Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-12-18 - PB Ulysses Planning Board, December 18, 1997 • vi-) Page 1 Town of Ulysses Planning Board Regular Meeting December 18, 1997 Present: Chair Dave Tyler, Members Krys Cail , Peter Demjanec, Gregg Hoffmire, Rick Geiger. Also present Town Counsel Bruce Wilson, Consultant Torn Aiston, Code Enforcement Officer Alex Rachun, Bob Burgdorf, Barbara Fisher, Rich Jacobson, Sue Poelvoorde, Attorney for Ulysses Citizens for Responsible Technology Susan Brock, members of the public . Recording minutes : Deb Austic Dave called the meeting to order at 7 : 00 p . m . The Board reviewed the minutes from December 2 , 1997 . The following changes were made ; page 1 , paragraph 6 , change ` to ' to ` of; page 2 , paragraph 3 , change ` does ' to ` was ' ; page 2 , paragraph 11 , specify ` map delineation' ; page 3 , paragraph 1 , change sentence to read ` Rick suggested at minimum an inventory to the FCC database of tower sites within a 10 mile radius should be completed. ' Krys made a motion to approve minutes as amended, seconded by Rick, passed unanimously . Dave brought up a change to 11 / 18/97 minutes . On page 1 , paragraph 4, specify motion to executive session to discuss pending litigation with Frontier. Rick made motion to amend 11 / 18/97 minutes, seconded by Krys, unanimously approved. Peter made a motion to adjourn to executive session to discuss pending litigation with Frontier, seconded by Rick, unanimously approved. The Board adjourned to executive session at 7 : 06 p .m . The Board returned at 7 : 20 p.m . Peter made a motion to go back on the record, seconded by Krys, unanimously approved. The Board updated Alex on the 12/ 16/97 meeting and review of part 1 of the EAF . Krys noted the submission of a letter from Costich Engineering that identified the soil type at site 15 as group 2 soil type . [The entire EAF as completed below is incorporated in these minutes by reference. ] The Board reviewed the visual EAF addendum 617 .20 Appendix B as follows : # 1 • There was a discussion of the visibility of a tower at site 15 from the Finger Lakes National Forest and trails, at a distance of 5 + miles from the site . • The Board discussed the definition of land dedicated to public view. Alex suggested Mekeel Rd. did not qualify without a dedicated pull-off or public access . The Board chose to add the view from the public town road, Mekeel Road within ''A mile of the site . • The Cayuga Indian Fort was the only historic site listed as 1 'A to 3 mile from the site . Alex noted that the visual EAF had been done for the Reynolds Road site and the tower at site 15 may not be visible from some of these places . • Taughannock Falls State Park within 3 miles of site 15 on Rabbit Run. and Park. Road. There are no state forest preserves . • No national wildlife refuges or state game refuges within visibility of the site . • Natural landmarks included Taughannock Falls State Park and perhaps the view from Mekeel Road. Krys mentioned the critical environmental areas suggested by the County. Alex noted the Town had not chosen to adopt those . • No national park service lands . • No designated rivers . • No transportation corridor. • The Board discussed whether the tower would be visible from the Black Diamond Trail . Sue Poelvoorde , staff planner at the Finger Lakes State Park, stated that the corner of Gorge and Jacksonville Roads would become a trailhead for the Black Diamond Trail . The Board changed the question of trails to yes per public testimony about the Finger Lakes Trail in the Finger Lakes National Forest. • Visible from Rabbit Run part of Taughannock Falls State Park, designated scenic area. • The T-burg fairgrounds were listed as open space . • The Board reviewed the list of roads the tower would be visible from and changed the distances to match for site 15 . \AC9\ Ulysses Planning Board, December 18, 1997 Page 2 #2 The Board agreed the tower would always be visible with a higher visual impact in the winter. #3 : yes . #4 : suburban residential within 1 mile — referred to Jacksonville and Swamp College Rd; commercial within 1 mile to Jacksonville ; pond within 1 mile ; designated open space within 1 mile . #5 : No visually similar projects . The Board discussed the context of viewing the sight and recreational activities and decided to add daily viewing for recreation. Alex explained the special permit was a type 1 action* [* misspoken — actually an unlisted action] and the importance of a visual EAF and relation to the tower height. The Board needed to complete part 2 and determine a negative or positive declaration. Dave asked Alex whether the Board could do a negative declaration with conditions . Alex confirmed as long as the applicant accepted the conditions, if not it would become a positive declaration. Alex stated that he has not found a case where a long EAF was done on towers . The Board completed part 2 as follows : • Impact to land : yes — water table less than 3 ft — small to moderate impact ; other — modest grading and paving . • Impact on water : no . • Impact on air : no . • Impact on plants and animals : yes . Other — small to moderate impact — migratory birds killed in guy wires, small to moderate . • Impact on Ag land uses : yes . Other — small impact, loss of 1 acre tillable land. • Impact on aesthetic resources : yes . Project obviously different from current land use patterns — large impact; reduce enjoyment of aesthetic qualities of resource — large impact; elimination of scenic views — no ; other — large negative focal eyesore in scenic view known to be important to the area, large impact. Bruce pointed out the language definitions set out in SEQR guidelines, which encompasses the meaning of a ` large impact ' to the wider area. The Board discussed the measure of the other impact defined by the Board. • Impact on historic and archaeological resources : no . • Impact on open space and recreation : no . Krys mentioned she had considered a potential disturbance in the view from. the Finger Lakes Trail . There was a discussion of whether it would be visible at all and Krys suggested it might have been covered previously . Krys pointed out that while the ordinance encourages co-location, the tower would be much more visible with a microwave dish attached. Dave asked Rich Jacobson whether the tower could support a microwave dish . Jacobson stated it would up to the wind-load of the tower. Burgdorf pointed out that a special permit from the Board would be required to add a microwave dish. • Impact on transportation : no . • Impact on energy : no . • Impact on noise and odor : no . • Impact on public health : no . • Impact on growth and character of neighborhood : yes . Conflict with officially adopted plans and goals — small to moderate ; precedent for future projects — large impact; other — lower property values , small to moderate impact . • Is there likely to be public controversy about impacts : yes . Alex asked the Board to list the precedent setting concerns identified. Dave suggested the applicant' s unwillingness to use existing facilities due to cost could set a precedent for future projects . The Board also discussed whether tower height over 100 ft set a precedent. Bruce suggested this possibility was entertained in the ordinance . Krys pointed out a precedent may have been set in interpreting the wording of the ordinance for how an applicant would establish the ` need ' for a tower in excess of 100 ft. Krys suggested that it was reasonable to accept need based on connection with existing or proposed and approved cell towers . Krys pointed out the entire Town would not be served by a single tower anyhow (ie . Route 89) . The Board discussed how the need to be cost-effective would be proven . Rick suggested that approval of a 195 ft tower next to the originally proposed site would likely set a precedent. Bruce stated that although it may be a precedent it would be a minor one because each application would be considered based on the facts of the individual application . I e Ulysses Planning Board, December 18, 1997 Page 3 Dave stated that he understood the tower would meet all the applicant' s needs for the Town of Ulysses and they would not return to put in another tower. Burgdorf confirmed it would meet the coverage objectives and they would not need another tower unless the population grew to city proportions . Krys asked whether that would be true even if there was a protracted lawsuit with Lansing and needed to cover Route 89. Jacobson stated that a site along Route 89 would be inefficient and only cover a few miles . The Board moved on to part 3 of SEQR and considered anything that could mitigate the large impacts identified in part 2 . Alex suggested the main impact would be visual and the Board had received as much information on visual impact as would likely be submitted in an environmental impact statement. The Board discussed how to define the impact under SEQR for question 1 . The Board determined the impact would be visual and aesthetic . The Board also considered the potential impact on the growth and nature of community . Dave suggested that the Board could issue a special permit with specific time duration to help mitigate the impact on growth. Krys raised concerns over the tower being used in another way later on. Peter said that after the special permit ran out, the Board would need to be approached for a new use . Bruce suggested the Board could issue a negative declaration with conditions, if the applicant agreed . Burgdorf confirmed that the applicant would be agreeable to a time limit. The Board reviewed whether the finding for the precedent on future projects had been large. There was some disagreement about what had been decided . Peter suggested that the determination had been a large impact, but that Dave had already suggested a potential mitigation in the time limit condition. The Board