not coverage, but frequency interference and inefficiency of design that would cause more towers to be built elsewhere . Sue Brock asked whether there were RF problems or whether they did not want to build more towers . Rich Jacobson stated that two facilities complicate the RF issue and some problems might be solved but it would not be efficient design . Dave suggested that could be construed to mean that it could be done with two towers if needed . Jacobson said it was something that could be worked on, but he thought there were still coverage gaps to the west. Peter asked why two towers in one cell would be more problematic than two towers close together in adjacent cells . Jacobson explained towers closer together caused problems with 1 ) inefficient use of RF spectrum, 2) possibility to overload front end of receiving radio , 3 ) ping-pong effect between cell sites . Peter noted that some of the towers on the map where closer together than the two-tower option suggested for Ulysses . Jacobson suggested there might be terrain blockage or traffic and use patterns . ■ Planning Board Public Hearing, December 11 , 1997 Page 3 Krys questioned Jacobson about the drive test showing Route 13 (Jacksonville Control RSSI) and whether the change in color indicated the ping-pong effect. Jacobson explained the drive test indicated poor coverage . Jacobson noted that service from a distant cell also creates problems with handoff to the next appropriate cell . Krys stated she spoke with the County Sheriffs department about their handheld cell phone usage along Route 13 and they stated it was good, however they had problems along Route 96 around Jacksonville and Trumansburg and out Route 227 toward Waterburg . Dave confirmed that Frontier was a B band carrier and questioned the drive test information indicating A and B band information. Jacobson explained the phone would generally search for the strongest beacon. Krys pointed out that the A carrier has better coverage along Route 13 and that the phones used by the Sheriff may be automatically switching to the strongest signal . Dave questioned the applicant about the Seneca Rd. WPIE tower and whether co- location on the AM tower was possible . Jacobson stated that the company did not co- locate on AM towers because of the high amount of output power and frequency interference. Greg questioned the possibility of Bostwick Rd. tower although the propagation studies were for the wrong height. Krys suggested the A carrier drive test would give the same information as a propagation of the Bostwick tower. Dave asked Jacobson to explain the drive test information. Jacobson explained the drive test # 1 "Jacksonville Control Channel RSSI" showed a close-up of the village and the amplitude of the received signal on an exterior antenna, which is higher gain than handheld, but is what they design for in rural areas . The smallest circle was 0-85 Dbm, the desired amplitude . The color indicated the server and the number next to the server indicated the count. Jacobson suggested the desired results would be smaller circles and a single color. #2 "Jacksonville Control Channel RSSI" was the same as the first test only a wider view. #3 "A Band Carrier" showed the amplitude but does not distinguish between carrier sites . #4 "B Band Carrier" indicated the combined existing coverage of Frontier at present. Krys suggested the A carrier drive test would not be equivalent to a propagation of Bostwick Rd. tower because it did not distinguish between towers . Jacobson agreed and stated that even combined, the A carrier signal did not meet the coverage objectives. j Jean Foley suggested the natural beauty and characteristic of the area need to be preserved. Foley also expressed concern over the drive test information showing inadequate coverage for a tower at 195 ft whether another tower or re-rad would be needed later. Dave asked Jacobson to explain why the re-rad would not work to make-up the coverage shortfall to the village from site 14 . Jacobson explained the reasons as pointed out in a letter he submitted . Jacobson described a re-rad as a bi-directional amplifier. The re-rad needed for Ulysses, an extenda-cell , are problematic and of poor quality, and dropped calls . The extenda-cell would not be dual-mode, only analog or digital . Krys discussed the drive test with Jacobson . Jacobson explained that, although neither test showed great coverage, the drive test showing red was unacceptable because the red indicated dropped calls. Greg questioned whether the drive test was with digital or analog . Jacobson indicated it was done with an analog signal . Krys asked for a definition of the coverage objectives as indicated at the previous meeting . Burgdorf indicated it was in the letter submitted and on the original propagation of Mekeel Rd . at 280 ft. Krys read the paragraph stating coverage objectives were reliable handoff to Ithaca cell and acceptable coverage of Route 96, Trumansburg, Routes 34 and 34B . Krys asked how they determined the coverage area. Jacobson stated that coverage objectives were determined from traffic patterns and population, and to build off the existing Ithaca cell . Krys questioned why coverage to the north of Trumansburg was not a concern . Jean Foley suggested there were existing towers along the lake, which could be used to provide coverage along the lake . Norman Foley asked when Route 89 would be serviced. Jacobson suggested that a tower in the Lansing/Cayuga Heights area was a 1998 objective . Curt Dunnam suggested that coverage of the entire Ulysses cell from a single tower would be problematic and a dual-site would make more sense . Dave Gell brought up a question about the grid presented in Danby . Burgdorf reiterated that the grid design was guideline. iNA (5 Planning Board Public Hearing, December 11 , 1997 Page 4 A person representing Eco-Village spoke in support of an interactive process with Frontier and presented a petition signed by 30 people. Dave closed the public hearing at 9 : 35 p . m . and announced the meetings of Tuesday, December 16 and December 18 , 1997 at 7 p .m. in the Town Hall . Public was invited to attend, but the meetings would not be open to public comment, although individuals may be asked to clarify information.