MINUTES OF November 20, 2007 REGULAR MEETING of the Town of Rochester PLANNING BOARD, held at the Town Hall, Accord, NY.
Meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM by the Chairman, Steven L. Fornal.
PRESENT: ABSENT:
Steven L. Fornal, Chairman
Shane Ricks Robert Godwin, Alternate (not required to attend)
Robert Gaydos
Anthony Ullman
Melvyn I. Tapper
Nadine D. Carney, Vice Chair
Anthony Kawalchuk
Also present was Town Planner, Jan Johannessenn of The Chazen Companies.
Also present was Town Attorney, Rod Futerfas.
Pledge to the Flag
PUBLIC HEARING
HOMELAND TOWERS, LLC– c/o Snyder and Snyder, Special Use Permits/ Site Plan Approvals for Route 209 (Property owned by Town of Rochester, Tax Map #76.1-3-17,
R-1 District), for wireless communication facilities consisting of 150’monopole within 3,000 square foot compound on each site
Robert Gaudioso of Snyder and Snyder and Manny Vicente, President of Homeland Towers were present on behalf of the application.
The Chairman noted that before the Board got started, there was a letter from the Town Attorney dated October 22, 2007. He felt it was self explanatory what happened and in the interim, Mr. Gaudioso submitted a packet dated November 8, 2007. Basically it goes through explaining about setback and what they’ve attempted to do in terms of increasing that setback. It also included further case law of Monroe Balancing. As was stated numerous times and it was stated in the minutes- he believed about 8 times that the Planning Board had no purview or jurisdiction to consider setbacks. And that is the reasoning that the Board used for their actions.
Mrs. Carney wanted to discuss this.
Chairman Fornal noted that Mrs. Carney mentioned that it was new and she just heard about the setback.
Mrs. Carney stated no. The public had the concern, so she felt that they left the Public Hearing open to give the applicant a chance to respond to the concerns because they didn’t have a nice clear response or a legal response. Also the opportunity if the applicant was able to increase the setback and that was giving them the time to do so—to address some public concerns.
PUBLIC HEARING
HOMELAND TOWERS, LLC– c/o Snyder and Snyder, Special Use Permits/ Site Plan Approvals for Route 209 (Property owned by Town of Rochester, Tax Map #76.1-3-17, R-1 District), for wireless communication facilities consisting of 150’monopole within 3,000 square foot compound on each site
Chairman Fornal stated that the fact of the matter was that the concerns in dealing with the setbacks of Monroe could have been expressed through an Article 78 when that occurred and that was months and months ago and no one did that. If they had some objection to that individually or as a group, they could have filed an Article 78 and that was not done and therefore they came here and went through Chapter 130 and that passed 4-1. That was the review and yet when we got to the meeting last month it was held up for parameters that are not within the Board’s purview. That would be like the Chairman asking about the weather in Newburgh.
Mrs. Carney noted that as a Board they did not deny any type of setback, they simply asked the applicant to look at that some more because the public had concerns.
The Chairman wanted to know if the public had concerns about certain kinds of fish- would that have any relevance at all? And that was exactly what they were talking about—there was no relevance. The Board could not because of the Monroe.
Mrs. Carney noted that they didn’t deny anything. They left the Public Hearing open so they could get a clear answer for the public.
Chairman Fornal noted that this was based on what parameter.
Mrs. Carney noted that it was based on that they didn’t have an answer for them.
Mr. Ricks questioned if when the waivers were given was the public ever notified?
Chairman Fornal stated that they were. It was notified, it was a Public Hearing.
Mr. Ricks questioned if they were notified by mail?
Chairman Fornal stated no.
Mr. Ricks was just saying that in general once in a while he glances at the public notices, but he could tell that 99.9% of the people in the Town do not open the paper and read that fine print from front to back every single day.
Chairman Fornal stated that as established by precedent, every single Public Hearing is established that way. That’s the way it’s legally noticed.
Mr. Ricks thought that when you were a bounding owner, you got a letter. Correct?
The Board asked the secretary.
PUBLIC HEARING
HOMELAND TOWERS, LLC– c/o Snyder and Snyder, Special Use Permits/ Site Plan Approvals for Route 209 (Property owned by Town of Rochester, Tax Map #76.1-3-17, R-1 District), for wireless communication facilities consisting of 150’monopole within 3,000 square foot compound on each site
The Secretary stated that the Planning Board does, but the waivers were issued by the Town Board.
Mr. Ricks didn’t care who it was, but people literally didn’t know that this was an issue.
Chairman Fornal felt that the law should really be changed then.
Mr. Ricks stated that the law was way above him changing it.