decided that the impact of the project was visual, aesthetic, and precendent setting and implied a possible impact on growth and character of the neighborhood . The Board moved on to describe how impacts could possibly be mitigated by project changes . The Board reviewed the visual impacts they had previously identified as large . The mitigating factors suggested for all large impacts were a lowering of tower height and limit on the duration of the structure . The impact was determined to be reversible and controlled. The Board determined that a 20 year time duration was a reasonable limit on any permit. The applicant indicated they would prefer 25 years but would accept 20 years . The Board discussed the regional consequence of the tower. Alex and Peter suggested that the tower would not be visible from across the lake . Bruce referred the Board to the letter from Tompkins Co . Planning on inter-municiple review. The Board discussed the Town needs and goals. Krys pointed out that the sole strong statement regarding local need for cellular service was from the police station and the bulk of commercial area in the village would receive barely adequate service. Alex suggested the project may not be a divergence but may serve a need. The Board discussed public objections to the project and impacts . Krys noted the public felt strongly about adherence to the letter of the ordinance and stated she had not heard an unwillingness of any neighborhood to host a tower in keeping with the ordinance. The Board discussed making a SEQR declaration . Dave suggested making a negative declaration with conditions . Krys asked for guidance about the declaration. Bruce stated that a negative declaration meant that the impacts were being mitigated. If conditional , the mitigations would be part of the conditions . Rick confirmed with Alex that from his experience the Board already had as much information as would be produced for an EIS for the visual impact. Alex left the meeting at 9 : 30 p . m . Burgdorf and Susan Brock brought up procedural issues based on their interpretation of the regulations . Burgdorf stated that a conditional negative declaration could not be done for a type 1 action, which the current action was . Burgdorf suggested the Board could issue a negative declaration and conditions could be attached to the substantive approval of the special permit. Burgdorf suggested that the purpose of SEQR was to make sure the Board takes a hard look at the impacts of the project. Brock pointed out that the Board should not be under the impression that they already have everything that would be provided in an EIS . The Board considered whether more information was required to make a decision and discussed what additional information might be provided by an EIS . Krys made a motion that whereas the Board had sufficient information on the areas of environmental concern and had with due diligence looked at it very closely , the Board find a negative declaration of environmental impact. Peter suggested a friendly amendment that the Board was making a negative declaration with the understanding there would be mutually acceptable mitigating measures included in any resolution to • Ulysses Planning Board, December 18, 1997 Page 4 approve the application. (This not to be a negative declaration with conditions . ) Peter seconded the motion . The Board voted . Krys — Aye Peter — Aye Rick — Aye Gregg — Aye Dave — Aye The motion carried . The Board took a brief break before resuming the meeting . Dave asked the citizens group whether Mark Hutchins had been in Ulysses . Jean Foley said he had lived in the area previously, but had not been here during the application review process . Dave asked Rich Jacobson what the ` control channel ' meant on the drive tests submitted of present coverage . Jacobson answered that it was the beacon that is always on. The Board stated that the drive test data was a very helpful format. Rick questioned Jacobson on how the size of the cell is determined in relation to tower height. Jacobson said that in perfectly flat, desert terrain, with evenly distributed population a taller tower could be used to cover more area, but at a certain point the tower would begin to miss the ground below the tower. Dave questioned whether cell size was a function of amplitude . Jacobson stated there were propagation laws inversely proportioned to the distance . Jacobson stated cell size was limited for a number of reasons including not enough radios to cover a large area, and the limited number of frequencies . Rick asked Jacobson what was the assumed height of the tower that defined the edges of the Ulysses cell . Jacobson responded that it was a highly complex involving more interference relationships than coverage relationships and suggested usually 2-5 mile radius . In more densely populated areas may end up cell -splitting. Rick asked what would be done in the case of really difficult topographical situations like mountains . Jacobson suggested that a tower in the mountains could overshoot a highway at its feet, such as in the Adirondacks or Tully . Rick asked whether a shorter tower would work if the terrain was completely flat. Jacobson answered that without any trees or other interference that was a possibility . Jacobson suggested that if the company could build one tower per county or 75 ft towers they would do it because it would be less costly and have fewer objections from the public . Dave asked whether digital service would allow for shorter towers . Jacobson answered that the towers would not be shorter but it would be better service . Krys asked whether the police would get better coverage if they used digital equipment. Jacobson answered that the service would be better but not superior. Peter discussed the propagation studies from site 2 at 150, 200, and 280 ft. and asked Jacobson why the 195 ft tower was necessary if the coverage to the village was fairly similar. Jacobson explained that coverage to the east side of the lake was better and the amount of lower bins of data were better at 195 ft . Jacobson explained there was a beam width envelope associated with the antenna which is related to antenna height. Krys asked whether the 195 ft covered a higher proportion of the lake . Jacobson stated he didn ' t feel there was more coverage on the lake . Peter asked for a compelling reason why 150 ft was inadequate and 195 ft was necessary . Barbara Fisher stated that at 195 ft there was stronger coverage in the village and stronger handoff to Ithaca. Peter asked whether a shorter tower at a higher contour would achieve the same coverage . Jacobson stated it was difficult to answer without considering terrain and trees, etc . Jacobson stated that two sites were looked at on the Duddleston property . Peter suggested the absolute height of the tower, including elevation, determined the acceptability of coverage . Peter referred to the drive test being performed with a crane on the road at a lower height to compensate for difference in elevation. Burgdorf suggested that in an area so close the coverage is generally a function of absolute antenna height, but often topography interferes . Dave pointed out that Tom Aiston' s interpretation of the information provided by Frontier contained no inconsistencies and was provided in a straightforward manner. Peter added that he had also questioned Aiston about the tower height and Aiston had suggested a 150 ft tower would not fill in the gap in T-burg. Krys pointed out that coverage for the bulk of the Town population would receive marginally adequate coverage in T-burg . Krys questioned what impact a tower in Lansing might possibly have on coverage in Ulysses . Dave stated that he had wrestled with the decision and felt the Board had brought a great amount of scrutiny to the situation. Dave stated he is aware of the visual and aesthetic considerations . Dave said was not pleased with the Telecom Act of 1996 and mentioned the political battles currently taking place in Washington on the issues facing . . • • , 1-1 of, Ulysses Planning Board, December 18, 1997 Page 5 the Board. Dave stated he was ready to vote in favor of site 15 . Dave said he might not have been inclined to accept the necessity without the drive test and supporting data. Dave said he felt the Jacksonville Park site would have been a preferable choice due to income to the community association. Dave said he initially felt the site was not withdrawn in good faith but that the drive test data seemed to support that it was . Dave stated that perhaps three 100 ft towers spread throughout the Town would provide coverage but the impact would still be present and geographical location might be very critical for success . Dave said he had trouble with the applicant' s unwillingness to consider a 2-tower option for cost and precedent reasons . Dave suggested that the technical problems identified could have been overcome . Dave acknnowledged that an application for 2-towers was not before the Board and the present application could not be rejected on that speculation . Dave was satisfied with the narrowing process of 12/ 16/97 and was aware of property owners ' concerns . Dave said he thought the Board should focus their energies on some reasonable conditions. Peter said he felt the issue boiled down to the impact of 1 tower vs . 