Chairman Fornal wanted to know what Mr. Ricks’ point was.
Mr. Tapper felt that this argument was ridiculous. The Board had a concern about this. 6 or 5 members had a concern and it was addressed. So to sit here and argue that the Board had no purview in it was ridiculous at this point. It was done and the applicant was good enough to respond to it. So why were they fighting when the applicant went ahead and did it anyway?
Chairman Fornal stated that nothing would be learned then. Something that is not within the Board’s purview—they would continue to use that as a basis for decision making?
Mr. Tapper stated that they didn’t get a letter like this in the beginning saying that this is exactly what happened. The bounding owner…
Chairman Fornal stated that the Planning Board voted 4-1 on those parameters.
Mr. Tapper continued—the bounding property owner was never notified of a Public Hearing except in the back page of a public paper and was never notified of a Public Hearing before the Town Board. He came in and expressed concern and the Board responded to that concern by holding open the Public Hearing and asking the applicant if he would respond to that. The applicant could have very easily fallen back on the decision of the Town Board and said, ‘No, the Town Board said because of Monroe we can do whatever we want.’, and not responded, but they were kind enough to respond.
Chairman Fornal asked him to read the minutes of what was stated.
Mr. Futerfas urged the Board to move forward instead of re-hashing what happened in the past. Re-hashing what happened wasn’t going to move this meeting along. He felt that everyone had expressed their opinion and he felt we all knew what it was and there were differences in opinion. He felt they ought to at least go with what they have now and see where they go.
Mr. Gaudioso noted that he tended to agree with everyone. There was clearly a process that the Town Board went through. Some folks may not like it and some folks may, but it was a legal process. There was a notice and
PUBLIC HEARING
HOMELAND TOWERS, LLC– c/o Snyder and Snyder, Special Use Permits/ Site Plan Approvals for Route 209 (Property owned by Town of Rochester, Tax Map #76.1-3-17, R-1 District), for wireless communication facilities consisting of 150’ monopole within 3,000 square foot compound on each site
probably that notice wasn’t what a lot of folks would like, but that’s what did happen. When they came to the Planning Board there was a notice provision that was beyond any other. They actually sent out 104 notices.
Mr. Ricks felt that by the time the public was notified it was a done deal.
Mr. Gaudioso wasn’t arguing, he was just saying that the issue was raised and they looked to see if they could do something more. They redesigned the compound as best as they could and more than doubled the setback distance to 91’ from the property line. They took it a step further and had their engineers order a tower that had a hinge point, so that the fall zone of the tower would be no more than 71’ and within the property.
Mr. Ricks asked to have drawings displayed. They were.
Mr. Gaudioso explained that they have a 3,000 sf compound at the base and they have space for all of the co-locators and what they were able to do was to re-organize the tower from the center of the 3,000sf compound to the far corner. They were able to pick up 50’ in distance where it would push them as far from that property line as possible. To take a step back—they pulled the old aerial maps and he displayed them to the Board. One of the reasons why they originally decided on that location was because it was a better location on the edge of the property because of the mining activities and you could see from 1994 to 2001 that the mining activities had expanded and the properties have expanded, but more importantly on the left side of the maps which was basically Samsonville Road, you could see how houses developed in that area, where on the East side its remained completely undeveloped. So, relocating the tower from a planning perspective, whether it was legally before the Board or not, they wanted to discuss it and reiterate with these visuals the planning reasons for not relocating. They were right up against the tree line which they thought the base of the tower would be better screened, especially if they painted the tower brown. If they relocated to the left side of the aerial, it would bring it closer to the houses on Samsonville and remember the visuals they did and visual rendering #7, which was from the bend of the road on Samsonville and that would bring it closer to that house and increase the visibility there whereas on the East side of the property—there is adjoining property and they understood that but it is essentially undeveloped. It showed through the structural and the relocation that they have plenty of room for a fall zone. Again, another issue was that with the mining activity were also concerned about the underground utilities. If they put the facility out in the middle they were concerned about impacts from the mining trucks with the utilities. From a planning prospective the proposed location is the best location. Never the less they did work and relocated the compound so that now rather than have the tower 41’ from the property line they moved it out to 91’. They think that 50’ is substantial considering that that would be the typical type setback distance to begin with.
Mr. Tapper wanted to know what the distance was to the back.
Mr. Gaudioso wasn’t exactly sure, but it was over 1,000 feet.
Mr. Tapper stated that 50’ wasn’t going to put the tower in the middle of the lot.