2 towers. Peter said the Board had discussed the ordinance requirement of 100 ft and believed from the evidence that the applicant would be unable to meet coverage objectives with one 100 ft tower. Peter suggested that while the tower might be able to be lowered with a slight change in location, it was unlikely a great deal of height would be reduced. Peter added that it was unlikely the applicant could achieve coverage objectives even with two 100 ft towers, resulting in 2 sites each over 100 ft. Peter felt the visual impact of one 195 ft tower vs. the impact of two towers over 100 ft. was not significant. Peter stated he would support site 15 . Gregg stated it had been a difficult decision with a tremendous amount of information. Gregg mentioned the necessity of public utilities and stated he felt the Board had looked closely at all sites and felt they had selected the best. Gregg said he was in favor of site 15 with conditions . Rick thanked Bruce for his input. Rick stated he found it frustrating for the applicant to dictate the grid, which had the effect of predetermining coverage results in propagation studies . Rick suggested the cell did not need to be the size they had chosen. Rick suggested it was not out of the question to define a grid in which a 100 ft tower would provide coverage but the applicant had been unwilling to do that. Rick suggested that in a place where aesthetics weren ' t so important he could understand a company putting in a taller tower to cover more, but in our situation they should have been willing to work harder to lower tower height. Rick stated the aesthetic costs of the tower would be great. Rick said the community values its views, and that to have 120 feet of tower above the tree-line would truly be an eyesore . Rick said it would not be unreasonable to ask the applicant to lower the tower and make the cell smaller. Rick suggested the community should be asked to bear less aesthetic cost and the applicant should be asked to bear more . Rick stated he would vote against the proposal and cited the ordinance ' s100 ft height was important and the applicant could meet their coverage objectives if they were willing to absorb more costs . Rick stated he would not feel so strongly if he thought it would be the only one tower, and the Board would have a hard time overcoming the precedent. He predicted the next company would use 195 ft as a starting point for their application. Dave suggested that 100 ft towers would need to be located more precisely, which might not be possible . Rick said this could also be true with a single taller tower. Krys mentioned public comment that the Board should have considered having the ordinance place towers in industrial areas . Krys mentioned the height and screening at the site as being appropriate. Krys mentioned the site was sufficiently distant from homes . Krys mentioned that the Town of Ulysses would not be sufficiently serviced by the tower, either at the proposed or ordinance height. Krys noted that Route 89, Taughannock Park, and lake area will not be served with the proposed tower. Krys noted the importance of cellular service in recreation areas where access to normal phones would be difficult. Krys pointed out that the village and police would receive only marginally adequate coverage . Krys stated that many residents have expressed acceptance of a tower adhering to the ordinance . Krys suggested the coverage objectives of the applicant might be flexible. Krys noted the viewshed of Taughannock Park was identified in the DEC open space plan as a resource to conserve. Krys stated the tower would be visible from the upper part of the park and the Finger Lakes National Forest. Krys stated that sufficient height for handoff to the southern facility was reasonable. Krys stated she did not want to see the issue go to the 18, 1997 "UI Ulysses Planning Board, December \ v Y Page 6 courts . Krys felt the process had been in good faith to find a mutually acceptable solution. Krys said the board had an obligation to enforce the ordinance and said she had considered how need would be shown. Krys discussed the process establishing the 100 ft height in the ordinance . Krys stated she would vote favorably to accept the application with a condition of a 100 ft height. Krys also stated she would be willing to entertain a withdrawal of the application until after the successful acceptance of the Lansing tower, and propagation studies on how coverage would be affected. The additional information may show need for a 195 ft tower. Krys stated the burden of proof was on the applicant and felt it had not been satisfied . Dave reviewed the discussion and said he interpreted that as 3 members in favor, 2 against. Krys stated she would like to vote in favor of the application with conditions . Krys said she felt there were real concerns with the Perry City Rd. water tower and handoff to Ithaca. Dave suggested the 195 ft was the threshold for the applicant for acceptable coverage and if they could take the height down they would have been able to make the community park work. Krys said a lot of her concern related to how much service would be provided and which areas might have particular public safety needs . Krys stated there was no way the Town would be completely served with 1 tower in any event. Krys suggested a 100 ft tower on Mekeel Rd . and the fire tower together would provide better service . Krys stated she felt service to the hiking trails and isolated recreation areas were important. Rick observed the