PUBLIC HEARING
HOMELAND TOWERS, LLC– c/o Snyder and Snyder, Special Use Permits/ Site Plan Approvals for Route 209 (Property owned by Town of Rochester, Tax Map #76.1-3-17, R-1 District), for wireless communication facilities consisting of 150’ monopole within 3,000 square foot compound on each site
Mr. Gaudioso noted that it wouldn’t, it would keep in that general site location and keep it within the 3,000 sf compound and move it back so that they now have a 91’ setback. They’ve more than doubled it.
Mr. Ricks questioned a little knob that stuck out of the woods on the aerial photo. The tower was right on the edge, which moved it away from the adjoining property owner and the field is flat. He was just trying to see what the difference was. It wasn’t really going to affect the mining there.
Mr. Gaudioso noted that they don’t own the whole property. They only own the leased area, so they had to work within their compound and they did the best they did. They did bring it closer to that house and if you look at the visuals you could see that this is one of the areas where its peaking through the trees and then when you bring it closer you would increase the visibility as opposed to a large vacant property. He understood that the concern.
Mr. Ricks didn’t feel that you would really see the compound anywhere, except for maybe one or two of the houses on the edge of the field.
Mr. Gaudioso noted that in visual #7 you would certainly see the tower on Samsonville Road. Again, they wanted to address it and they did what they could with the compound. They redrew the plan and the case that they submitted wasn’t for any other reason but to show that the case law is clear that the Town did have the opportunity to do this. The other thing that they talked about was speculation of future development on adjacent undeveloped properties and he felt that played somewhat here. They did want to know that they did take the concerns seriously and they did work with the engineers to move the pole as much as they could with the compound and have the co-location space and still respect the decision of the Town Board originally with the compound location.
Mr. Ricks was confirming that the compound location was pretty much set in concrete and the Planning Board couldn’t move that—because it’s described legally already?
Mr. Gaudioso confirmed this. They legally have a lease and the only way to move the compound would be to rewrite the lease. He felt the Chairman’s point about the Monroe Balancing Test—it was done for that reason it did come to the Planning Board and he knew that not everyone had voted for it, but that’s what they rely on and he thought that there were good planning reasons to have it where it is both from a safety standpoint and an aesthetic standpoint, from a layout standpoint and the future use of the Town owned piece of property for mining activities.
Mr. Ricks wanted to know if Mr. Gaudioso could explain to the public about the hinged pole.
Mr. Gaudioso stated that what they do is over design the bottom of the tower. Obviously the trees are not designed to structural standards. But the tower will be designed not only to the existing structural standards, but the standard that has been recently adopted that is the future structural standard. So, the tower will be over
PUBLIC HEARING
HOMELAND TOWERS, LLC– c/o Snyder and Snyder, Special Use Permits/ Site Plan Approvals for Route 209 (Property owned by Town of Rochester, Tax Map #76.1-3-17, R-1 District), for wireless communication facilities consisting of 150’ monopole within 3,000 square foot compound on each site
designed than any other tower in the area. On top of that they over designed the base of the tower. And what is called a theoretical hinge point 90’ up and that hinge point can go up or down 10’ in about a 20’ swing. So, theoretically the tower has been designed where the base is stronger than the top part, so in the event of failure because the tower is made out of metal, it wouldn’t crack, it would bend over itself at this hinge point. The tower isn’t designed to fall flat like a tree that would get uprooted. The Tower is designed to bend over itself. It’s a 90’ hinge point with about a 10’ sway, so that would bring it down to 80’ and 80’ to 150’ is about 70’ and if it cracked at 70’ it would have a 70’ fall zone. So, the theory is that it will stay within the property and not encroach upon anyone else’s property. There is 91’ from the property line and about a 70’ fall zone built into the tower by the design and the nature of the structure of the tower. They submitted a letter from Tectonic Engineering representing this.
Mr. Tapper stated that theoretically if it did fall over and fell over in the direction of the closest property owner, then it would be on his property?
The Board explained that the compound is 41’ away from the bounding owner, but the tower was 91’ away. Mr. Gaudioso displayed this on the plan. He showed the tower, the compound. The corner of the fence was about 41’ from the property line.
Mr. Tapper questioned if it was in the original spot if it fell it would have fallen on the bounding owner’s property?
Mr. Gaudioso stated yes. The change they made was a good change. Was it worth the month to wait? He felt they made a good change. Would they have liked to wait? No, but they did come back and improve the plan.
Mr. Ullman questioned the recommendation letter from the Ulster County Planning Board. It suggested that there were additional reviews that should be done. That’s not consistent with his understanding of what this Board has mandated. He asked for this to be clarified.
Chairman Fornal stated that the applicant actually supplied those additional answers. The alternative.
Mr. Ullman noted that in this letter they were suggesting that the Planning Board was supposed to be doing additional SEQRA Analysis or something like that. It was his understanding that this was not part of the Board’s scope and there seemed to be a disconnect.
Chairman Fornal noted that there was a disconnect on their interpretation of Monroe.
Mr. Gaudioso noted that they submitted it anyway because they had already done it for the Town Board. Rather than argue over the issue they just submitted the data.
PUBLIC HEARING
HOMELAND TOWERS, LLC– c/o Snyder and Snyder, Special Use Permits/ Site Plan Approvals for Route 209 (Property owned by Town of Rochester, Tax Map #76.1-3-17, R-1 District), for wireless communication facilities consisting of 150’ monopole within 3,000 square foot compound on each site
Mr. Ullman questioned if the Town Attorney was comfortable that this Board has reviewed what it was supposed to do and has not omitted to do anything
Town Attorney, Rod Futerfas, didn’t believe that the Planning Board had omitted anything that they were supposed to do.
At this time the Chairman reconvened the Public Hearing.
Gene Dutka of 6050 Route 209, Kerhonkson was there to represent his family who owned property. They’ve had to retain council to protect his families’ interests. They talked about local government for the people and by the people. They do things legally because they can because the law allows it. The Town didn’t have to notify them and the ZBA didn’t need to give a variance, but the local government is for the people. A consideration would to be to notify them further down the line of what was happening. This would have been consideration for them but also for the applicant. He wouldn’t be here today. His parents live on a fixed income. That property is a culmination of their life’s work and their life savings. And the Chairman’s analogy of people asking about things like fish—no they were talking about real effects on property value and devaluation. They were tearing apart their life’s work with arbitrary meetings and motions. A project like this is substantial in nature. The Board mailed out x amount of mailings to people within 1,500’ of that site. How many property owners were adjoining? A handful? He remembered a time not to long ago where the local government—someone would call you or stop by when you were working on your property and let you know that something was going on. You might get a notice; actually a notice might be too impersonal. Local government worked for the local people working towards a community.
The Chairman requested that Mr. Dutka address his specific concerns to this application.
Mr. Dutka did have a concern with the application. His family has been in this area for 45 years. His parents came from the Ukraine to avoid the Soviet Oppression. There is a large Ukrainian community in this area. The other hard working people of the community made them feel welcome because everyone worked hard. A 60-70 hour work weeks. Everyone was doing it. His Father retired from VAW and his mother retired from the Granite, the whole time working full time on their property and when they retired that just meant that they weren’t working 8-10 hours on their property, they were working 16 hours a day. His father, for decades has been a regular site marching up and down and picking up garbage on Route 209.
Chairman Fornal asked him to address the application specifically. This was a personal history. Mr. Dutka continued to speak and Chairman Fornal stated that he was out of ordered and asked him to address the issue.
Mr. Dutka stated that his parents have earned the consideration of a notice. They have worked hard and earned that consideration.
Chairman Fornal stated that they got a notice.
PUBLIC HEARING
HOMELAND TOWERS, LLC– c/o Snyder and Snyder, Special Use Permits/ Site Plan Approvals for Route 209 (Property owned by Town of Rochester, Tax Map #76.1-3-17, R-1 District), for wireless communication facilities consisting of 150’ monopole within 3,000 square foot compound on each site
Mr. Dutka continued and noted that they received a notice 2 weeks before the meeting. That wasn’t the beginning of the process—that was 2 weeks before the vote. The end of the process.
Chairman Fornal noted that it was legally noticed and went through all of the pertinent legal steps. Again, a lot of people have that same concern and the fact of the matter is that this is the law.
Mr. Dutka felt that the law was convenient.
Chairman Fornal noted that this was the law and urged Mr. Dutka to address specific details of the application, but they weren’t here to listen to a personal history.
Mr. Dutka felt that was too bad. How about their concerns about microwave radiation?
Chairman Fornal stated that this was out of the purview of the Board.
Mr. Dutka brought it up about having several smaller towers. Were those options addressed? He was supposed to get an answer this week on it and Chairman Fornal told him after the meeting that the town didn’t really want multiple towers because it would open the town up to lawsuits.
Chairman Fornal didn’t say lawsuits, he said for people who were concerned about something that we can’t talk about.
Mr. Dutka noted that they bought this property over 45 years ago and the Town didn’t always have a mining permit here. That just started and now just because the Town owns the property and started a mining operation—they’ve had discharged water on their property and caused erosion and that’s never happened before.
Chairman Fornal suggested he contact the Town and have them take care of it.
Mr. Dutka continued that just because this was Town owned property they could dump anything they wanted on the Town and they were just supposed to absorb every negative impact that takes place.