Board did not know what towers in adjoining cells might do to coverage . Krys stated she had questioned the applicant on the Lansing cell and cell to the north and was told that there were no plans for a tower to the north and may not be due to the rural nature of the area. Burgdorf suggested that Jacobson had given information about the cell to the north and that the cell could not be moved to the south to cover the village due to the location of the lake . Bruce advised the question of need under federal communication act does not necessarily mean the need of the community but the need of the utility to service the area including handoff, and not whether areas of the community are serviced. Krys answered that she felt the community deserved visual mitigation since the ordinance allowed towers in residential areas . Krys sais she would accept site 15 with a condition of 100 ft height. Dave stated that counsel had advised the Board that approval with a 100 ft height condition was tantamount to a denial . Krys stated that some discussion in executive session concerned whether conditions appropriately belonged attached to the declaration or the acceptance . Dave stated that an acceptance with a 100 ft application was different than claiming the applicant had not proven the case for excess of 100 ft. Krys observed that it was up to the applicant to decide whether to withdraw the application or seek a decision . Burgdorf stated they had submitted the coverage objectives for the cell and the applicant had submitted information for cells to the north and east. Burgdorf said the applicant stretched the objectives and if the Board felt coverage would be inadequate the tower should be back at 280 ft. Barbara Fisher said they would like a decision that evening . Krys asked whether it would make a difference if she abstained. Bruce stated 4 affirmative votes were needed to pass the resolution. Peter and Rick suggested making a motion. The Board discussed conditions to be attached to a proposed approval as follows . • The special permit be issued with a 20 year duration from date of issuance by the Code Enforcement Officer • The applicant post a bond with the Town for the removal of the tower at the end of 20 years or once inactive, equal to the future cost of removal multiplied by a factor of 2 . • The applicant plant a buffer around the tower [fence] 20 ft wide ; plants to be submitted and approved by the Town . • The applicant plant a buffer along the Swamp College Rd. property boundary ; plants to be submitted and approved by the Town. • The color of the fence, building , and tower be submitted and approved by the Town as a color blending with the background . • The applicant is successful in achieving requisite BZA variance . • This remains the sole tower facility operated by the applicant in the Town during the life of the special permit . 1-1/ 114 Ulysses Planning Board, December 18, 1997 Page 7 • The land remains available for agricultural use at market rate, or if a lessee cannot be found, the land remains open and the grass cut. • No exterior lighting. • Include co-location as a restriction in the title . The structure be built to accommodate 2 other carriers . • Meet FAA and FCC requirements and if requirements change, the tower will be removed or modified to remain unlit. • No signs except one sign identifying owner and emergency contact, not to exceed 2 square feet. • Site be provided with security with gated, locked security fence . • Payment of building permit fee as set by Town. • Tower be built as presented at 195 ft, antenna to reach to 199 ft, total structure less than 200 ft. • Successful passage of title to applicant . The following conditions were suggested during this process but rejected : public access for hunting, 100 ft height limit, no tree removal from property, and allowing outside lighting on the building . Krys asked Rick whether he agreed with anything she said about tower height. Rick said he saw it as another way of coming to the same conclusion. Rick said he felt that the ordinance was clear, the aesthetic costs were high, and the applicant had not absorbed a fair portion of those costs in its current application. Krys stated that she was not attempting to deny federally guaranteed rights of the applicant but to enforce the Town ordinance . Dave asked Krys on what basis had the applicant not proven the need for excess of 100 ft. Krys stated due to the existence of the fire tower that could be used for co-location. Rick and Dave agreed they would have liked to see co-location on that tower considered . Krys confirmed that she would vote favorably for a 100 ft tower on Mekeel and co-location on the fire tower. Dave suggested a move to executive session to discuss the pending litigation with Frontier. Rick made the motion, seconded by Krys, passed unanimously . The Board adjourned to executive session at 11 : 50 p. m . The Board returned from executive session at12 : 08 a. m . Rick made a motion to go back on the record, seconded by Peter, passed unanimously . Peter reviewed the conditions. The motion was made by Peter Demjanec to approve the application from NY RSA No . 