Chairman Fornal felt that this was unfortunate that was how he felt. If Mr. Dutka to address specific details of the application, they were here to hear it.
Mr. Dutka continued and noted that he wasn’t convinced that we needed these towers to improve communication. He had Singular One and had service. Were there a couple of dead spots? Yes, but if he drove 500’ he gets a single.
Chairman Fornal could be that there were probably 5,000 people who couldn’t.
PUBLIC HEARING
HOMELAND TOWERS, LLC– c/o Snyder and Snyder, Special Use Permits/ Site Plan Approvals for Route 209 (Property owned by Town of Rochester, Tax Map #76.1-3-17, R-1 District), for wireless communication facilities consisting of 150’ monopole within 3,000 square foot compound on each site
Mr. Dutka noted that at the last meeting they were told that the signal strengths for cell service wouldn’t necessarily increase and there would be areas where there would still be dead spots and depending on the carriers they attract, it may or may not get better.
Chairman Fornal stated that it would get better by virtue of what was submitted by this Board.
Mr. Dutka continued that this was being crammed down their throats and 91’ was nothing for them. Could he get consideration or a response from the Board? Would a private applicant have received this type of a process?
Chairman Fornal noted that the process could have been where the Planning Board was out of it entirely. So, this is a compromise and he thought it was a fair justifiable compromise. The Town Board could have eliminated the Planning Board from the review totally. So, this is an attempt to do a fair review.
Mr. Dutka wanted to know how the Town Board represented the people’s interests if they didn’t include them in the process?
Chairman Fornal stated that again, if they were making a decision based on 7,000 people that is what happened.
Mr. Dutka questioned if this affected 7,000 people? No. It affected his family.
The Chairman thanked Mr. Dutka for his concerns.
Next to speak was Ruth Bendelius who said that she was looking forward to cell service. The only place she got it was in the middle of her field.
Brinton Baker was next to speak and he didn’t actually have a cell phone, but he knows people who do and they say that there are a lot of dead areas and he was hoping that this would increase the service. He also thought that in one sense that it did affect everyone because the town is getting revenue on a monthly basis for having the towers on Town property. Everyone in the Town benefits for possibly many years to come if it offsets some of the taxes. He felt badly that not everyone was happy and if people were negatively impacted he encouraged them to go to grievance day.
Barbara Fornal was next to speak. She just wanted to remind everyone that this wasn’t just about cell service, but also about internet and not only will it help the safety in our Town, but also for economic development where more people can work from home.
Carl Chipman had a question as far asking how far off from the existing code was the review that was taking place?
PUBLIC HEARING
HOMELAND TOWERS, LLC– c/o Snyder and Snyder, Special Use Permits/ Site Plan Approvals for Route 209 (Property owned by Town of Rochester, Tax Map #76.1-3-17, R-1 District), for wireless communication facilities consisting of 150’ monopole within 3,000 square foot compound on each site
Chairman Fornal noted that mainly it was broad the way it was written—the entire property had to be surveyed… This was reduced to the site. Setback was waived. If he would like he could get a copy of what was adopted.
Mr. Chipman’s next question was existing codes were waived—should property owners been notified if they were adjoining—especially since this was directly affecting them? He felt that this should have been done and that he knew that they did what was legally possible, but when they left the code that was on the books they were in different territory and he felt that people like the Dutka’s should have been notified.
Mr. Gaudioso noted that one of the compromises of the Code that was mentioned—there is actually a provision of the Code that says if a tower has emergency communication antennas on it, they were totally exempt from Zoning. They had initially argued that and said that this tower would have emergency antennas on it and therefore it was exempt. And the Code further says that any commercial carriers that come on they weren’t exactly exempt themselves. So the Code was pretty clear in that the tower itself was exempt and they argued that to the Town Board. And they said, you know what—we’ll take a more conservative approach, where the code does apply, they’ll go through the waivers, send them to the Planning Board, come back, have a Public Hearing which was very well attended and then they granted specific waivers to each specific site. There is a provision in the Code that is more than arguable that this tower is exempt because of those emergency antenna’s, but the Town Board took the more conservative approach.
Mr. Ricks wanted to know if he was relating to one of the comments the County made?
Mr. Gaudioso was referring to a comment that Mr. Chipman made regarding how far this review differed from what was in the actual code. His point was that arguably they were out of the Code in a conservative manor.
Mr. Ricks wanted to know what the Town Attorney’s comment was on the Ulster County Planning Board response regarding the applicability of the Monroe Balancing Test.
Mr. Futerfas responded that in all due respect to Mr. Doyle, he is wrong. There is case law on it. Even if it’s leased. He could understand where Mr. Doyle is concerned about Monroe. If there is case law out there that under the right circumstances allows Planning Board’s to be bypassed—he could see where as Chairman of the Ulster County Planning Board he’d be concerned.
Mr. Ricks felt that every tower that was going up could use emergency services and try and get out of review.
Mr. Futerfas noted that they were talking specifically about the Town Code—nothing else.
Mr. Ricks understood this and noted that any tower going up through out any town could say that they were using emergency services and it wouldn’t have to be on Town property.
PUBLIC HEARING
HOMELAND TOWERS, LLC– c/o Snyder and Snyder, Special Use Permits/ Site Plan Approvals for Route 209 (Property owned by Town of Rochester, Tax Map #76.1-3-17, R-1 District), for wireless communication facilities consisting of 150’ monopole within 3,000 square foot compound on each site
Mr. Gaudioso explained that it does have to be on Town property.
Mr. Ricks noted that the other thing in the UCPB response was about alternative sites.
Mr. Gaudioso stated that they did submit this. It was done originally to start the whole process with the Town Board. This was how they got to these sites.
Mr. Ricks read over all the reports, but didn’t read every little detail.
Mr. Gaudioso noted that it was a two year process a long process to get to that stage and to get to these two sites to get to the Monroe Balancing Test. It was 10 meetings with the Town Board. Not something that happened over night. It was expensive drive testing of the area. The theory here is that under Federal Law carriers have the right to come in with facilities, be it on there terms or on the Town’s. The Town took a pro-active approach to say, let’s minimize the number of towers and put them on Town property. Let’s pre-review them and take the economic benefit and provide services to people. Rather than have a carrier come in with the Federal Law and say we’re going to put the tower in and have a slug fest the way AT&T/Cell One did with the existing tower. Then it’s a tower that’s built to the height that doesn’t support co-location and doesn’t cover gaps and doesn’t provide a town wide solution. This is the opposite of that. Not everyone is in favor obviously, but on a whole he felt it was the right approach.
Mr. Ricks was wondering in reality what kind of coverage we were really going to have. He gets good coverage all the way through Route 209 now. He thought that one of the biggest concerns is when you go up Samsonville and go up 3 or 4 miles. He thought that the other tower being up even higher would get you more up that way than the two in the lower area on Route 209.
Mr. Gaudioso noted that as he explained, they were really trying to get the valley and if there is a future need, rather than build more towers—too much infrastructure, they would build the sites, get the carriers up and running, get them operating and see if they have a problem and try and pinpoint that problem rather than forcing a third tower right now. 250’ towers—the amount of notices from two large properties—you had very little opposition. The more towers you have the more opposition you have. Is opposition expected? Absolutely. There is always going to be somewhere next door, so instead of putting a tower in a residential area, they would put the towers on large properties. There was a bit of a compromise.
Mr. Tapper questioned the notices. There was a letter saying that they sent out 59 notices?
Mr. Gaudioso noted that that was for the Airport Road site. He believed that they sent out 104 notices for this site.
Mr. Tapper questioned if this was done for the last Public Hearing? That was done at the direction of the Planning Board that they sent out these letters to the bounding owners.
PUBLIC HEARING
HOMELAND TOWERS, LLC– c/o Snyder and Snyder, Special Use Permits/ Site Plan Approvals for Route 209 (Property owned by Town of Rochester, Tax Map #76.1-3-17, R-1 District), for wireless communication facilities consisting of 150’ monopole within 3,000 square foot compound on each site
Mr. Gaudioso noted that it’s in the Zoning Code it is a 1,500’ radius list.
Mr. Tapper wanted to know if this was followed when they had a Public Hearing for the Town Board?
Mr. Gaudioso noted that the Town Board rules are newspaper notification. Planning Board rules in this particular type of application is a 1,500’ notice list—a bigger one than he’s ever seen.
Mrs. Carney motioned to close the Public Hearing. Seconded by Mr. Ullman. No discussion.
Vote:
Fornal- Yes Ullman- Yes
Gaydos- Yes Carney- Yes
Ricks- Yes Tapper- Yes
Kawalchuk- Yes Godwin (alt.)-not required to participate
The Board reviewed Part 2 as prepared by Chazen as recorded on file.
Chairman Fornal then noted that Part 3 is on record as submitted by Homeland Towers.
Mr. Johannessen noted that an Archeology study dated July 31, 2007 is on file as a component of Part 3.
Mr. Ullman motioned for a Negative Declaration under SEQRA. Seconded by Chairman Fornal. No discussion.