4 for site 15 with the following conditions as previously discussed : 1 . The special permit be issued with a 20 year duration from date of issuance by the Code Enforcement Officer 2 . The applicant post a bond with the Town for the removal of the tower at the end of 20 years or once inactive, equal to the future cost of removal multiplied by a factor of 2 . 3 . The applicant plant a buffer around the tower fence 20 ft wide; plants to be submitted and approved by the Town . 4 . The applicant plant a buffer along the Swamp College Rd. property boundary ; plants to be submitted and approved by the Town. 5 . The color of the fence, building, and tower be submitted and approved by the Town as a color blending with the background. 6 . The applicant is successful in achieving requisite BZA variance . 7 . This remains the sole tower facility operated by the applicant in the Town during the life of the special permit. 8 . The land remains available for agricultural use at market rate, or if a lessee cannot be found, the land remains open and the grass cut. 9 . No exterior lighting . 10. Include co-location as a restriction in the title . The structure be built to accommodate at least 2 other carriers . 11 . Meet FAA and FCC requirements and if requirements change, the tower will be removed or modified to remain unlit. 12 . No signs except one sign identifying owner and emergency contact, not to exceed 2 square feet. 13 . Site be provided with security with gated, locked security fence . 14 . Payment 'of building permit fee as set by Town. 15 . Tower be built as presented at 195 ft, antenna to reach to 199 ft, total structure less than 200 ft. 16 . Successful passage of title to applicant. Ulysses Planning Board, December 18, 1997 1C) Page 8 Krys suggested a friendly amendment to condition #7 to be the sole ` new tower' facility operated by Frontier in the Town to allow potential co-location on other existing towers . Peter accepted the amendment. Rick suggested including the applicant or ` affiliates ' to #7 . Gregg Hoffmire seconded the motion. Dave opened the matter for discussion by the Board . Krys stated that during executive sessions she had tried to determine from counsel and Town supervisor the possible fiscal impact on the Town from lawsuits . She suggested people could understand how it might feel to not be a lawyer and to be unfamiliar with the costs of defense in federal court. Krys said that counsel had stated that there is a possibility the Town could be liable for damages and that a large amount of taxpayer money could be at stake . Krys asked rhetorically whether there was anyone in the audience who was willing to personally take on the expense of defending the Town and Planning Board . Don Sola stated that the group of Ulysses Citizens for Responsible Technology has already committed a good deal of money to provide information to the Board in defense of the ordinance and suggested the money could be raised through wider support and creation of a wider regional group . Krys said she had no question that the will and possibility were there but questioned whether the collateral was available . Krys suggested the possibility of the Town being left with a financial burden and the 4000+ neighbors being responsible to pay it. Krys said information she received suggested it could take 6 figures to defend the suit. Bob Howarth suggested a decision should not be made based on information from executive session without pubic review. Andy Hillman questioned the location of Gregg ' s residence in relation to his membership . The Board did not respond to these comments because they were out of order. Dave suggested each Board member had gone through a weighing process on their own. Dave said there had been a great deal of input from the applicant and public and the Board needed to move forward and make a decision. Dave stated there was more common ground than difference among the members of the Board. _ _ Krys said she thought the Board would add as part of the motion the cost of litigation. The Board said that they had thought it was a concern Krys had wished to express and was not appropriate as a condition of the approval . Krys said she had misunderstood earlier and had thought the 6 figure amount would be included in the motion to allow her to vote under duress in favor of the motion. The Board voted : Dave Tyler — AYE Peter Demjanec - AYE Gregg Hoffmire — AYE Rick Geiger - NAY Krys Cail — AYE The resolution passed . The Board set a time to review the motion in writing and make it official . The Board set a meeting for Thursday, January 8 , 1998 at 7 : 30 p. m . in the Town Hall . Peter made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Rick, passed unanimously . The meeting ended at 12 : 35 a. m .