Vote:
Fornal- Yes Ullman- Yes
Gaydos- Yes Carney- Yes
Ricks- No Tapper- Yes
Kawalchuk- Yes Godwin (alt.)-not required to participate
Chairman Fornal read a Draft of Conditional Preliminary Approval dated November 20, 2007 into the record as follows:
PUBLIC HEARING
HOMELAND TOWERS, LLC– c/o Snyder and Snyder, Special Use Permits/ Site Plan Approvals for Route 209 (Property owned by Town of Rochester, Tax Map #76.1-3-17, R-1 District), for wireless communication facilities consisting of 150’ monopole within 3,000 square foot compound on each site
Conditional Approval for Special Use Permit/Site Plan Review for the construction of a 150-foot tall tower to provide service to municipal and private sector antennas on a 3,000 sq.ft. leasehold parcel, located at Route 209 on a 63 (+/-) acre parcel owned by the Town of Rochester.
Homeland Towers, LLC shall forward structural drawings and structural engineering report to Chazen Companies at the building permit stage for Chazen approval of same.
Homeland Towers, LLC shall be responsible for all maintenance and upkeep of new access drive from stream crossing (at 24″ culvert pipe) to compound.
The 3,000 sq.ft. compound shall be gravel surfaced; floor plans for actual facility will be provided at the co-location stage with SitePlan review required for each co-location of new antenna.
Homeland Towers, LLC shall pay for an independent consultant (a licensed professional structural engineer), hired by the town, to conduct inspections of the tower’s structural integrity and safety. Guyed towers, monopoles and/or nonguyed towers shall be inspected every three years. A report of the inspection results shall be prepared by the independent consultant and submitted to the Town Board, the Planning Board, the Building Inspector and the Town Clerk.
Within 10 business days of notification of an unsafe structure, the owner(s) of the tower shall submit a plan to remediate the structural defect(s). This plan shall be initiated within 10 days of the submission of the remediation plan and completed as soon as reasonably possible
The area around the tower and communication equipment shelter(s) shall be completely fenced for security to a height of eight feet and gated. Use of razor wire is not permitted. A sign no greater than two square feet indicating the name of the facility owner(s) and a twenty-four-hour emergency telephone number shall be posted adjacent to the entry gate. In addition, “No Trespassing” or other warning signs may be posted on the fence.
The color of the tower shall be brown.
Mrs. Carney questioned if the Lease Agreement could be added as #8.
Mrs. Carney motioned to approve the Route 209 tower as listed above with the following conditions:
Conditional Approval for Special Use Permit/Site Plan Review for the construction of a 150-foot tall tower to provide service to municipal and private sector antennas on a 3,000 sq.ft. leasehold parcel, located at Route 209 on a 63 (+/-) acre parcel owned by the Town of Rochester.
1. Homeland Towers, LLC shall forward structural drawings and structural engineering report to Chazen Companies at the building permit stage for Chazen approval of same.
2. Homeland Towers, LLC shall be responsible for all maintenance and upkeep of new access drive from stream crossing (at 24″ culvert pipe) to compound.
3. The 3,000 sq.ft. compound shall be gravel surfaced; floor plans for actual facility will be provided at the co-location stage with SitePlan review required for each co-location of new antenna.
4. Homeland Towers, LLC shall pay for an independent consultant (a licensed professional structural engineer), hired by the town, to conduct inspections of the tower’s structural integrity and safety. Guyed towers, monopoles and/or nonguyed towers shall be inspected every three years. A report of the inspection results shall be prepared by the independent consultant and submitted to the Town Board, the Planning Board, the Building Inspector and the Town Clerk.
5. Within 10 business days of notification of an unsafe structure, the owner(s) of the tower shall submit a plan to remediate the structural defect(s). This plan shall be initiated within 10 days of the submission of the remediation plan and completed as soon as reasonably possible
6. The area around the tower and communication equipment shelter(s) shall be completely fenced for security to
a height of eight feet and gated. Use of razor wire is not permitted. A sign no greater than two square feet indicating the name of the facility owner(s) and a twenty-four-hour emergency telephone number shall be posted adjacent to the entry gate. In addition, “No Trespassing” or other warning signs may be posted on the fence.
7. The color of the tower shall be brown.
8. All maintenance shall be required according to lease agreement.
Motion seconded by Mr. Ullman.
Discussion:
Mr. Ricks stated that he didn’t vote for the waivers granted to these cell towers and he isn’t voting for this tower because he doesn’t see why the compound couldn’t be moved to lessen the impact to the property of Gene Dutka’s family.
Chairman Fornal noted that Wayne Kelder is the one who recommended it be there.
Vote:
Fornal- Yes Ullman- Yes
Gaydos- No Carney- Yes
Ricks- No Tapper- Yes
Kawalchuk- Yes Godwin (alt.)-not required to participate
NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATIONS
RONALD SANTOSKY– Subdivision Approval, 3 lots, Granite Road, Tax Map # 76.4-2-11.2, R-1 District
Dan McCormack was present on behalf of the application and explained that he works for Gerald T. O’Buckley Land Surveying. He noted that Mr. Santosky owns +/- 10 acres off of Granite Road in the Rusolo Subdivision. He’s proposing to subdivide 3 lots into about 3.5 acres each. The large piece has +/- 219’ of road frontage and the back 2 pieces have 50’ each.
Mrs. Carney questioned if those were DEC designated streams that were shown on the map?
Mr. Johannessen had looked them up and they were not.
Mr. McCormack noted that the back 2 lots would share a driveway. James Luckner who was an engineer was going to be doing the perc tests on the lots for the septics.
Mr. Ricks noted that the shared driveway would need to be shown as a right-of-way.
Mr. Johannessen questioned how long that driveway would be. He wasn’t sure about the length of fire hose that the fire dept. would have.
Mrs. Carney noted that he property line from the front to the back was +/- 1,000’.
Mr. McCormack noted that they researched the possibility of accessing Berme Road from the back 2 parcels, but it wasn’t possible.
NEW APPLICATION PRESENTATIONS
RONALD SANTOSKY– Subdivision Approval, 3 lots, Granite Road, Tax Map # 76.4-2-11.2, R-1 District
Mr. Johannessen noted that the application was too incomplete for him to review it and that Mr. McCormack should go back through the subdivision checklist and submit what applied. He should also get the plans engineered. Maybe the applicant could look into underground water storage if the fire dept is going to be a concern.
Mrs. Carney was concerned with the length of the driveway.
Mr. Johannessen suggested that the applicant check to see if there are any wetlands on the property.
Mr. McCormack wanted to know if this could be scheduled for a Public Hearing?
Mrs. Carney stated that the application wasn’t ready. Maybe if the applicant brought back the revisions for December and they were complete, they could schedule a January Public Hearing.
LISA & YUVAL STERER– Subdivision Approval, 2 lots and lot line adjustment, Rock Hill Road, Tax Map #77.3-2-10, ‘A’ District
Mr. Sterer was present on behalf of his application. He explained that he owned 3 lots that he wanted to cut in half.
The Board wanted Mr. Sterer to show where the Town maintained to.
Mr. Sterer noted that his neighbor has been renting a house from him for 3 years now and he wanted to split his property to sell him the house and land.
Mr. Tapper questioned the purpose of the lot line change?
Mr. Sterer really wasn’t sure. He thought Medenbach & Eggers told him that it was 2 acre zoning in that area and that was why he needed to make the adjustment.
The Secretary recalled that Medenbach & Eggers are working off of the proposed new zoning maps that haven’t been adopted yet. That could be why they thought this area was 2 acre zoning and the reason for the lot line adjustment.
Mr. Johannessen noted that if he did the lot line adjustment that he would need to show that whole piece of property on this map as well.
Mrs. Carney explained that Mr. Sterer needed to either put the driveway to lot 2 on its own property with that lot, or provide an easement to cross lot 1. Lot 2 wouldn’t be able to use the existing driveway unless it was given permission to do so by a right-of-way or easement. If there is already an agreement, she suggested that the applicant submit a Road Maintenance Agreement (RMA).
Mr. Sterer noted that the other lot was going to be transferred to the Open Space Institute.
LISA & YUVAL STERER– Subdivision Approval, 2 lots and lot line adjustment, Rock Hill Road, Tax Map #77.3-2-10, ‘A’ District
Mrs. Carney suggested that the applicant provide a note on the plan regarding that intention.
The Board told Mr. Sterer that his application was incomplete and that he should have Medenbach & Eggers review the lot line adjustment, go over the checklist.
ACTION ON MINUTES OF MEETING
Mrs. Carney motioned to accept the minutes of October 16, 2005 provided that all references to “Mr. Lufeild” were replaced with “Mr. Dutka”. Seconded by Mr. Gaydos. All members present in favor.
OTHER MATTERS
Mr. Ricks questioned the status of everyone’s training? There weren’t a lot of trainings offered this year and now it’s coming to a close and some members are still outstanding on their credits.
Chairman Fornal noted that they were supposed to have a training in December on the new code, but it hasn’t been passed, so there has been no training. He will offer a training in December that the members should be sure to take.
Mrs. Carney motioned to adjourn the meeting seconded by Mr. Gaydos. All members present in favor.
As there was no further business, at 8:30pm, Chairman Fornal adjourned the meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary