Planning Board Minutes December 2013

 
MINUTES OF December 16, 2013 the Town of Rochester PLANNING BOARD, held at the Town Hall, Accord, NY.

 

Vice Chairman Rominger asked that everyone stand to say the Pledge to the Flag.

 

The Secretary did roll call attendance.

 

PRESENT:                                                                ABSENT:                 
                                                                        Melvyn I. Tapper
Robert Rominger, Vice Chairman                                  Michael Baden, Chairman 
Shane Ricks                                                             Adam Paddock
Fred O’Donnell
        Anthony Ullman                                                                  

 

Also present:
Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary.  

 

COMMUNICATIONS
Vice Chairman Rominger noted that after last month’s meeting Chairman Baden contacted Tom Shepstone who had consulted with creating the new codes that were adopted in 2009 regarding the Getman Pre-application discussion for a conservation subdivision that was held last month. He had also consulted with Mary Lou Christiana, Town Attorney. With their advisement, he wrote a letter to the applicant’s representative, Barry Medenbach explaining how the density was calculated. Now its up to the applicant on how they wish to proceed with the Board.

 

ACTION ON MINUTES
Mr. Ricks motioned to approve the November Planning Board Minutes. Seconded by Mr. Ullman. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden:  Absent                                  Tapper: Absent
O’Donnell:      Yes                                             Rominger:       Yes
Ullman: Yes                                             Ricks:          Yes
Paddock:        Absent                                  
                                                                        
Motion carried. 4 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent, 0 abstentions                         

 

PB 2013-09 SUP          CONTINUED APPLICATION AND PUBLIC HEARING
Special Use Permit
Andrea Ellison-         for Special Use Permit to convert a single family residential dwelling to a two-family residential dwelling, 132 Schwabie Tpke., S/B/L #60.3-1-35, ‘R-2’ zoning district

 

Andrea Ellison was present on behalf of her application.

 

Vice Chairman Rominger noted that under SEQRA this type of action was classified as a Type II with no other SEQRA Actions required. He asked for a motion for this.
Mr. Ullman motioned for a Type II Action under SEQRA. Seconded by Mr. O’Donnell. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden:  Absent                                  Tapper: Absent
O’Donnell:      Yes                                             Rominger:       Yes
Ullman: Yes                                             Ricks:          Yes
Paddock:        Absent                                  
                                                                        
Motion carried. 4 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent, 0 abstentions

 

Ms. Ellison noted that she had the engineer draw up a plan as to what needs to happen with the septic and she presented the plan to the Board. There is an existing tank that is 1,000 gallon and that was for a 3 bedroom home. In order to get to the 4 bedrooms that it will be, that is not sufficient. The engineer has designed a 1,200 gallon system and it is being reviewed by the Ulster County Health Dept. She had originally intended to have the total number of rooms between the 2 dwellings to be 5 bedrooms, but since that time has eliminated one of the bedrooms in the upstairs apartment, so upstairs will be 1 bedroom and 3 in the downstairs dwelling.

 

At 7:05PM Vice Chairman Rominger opened the Public Hearing.

 

Ms. Ellison explained that she has a 1.5 story home that she wants to make into a 2 family home. She wants to take the upper ½ into an apartment for her mother. There would be a 2nd entrance from upstairs to the outdoors and she is working with an engineer who designed a new septic being suitable for the 2 family dwelling as she is going from  3 bedrooms to 4 bedrooms.

 

Vice Chairman Rominger asked if there were any public comments. There were not.

 

At 7:05PM Vice Chairman Rominger motioned to close the public hearing. Seconded by Mr. Ullman. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden:  Absent                                  Tapper: Absent
O’Donnell:      Yes                                             Rominger:       Yes
Ullman: Yes                                             Ricks:          Yes
Paddock:        Absent                                  
                                                                        
Motion carried. 4 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent, 0 abstentions

 

At this time the Board reviewed the draft findings as prepared by Chairman Baden as follows:
Findings of the Planning Board:
  • The Planning Board has received zoning referral for a Site Plan review from the Code Enforcement Officer and an application, EAF, sketch plan, survey map, well report, and related documentation have been received from the applicant. The applicant supplied an Agricultural Data Statement with the application; however it was determined to not be required.
  • The applicant desires to convert an existing two-story single-family residential use dwelling to a two-family residential use dwelling. The applicant proposes to convert the 2nd story to a separate dwelling with minimal exterior conversion to the existing structure.  Outside access will be achieved with the addition of a stairway and deck and conversion of an existing window to a sliding door. There will be no additional exterior change to the dwelling or increase in square footage.
  • The parcel is located in the ‘R-2’ zoning district pursuant to the Town of Rochester zoning code.
  • The parcel to be developed is known as S/B/L #60.3-1-35.
  • The parcel is +/- 6.022 acres.
  • The parcel has road frontage at 132 Schwabie Tpke., a mapped town public road.
  • The parcel is owned by Andrea Ellison.
  • The application complies with district regulations and development standards for allowable uses within the ‘R-2’ zoning district upon granting of a Special Use approval.  
  • The surrounding land use is predominately rural residential with a moderate density.
  • Existing conditions are a 2 story single-family dwelling with drilled well, septic, and gravel driveway. The parcel is wooded with cleared areas of lawn and gardens surrounding the existing dwelling.
  • The existing parking area is determined to be adequate to allow for additional parking requirements under the code. There will be no changes to the public road access, driveway or parking required.
  • The applicant will require a building permit from the Town of Rochester and well and septic approvals from the Ulster County Health Dept. to complete the conversion.
  • The application was determined to be a Type II action under SEQRA.
  • The application has met the criteria to be exempted for referral to the Ulster County Planning Board under the signed exception agreement.
Mr. Ricks motioned to adopt the findings, seconded by Mr. O’Donnell. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden:  Absent                                  Tapper: Absent
O’Donnell:      Yes                                             Rominger:       Yes
Ullman: Yes                                             Ricks:          Yes
Paddock:        Absent                                  
                                                                        
Motion carried. 4 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent, 0 abstentions

 

At this time the Board reviewed the draft decision as prepared by Chairman Baden as follows:

 

RESOLVED,
        The Town of Rochester Planning Board grants Special Use Permit-Final Approval to Andrea Ellison for two-family dwelling use by conversion from single-family dwelling use for the lands situate at 132 Schwabie Tpke, known as S/B/L #60.3-1-35, and located in the ‘R-2’ zoning district.

 

The Site Plan and Special Use permit are approved with the following conditions.    
        
CONDITIONS of APPROVAL:   

 

  • All applicable Local, County, State, and Federal laws or codes which may be determined required in conjunction with the operation of this use shall be secured or renewed as applicable.   Should any conditions imposed by such permits or codes cause conditions to be in conflict, the most restrictive condition shall prevail.  Should any permit approvals necessitate a change to the approved Site Plan, the matter shall be referred to the Planning Board for consideration.
  • Any deviation from or amending of the approved and signed Site Plan shall require resubmission to the Planning Board, except as may be permitted as determined by the Code Enforcement Officer.
  • The owner shall secure a Town of Rochester building permit prior to start of any construction or land disturbance.
  • The applicant shall secure Ulster County Board of Health permits for both well and septic prior to a Certificate of Occupancy for the two-family dwelling use.
  • Any and all fees due to the Town of Rochester involving this application shall be paid in full prior to the Chairman’s signature on the plat.  The Town of Rochester Planning Board further grants the authority to the Chairman to certify this has been completed without further resolution and to sign and date the plan at such time.
EFFECT of APPROVAL:
  • This Special Use approval and associated conditions shall be binding upon the applicant and all successive owners of the land so long as such use shall occur.  
  • This approval shall remain effective as an authorization to secure the required permits and establish the use for a maximum of one year from this date of approval unless the applicant shall have submitted written request and the Planning Board shall have adopted such resolution granting an extension and provided the applicant has submitted proof of having diligently pursued the implementation of the plans.  Absent such an extension the Special Use shall be deemed to have expired.
Mr. Ricks motioned to approve the decision as read above. Seconded by Mr. O’Donnell. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden:  Absent                                  Tapper: Absent
O’Donnell:      Yes                                             Rominger:       Yes
Ullman: Yes                                             Ricks:          Yes
Paddock:        Absent                                  
                                                                        
Motion carried. 4 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent, 0 abstentions
TELECOMMUNICATIONS:
Vice Chairman Rominger noted that he spoke with both Supervisor Chipman and Chairman Baden this week and as promised at the last meeting, Chairman Baden is working on a presentation for the Town Board with suggestions on how to improve the telecommunications law in the Code. A lot of this was spurred from Public Hearing comments. Mr. Chipman assured him that the Town Board would listen and move forward in a way to give more power back to the residents.

 

PB 2013-08 SPA          SEQRA review, Continued Application and Public Hearing
Site Plan Review
PEG Bandwidth – applicant, American Tower and Town of Rochester – owners, for Site Plan approval for continued use as telecommunications facility, adding (1) microwave dish on an existing 150’ monopole wireless telecommunications facility and related equipment within an existing shelter, 100 Airport Rd., S/B/L #69.3-2-37, ‘R-5’ zoning district

 

Thomas White was present on behalf of the application.

 

Vice Chairman Rominger noted that he looks at this particular cell tower from his home. He questioned if the applicant had any new information?

 

Mr. White noted that he didn’t have any new information, but explained that they were adding a new antenna at 105’ on the existing pole and related equipment on the ground.

 

At this time the Board reviewed Part 2 of the Short EAF.

 

All items were checked off as “No, or small impact will occur”.

 

Vice Chairman Rominger read Part 3 of the Short EAF as prepared by Chairman Baden as follows:
Telecommunications towers are a federally regulated industry under the control of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).  The applicable federal laws governing this industry include the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and Section 6409 of the Middle Class Tax Act of 2012.  The FCC has further authored clarifying documentation as to the applicability of Section 6409.  The Planning Board is bound by these federal laws and standards.

 

With regard to Question 11,.the applicant has certified the project will not exceed the guidelines established by the FCC regarding radio frequency emissions. These guidelines state in the FCC’s OET Bulletin 65, that antennae located at elevation of 10 meters (approximately 33 feet) above ground level is categorically excluded. This application proposes an additional microwave dish at an elevation of 105 feet. The Planning Board may only require the applicant maintain such standards and is not empowered to require local testing.  Therefore the Planning Board has no opinion on the potential impact to human health as it is not empowered to make such independent determinations.

 

Regarding structural capability of the telecommunications tower, the applicant has prepared a structural report certified by a licensed structural engineer.  Additionally, a Town of Rochester building permit will be required.

 

Mr. O’Donnell motioned for a Negative Declaration under SEQRA seconded by Mr. Ullman. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden:  Absent                                  Tapper: Absent
O’Donnell:      Yes                                             Rominger:       Yes
Ullman: Yes                                             Ricks:          Yes
Paddock:        Absent                                  
                                                                        
Motion carried. 4 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent, 0 abstentions

 

At 7:20PM Vice Chairman Rominger opened the Public Hearing.

 

Mr. Jason Broome was recognized to speak. He questioned if the work that was ongoing at the site had been looked into?

 

Vice Chairman Rominger noted that this application was for 100 Airport Road and he believed that Mr. Broome was referring to the application at 82 City Hall Road.

 

Mr. Broome confirmed that he was mistaken.

 

There were no other comments.

 

At 7:21PM Vice Chairman Rominger motioned to close the Public Hearing. Seconded by Mr. O’Donnell. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden:  Absent                                  Tapper: Absent
O’Donnell:      Yes                                             Rominger:       Yes
Ullman: Yes                                             Ricks:          Yes
Paddock:        Absent                                  
                                                                        
Motion carried. 4 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent, 0 abstentions

 

At this time the Board reviewed draft findings as prepared by Chairman Baden as follows:
Findings of the Planning Board
  • The Planning Board has received zoning referral for a Site Plan review from the Code Enforcement Officer and an application, EAF, construction drawings, and related documentation has been received from the applicant.  
  • The parcel is located in the ‘R-5’ zoning district pursuant to the Town of Rochester zoning code.
  • The parcel to be developed is known as S/B/L #69.3-2-37.
  • The parcel is +/- 30 acres.
  • The parcel has road frontage at 100 Airport Rd., a mapped town public road.
  • The parcel use is as a refuse transfer station operated and owned by the Town of Rochester.
  • The Town of Rochester has a lease agreement with American Tower allowing use of the property for the operation of a 150 foot monopole telecommunications tower hosting three providers of wireless service and a 3000 sq. ft. fenced, enclosed area housing the related accessory communications cabinets.  
  • This telecommunications facility was granted original approval via a Special Use Permit and Site Plan approval by the Town of Rochester Planning Board with decision 2007-07SPA/SUP.
  • There are existing three (3) carriers of wireless antennas located on the monopole.  T-Mobile, AT&T, and Verizon located at heights of 125’, 136’, and 146’, respectively.
  • American Tower has submitted a structural review report prepared by Jyoti Ojha and certified by Jaime Reyes, a licensed professional engineer in the State of New York, indicating the subject tower and foundation are adequate to support the stated loads.
  • The application proposes to add one microwave dish and new ODU mounted at the back of the dish at a height of 105’ and associated equipment within the leased area at the existing compound.  
  • The Application was submitted as an “eligible facilities request” pursuant to Section 6409 of the Federal Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (“Section 6409”), which was signed into law by the President on February 22, 2012.
  • Section 6409 provides that “a State or local government may not deny, and shall approve, any eligible facilities request for a modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station.
  • The federal law defines an “eligible facilities request” as “(A) co-location of new transmission equipment; (B) removal of transmission equipment; or (C) replacement of transmission equipment.”
  • The Planning Board has determined the application to meet the requirements of a co-location of new transmission equipment and an eligible facilities request. 
Mr. Ullman motioned to adopt the findings. Seconded by Mr. O’Donnell. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden:  Absent                                  Tapper: Absent
O’Donnell:      Yes                                             Rominger:       Yes
Ullman: Yes                                             Ricks:          Yes
Paddock:        Absent                                  
                                                                        
Motion carried. 4 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent, 0 abstentions
At this time the Board reviewed the draft resolution as prepared by Chairman Baden as follow:
RESOLVED,
        The Town of Rochester Planning Board grants Site Plan -Final Approval to PEG Bandwidth permitting the applicant to modify an existing 150’ monopole communications tower with the addition of one microwave dish and new ODU mounted at the back of the dish at a height of 105’ and associated equipment located within the leased area at the existing compound for the lands situate at 100 Airport Rd, known as S/B/L #69.3-2-37, and located in the ‘R-5’ zoning district.

 

The Special Use Permit is approved with the following conditions.    
        
CONDITIONS of APPROVAL:   

 

  • All applicable Local, County, State, and Federal laws or codes which may be determined required in conjunction with the operation of this use shall be secured or renewed as applicable.   Should any conditions imposed by such permits or codes cause conditions to be in conflict, the most restrictive condition shall prevail.  Should any permit approvals necessitate a change to the approved Site Plan, the matter shall be referred to the Planning Board for consideration.
  • Any deviation from or amending of the approved and signed Site Plan shall require resubmission to the Planning Board, except as may be permitted as determined by the Code Enforcement Officer.
  • The owner shall specifically secure a Town of Rochester building permit prior to start of any construction or land disturbance.
  • The facility shall maintain radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Federal Communication Commission’s regulations concerning such emissions.
  • The antenna array shall be finished in the same color scheme and manner as the existing antennas.  This shall be galvanized in color.
  • All telecommunications equipment shall be permanently located within the existing secure fenced area.
  • There shall be no overnight parking of vehicles or storage of other equipment or materials on the site other than as may be necessary for short duration during the construction phase.
  • Any and all fees due to the Town of Rochester involving this application shall be paid in full prior to the Chairman’s signature on the plat.  The Town of Rochester Planning Board further grants the authority to the Chairman to certify this has been completed without further resolution and to sign and date the plan at such time.
EFFECT of APPROVAL:
  • This Site Plan approval and associated conditions shall be binding upon the applicant and all successive owners of the land so long as such use shall occur.  
  • This approval shall remain effective as an authorization to secure the required permits and establish the use for a maximum of one year from this date of approval unless the applicant shall have submitted written request and the Planning Board shall have adopted such resolution granting an extension and provided the applicant has submitted proof of having diligently pursued the implementation of the plans.  Absent such an extension the Site Plan shall be deemed to have expired. 
Mr. O’Donnell motioned to approve the resolution as read above. Seconded by Mr. Ullman. No Discussion.
Vote:
Baden:  Absent                                  Tapper: Absent
O’Donnell:      Yes                                             Rominger:       Yes
Ullman: Yes                                             Ricks:          Yes
Paddock:        Absent                                  
                                                                        
Motion carried. 4 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent, 0 abstentions

 

PB 2013-07 SPA          Decision
Site Plan Review
PEG Bandwidth – applicant, Global Tower and Zeno Wicks – owners, for Site Plan approval for continued use as telecommunications facility, adding (1) microwave dish on an existing 120’ monopole wireless telecommunications facility and related equipment within an existing shelter, 82 City Hall Rd., S/B/L #68.3-2-47.110, ‘R-2’ zoning district

 

Mr. White was present on behalf of the application.

 

Vice Chairman Rominger explained that this public hearing was closed at the November meeting. He questioned if there were any further concerns from the Board?

 

Mr. Ullman questioned if this was the site that was questioned about the work activity on site?

 

Vice Chairman Rominger referred the Board to letter dated December 11, 2013 from the Code Enforcement Office to Global Towers (the tower owner) alerting them that they needed to apply to the CEO for permits for the work that was ongoing at the site which were the installation of guide wires.

 

Mr. Ricks questioned if the guide wires that were mentioned in the letter were part of this application or the next application for Cingular Wireless?

 

Vice Chairman Rominger noted that what the Board was reviewing for this application was for the installation of the microwave dish. According to the Town Attorney, whether or not there was work ongoing or not wasn’t relevant to this decision. This was relevant to the next application, not this one. Also, Supervisor Chipman was alerted to work going on last week, so he rode up there and it was Time Warner Cable doing work on poles up in that area. So, there seems to be several things going on in that area, but according to the Town Attorney, none of it affect this application.

 

Mr. Ricks questioned if the applicant knew the reasons for the guide wires going up?

 

Mr. White noted that this wasn’t their tower and he doesn’t know.

 

Mr. Ullman noted that the applicant submitted a report saying that the tower was structurally sound. If it turns out not to be true, then the owner has a problem.

 

Mr. Ricks noted that they were dealing with 3 different outfits here- Global Towers, Peg Bandwidth, and Cingular Wireless.

 

Mr. Ullman didn’t see where the Board had any basis to question the applicant’s structural report.

 

Mr. Ricks questioned why would the guide wires being added then?

 

Vice Chairman Rominger noted that they should move on with this decision because the issues that Mr. Ricks is discussing will come up in the next new application that is on the agenda.

 

At this time the Board reviewed the draft findings as prepared by Chairman Baden as follows:
Findings of the Planning Board
  • The Planning Board has received zoning referral for a Site Plan review from the Code Enforcement Officer and an application, EAF, construction drawings, and related documentation has been received from the applicant.  
  • The parcel is located in the ‘R-2’ zoning district pursuant to the Town of Rochester zoning code.
  • The parcel to be developed is known as S/B/L #68.3-2-47.110.
  • The parcel is +/- 23.8 acres.
  • The parcel has road frontage at 82 City Hall Rd., a mapped town public road.
  • The parcel is owned by Zeno C. Wicks.
  • The surrounding land use is predominately rural residential with a moderate density.
  • The parcel is heavily wooded.
  • The parcel current use is residential with a portion leased for the operation of a 120 foot monopole telecommunications tower hosting three providers of wireless service and a 2500 sq. ft. fenced, enclosed area housing the related accessory communications cabinets.
  • This telecommunications facility was granted approval via the courts as it was the subject of an Article 78 legal proceeding.  Hon. Vincent Bradley signed agreement to the consent judgement between the Town of Rochester and Alexandra Cellular Corp.
  • Global Tower LLC is the current facility owner.
  • Zeno Wicks has a lease agreement with Global Tower Partners LLC allowing use of the property for the operation of a 120 foot monopole telecommunications tower.  The lease authorizes the tenant (Global Towers Partners) to sublet without further authorization from the property owner.
  • An access drive exists with an easement granted to the facility owner for the use of such drive.
  • There are existing three (3) carriers of wireless antennas located on the monopole.  AT&T is located an elevation of 116’ and 120’, T-Mobile at 107’, and Sprint at 100’.
  • The application proposes to add one microwave dish at an elevation of 85’ and associated equipment.  Original drawings submitted indicated an elevation of 105’ in error.  Corrected drawings have been submitted.
  • The applicant has submitted a structural report of the existing tower prepared by Michael T.
De Boer, PE, indicating the subject tower and foundation are adequate to support the stated loads.
  • The applicant has certified the project will not exceed the guidelines established by the FCC regarding radiation emissions with a report prepared by Kahho Mak, RF Engineer.
  • The application was submitted as an “eligible facilities request” pursuant to federal legislation Section 6409 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (“Section 6409”), which was signed into law by the President on February 22, 2012.
  • Section 6409 provides that “a State or local government may not deny, and shall approve, any eligible facilities request for a modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station.
  • The federal law defines an “eligible facilities request” as “(A) co-location of new transmission equipment; (B) removal of transmission equipment; or (C) replacement of transmission equipment.”
  • The Planning Board has determined the application to meet the requirements of co-location of new transmission equipment and an “eligible facilities request”.
  • The application has met the criteria to be exempted for referral to the Ulster County Planning Board under the signed exception agreement.
Motion to adopt findings was made by Mr. Ullman and seconded by second made by Mr. Ricks. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden:  Absent                                  Tapper: Absent
O’Donnell:      Yes                                             Rominger:       Yes
Ullman: Yes                                             Ricks:          Yes
Paddock:        Absent                                  
                                                                        
Motion carried. 4 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent, 0 abstentions

 

At this time the Board reviewed the draft resolution as prepared by Chairman Baden as follows:

 

RESOLVED,
        The Town of Rochester Planning Board grants Site Plan -Final Approval to PEG Bandwidth permitting the applicant to modify an existing 120’ monopole communications tower with the addition of a microwave dish at to be located at a height of 85’ and associated equipment to be located within the leased area of the existing compound for the lands situate at 82 City Hall Rd, known as S/B/L #68.3-2-47.110, and located in the ‘R-2’ zoning district.

 

The Site Plan is approved with the following conditions.    
        
CONDITIONS of APPROVAL:   

 

  • All applicable Local, County, State, and Federal laws or codes which may be determined required in conjunction with the operation of this use shall be secured or renewed as applicable.   Should any conditions imposed by such permits or codes cause conditions to be in conflict, the most restrictive condition shall prevail.  Should any permit approvals necessitate a change to the approved Site Plan, the matter shall be referred to the Planning Board for consideration.
  • Any deviation from or amending of the approved and signed Site Plan shall require resubmission to the Planning Board, except as may be permitted as determined by the Code Enforcement Officer.
  • The owner shall secure a Town of Rochester building permit prior to start of any construction or land disturbance specifically related to the installation of this microwave dish.
  • The facility shall maintain radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Federal Communication Commission’s regulations concerning such emissions.
  • The antenna array shall be finished in the same color scheme and manner as the existing antennas.
  • All telecommunications equipment shall be permanently located within the existing secure fenced area.
  • There shall be no overnight parking of vehicles or storage of other equipment or materials on the site other than as may be necessary for short duration during the construction phase.
  • Any and all fees due to the Town of Rochester involving this application shall be paid in full prior to the Chairman’s signature on the plat.  The Town of Rochester Planning Board further grants the authority to the Chairman to certify this has been completed without further resolution and to sign and date the plan at such time. 
EFFECT of APPROVAL:
  • This Site Plan approval and associated conditions shall be binding upon the applicant and all successive owners of the land so long as such use shall occur.  
  • This approval shall remain effective as an authorization to secure the required permits and establish the use for a maximum of one year from this date of approval unless the applicant shall have submitted written request and the Planning Board shall have adopted such resolution granting an extension and provided the applicant has submitted proof of having diligently pursued the implementation of the plans.  Absent such an extension the Site Plan shall be deemed to have expired.      
Motion was made by Mr. Ullman and seconded by Mr. Ricks to approve the resolution as read above. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden:  Absent                                  Tapper: Absent
O’Donnell:      Yes                                             Rominger:       Yes
Ullman: Yes                                             Ricks:          Yes
Paddock:        Absent                                  
                                                                        
Motion carried. 4 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent, 0 abstentions

 

PB 2013-10 SPA          New Application         
Site Plan Review
New Cingular Wireless PCS (AT&T) – applicant, Global Tower and Zeno Wicks – owners, for Site Plan approval for continued use as telecommunications facility, adding (3) new antennas (same height, appearance, size), (1) Microwave dish, (6) radio head units, (2) power cables, (1) fiber line, and associated appurtenances on an existing 120’ monopole wireless telecommunications facility and modifications to (2) existing racks within the existing 10’ x 20’ equipment shelter, 82 City Hall Rd., S/B/L #68.3-2-47.110, ‘R-2’ zoning district

 

Don Ross was present on behalf of the application.

 

Mr. O’Donnell noted that the application has the wrong address listed throughout it. It lists the parcel in question as 73 City Hall Road. It’s 82 City Hall Road.

 

Mr. Ross noted that they would fix the application. But the construction drawings and all other exhibits reference the correct site. It must be a typo.

 

This was a standard upgrade and as discussed 3 panel antennas would be added. They would be about 8’ tall and about a 1’ deep and a 1’ wide. They would fit into the parameters of Section 6409. There wouldn’t be any height added to the tower. There were going to be Remote Radio Units placed behind the antennas. It’s a signal booster. These are primarily done in rural to have that increased signal boost over a greater distance.

 

Vice Chairman Rominger questioned if these antennas were primarily for data?

 

Mr. Ross noted that they were going to be used for 4G service. AT&T is going to roll out 4G that is going out across upstate New York. It will broaden the footprint and primarily will enhance the existing footprint.

 

Mr. Ullman questioned what the dimensions were of the existing area and the base? If Mr. Ullman understands this correctly, what this is saying is that the guide wires are going to be anchored in a 30’ radius. Were they going to be outside.

 

Mr. Ross noted that they were being anchored at 91.6’ on the tower and anchored into the ground in a rebar concrete. A ‘dead man anchor’ that is 10’ high and 4’ long. It will be outside of the fenced in area, but within the leased area. There will be 3 guide wires. The antennas are going in at 120’, and the microwave dish is going in at 116’. The total height of the pole is really 140’ because there is an extension pole at the top and a lightning rod.

 

Mr. Ricks noted that in the application it says that it is an existing 120’ monopole.

 

Mr. Ross answered that 120’ is the useable height.

 

Vice Chairman Rominger noted that Chairman Baden had written a letter to the applicant on this date and the Board would go over it tonight with the applicant.

 

Letter dated December 16, 2013 from Chairman Baden to the applicant as follows:
In furtherance of the T/ Rochester Planning Board review of your application, we kindly request answers be supplied for the following questions.
  • Are there guy wires existing currently on the tower? If yes, are the proposed guy wires replacements or additions to existing?
  • Will the footprint of the proposed guy wire anchor placement exceed the perimeter of the compound as currently constructed?
  • The structural report is based on the addition of the proposed guy wires.  Are these guy wires necessary to certify the structural integrity of the tower with the proposed equipment upgrade? Was a structural report conducted without the guy wire addition that was determined to be structurally unsafe? If so, please provide this document.
  • Will the proposed guy wires have any impact on existing equipment located either on the tower, to equipment cabinets, or within the compound proper necessitating either relocation, removal, or change?
  • What will be the visual impact of the guy wires?  From what distance will they be visually “invisible”?
Thank you for your attention to this matter.  Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office by phone at (845) 626-2434 or by email at torpbzba@hvc.rr.com.

 

                                                        Respectfuly,

 

                                                        
                                                        Michael Baden, Chairman
                                                        T/ Rochester Planning Board
Mr. Ross noted that regarding #1: He himself just found out this afternoon that there was work going on out there. They inquired to Global Tower Partners as to what was happening and they have apparently have begun installing the guy (guide) wires if not completed them. The wires would be considered additions to existing. They mentioned in their application that the guy wire additions were to be considered a part of their application, but they did not authorize Global Tower Partners to commence work. They did this without their knowledge or consent. The Structural Report that was submitted said that the structure could have the capacity to sustain what was already on there and the additional proposal of this application if modifications were made, which were the guy wires. Which was why it was included in their application. Ultimately he believed the work would be paid for by his clients, but they have not been or received a bill for anything. The Tower owner must have hired the subcontractors. Again, he was not given any notice that the work was to be done already.

 

#2 Mr. Ross noted that yes, the footprint goes outside of the fenced in area. As per Section 6409 any modifications were still in the scope of the legislation as long as they were in the leased area.

 

#3 The structural report did indicated that the guy wires were needed for the structural integrity with the proposal being applied for. No, a structural report was not conducted without the guy wire addition that was determined to be structurally unsafe.

 

Mr. O’Donnell noted that Section G. Page 4 noted that once the structural upgrades were completed that the tower would be structurally compliant with the proposed antennas.

 

Mr. Ullman noted that that doesn’t say, ‘if you don’t do it, it’s no good’. It’s an implication, but its not an actual finding.

 

Mr. O’Donnell noted that it was a required structural modification.

 

Vice Chairman Rominger noted that was in order to sustain the new antenna not what was already there.

 

#4 There would be no further modification to the other equipment based on these guy wires going in. The guy wires were 7/8” thick. There were 3 of them being placed in a 30’ radius.

 

#5 Mr. Ross was not sure about this one. He thought that this would be something that they would need to look into. He couldn’t’ answer it now.

 

Mr. O’Donnell noted that the problem is that someone put concrete in that hasn’t been inspected. So, they are going to have a whole load of problems with the building inspector because they poured concrete without inspections from the building inspector. He may very well tell them to yank that right out because he can’t verify that what they put down was up to code. There are a whole lot of issues here.

 

Mr. Ross couldn’t defend the indefensible, but the only thing he could say was that they have an application before the Board, and it was a complete scope of work. He would hope that the Board would at least consider the application completed and then they could proceed to suss out the other issues.
Mr. O’Donnell didn’t know how they did that. Someone they are leasing from has done something wrong and by the Board approving it they are just allowing it to continue to go down the street. He felt that they should see what else they may have done wrong before they go any further. He knew it wasn’t the applicant’s fault, but unfortunately it happened. If something happens, these residents that are concerned about this are going to come back to the Board because they didn’t take the proper steps.

 

Mr. Ross understood the concerns. He also understood that this was a unique situation as there was a court order here  which makes it more unique. He understood that they couldn’t consider these things in a vacuum, but to an extent, they could.They have presented an application that conforms with the directives of that quota. Federal shot clock rules in Section 6409 compel an approval ideally at this meeting because they have fulfilled all of the requirements of Section 6409. It is an eligible facilities request.

 

Mr. O’Donnell felt than the problem becomes safety. And he does’ think that law excludes the creating of an unsafe potential without having proper information to make sure it’s done correctly and/ legally…

 

Mr. Ullman stated that these were two separate issues. #1 is the project as such and the other is the ability to go ahead and implement it. ON any plan its always contingent on the right steps being done and the permits being obtained. The problem is here they’ve gone off and started doing work without first getting their permits, but if they had come in without having done that one of the Board’s conditions would have been that they needed to go and get the proper permits before any work was done.

 

Vice Chairman Rominger noted that the question would be if the Board felt that they could move forward and type this for SEQRA and set a public hearing knowing that it isn’t going any further than that if these issues aren’t resolved and obviously the CEO has to look into it. Does the Board feel that they didn’t want to go any further tonight?

 

Mr. O’Donnell didn’t feel comfortable without the Town Attorney present for her advice.

 

Mr. Ricks noted that even if they scheduled the Public hearing they weren’t giving any approvals by doing that.

 

Mr. Ross noted that the building permit application was filed on September 5th. Federal Law also mandates an automatic approval for an action that takes more than 90 days. They were getting past that date.

 

Mr. Ullman noted that all of this could be dealt with absent all equipment can’t be used until all building code requirements have been complied with. To him that would put a condition that would prohibit any actual use until all appropriate permits are obtained. They aren’t even to that point anyway so he didn’t see a problem getting to the e next step.

 

Mr. Ricks noted that on the plans it shows 3 wires at each guide location coming up. It wasn’t one wire, it was 3 wires together.

 

Mr. Ullman noted that the report says just 1 wire. So, if the structural report said that they only needed 3 wires at 7/8” each, why were they putting in 3 at each location? That was 9 at 7/8”. It sounds like they are going above what was structurally required.

 

Mr. Ross noted that would be an answer that he would have to owe the Board because he didn’t know the answer.

 

Mr. Ullman noted that if 3 would pose a significantly more visual impact and one was enough, he didn’t see any particular reason to go with 3.

 

Mr. Ross would get clarification.

 

Board Members felt that scheduling the public hearing was okay as they weren’t issuing any approvals.

 

Vice Chairman Rominger noted that the applicant asked for a few waivers, but given the uncertainty of too many things he didn’t think they should visit some of them now. The Public Hearing waiver request was something that they should visit now though.

 

Vice Chairman Rominger motioned to deny relief from 140-47 from having the Public Hearing. The Public Hearing is a process vital to Site Plan Approval. Seconded by Mr. Ullman. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden:  Absent                                  Tapper: Absent
O’Donnell:      Yes                                             Rominger:       Yes
Ullman: Yes                                             Ricks:          Yes
Paddock:        Absent                                  
                                                                        
Motion carried. 4 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent, 0 abstentions

 

Mr. Ross went on record objecting this due to Section 6409.

 

Vice Chairman Rominger motioned to classify this as an Unlisted Action under SEQRA. Seconded by Mr. Ullman. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden:  Absent                                  Tapper: Absent
O’Donnell:      Yes                                             Rominger:       Yes
Ullman: Yes                                             Ricks:          Yes
Paddock:        Absent                                  
                                                                        
Motion carried. 4 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent, 0 abstentions

 

Mr. Ross noted that if it was up to him he would classify this as a Type 2.

 

Mr. O’Donnell motioned to schedule the Public Hearing for the January 2014 meeting. Seconded by Mr. Ricks. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden:  Absent                                  Tapper: Absent
O’Donnell:      Yes                                             Rominger:       Yes
Ullman: Yes                                             Ricks:          Yes
Paddock:        Absent                                  
                                                                        
Motion carried. 4 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent, 0 abstentions

 

Mr. O’Donnell would like to see the paperwork straightened out regarding the wrong address on the paperwork.

 

Mr. Ross noted that he would take care of that along with the visibility question posed by the Chairman. He would also get a clarification between the discrepancy between the drawings and the report.

 

The Board would wait to get further information before they address the other waiver requests presented by the applicant.

 

Mr. Ross didn’t believe the Board had any jurisdiction to be discretionary.

 

Vice Chairman Rominger noted that the Board didn’t have enough information to act on them at this meeting.

 

Mr. Ross noted that even taking the Federal Regulations into account, the applicant would never act in bad faith. They didn’t know that there was construction happening there and this was the first that they learned about this. They knew the wires needed to be added, but didn’t know that work had commenced. He requested a copy of the letter that the CEO had sent to Global Towers.
PB 2013-10 LLI          New Application
Lot Improvement
Oscar Schnider, for Lot Improvement conveying 2.15 acres from a +/- 5.3 acre parcel to a 1 acre parcel resulting in two 3.15 acre parcels, 7A and 7B Scenic Rd., S/B/L #77.9-1-38.210 and #77.9-1-55.100, ‘H’ and ‘FD Overlay’ zoning districts

 

Mr. Schnider was not present for the application.

 

The Board reviewed the maps, but was confused by the acreages on the map and those that were written on the application. They didn’t match each other and without someone to explain what was going on with the map; they tabled this application to the January meeting.

 

PB 2013-11 LLI          New Application
Lot Improvement
Dwight Trimm and Sunspirit Properties LLC, for Lot Improvement conveying 9.45 acres from a
+/- 17.53 acre parcel resulting in new lots of +/- 8.08 acres and 223.08 acres. The 223.08 acre parcel will have +/- 17.5 acres in the T/ Rochester and the remainder in T/ Wawarsing. Cherrytown Rd., S/B/L #67.0-2-43.111 and #67.0-2-44 (Rochester) / #75.2-1-6 (Wawarsing), ‘AR-3’ zoning district

 

Mr. Goodman and his surveyor, Mr. Eggers were present on behalf of the application.

 

Mr. Goodman noted that the road on the map is existing and currently goes over onto Mr. Trimm’s property. He was thinking about building a house on the Rochester portion of his property, but can’t access it.

 

Mr. Eggers noted that the bulk of Mr. Goodman’s property is in Wawarsing, but he can’t access the part in Rochester without this lot line adjustment. Doing this will give the property in Rochester Access and he will maintain the right of way as shown on the map.
Mr. Ricks motioned to certify the lot line improvement. Seconded by Mr. Ullman. Decision to be copied and mailed to the Town of Wawarsing Building Dept. and Assessor’s Office. No further discussion.
Vote:
Baden:  Absent                                  Tapper: Absent
O’Donnell:      Yes                                             Rominger:       Yes
Ullman: Yes                                             Ricks:          Yes
Paddock:        Absent                                  
                                                                        
Motion carried. 4 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent, 0 abstentions

 

Open Development Referral from Town Board
Shawn Charles, for Open Development for a single family dwelling Deer Haven Road, S/B/L #68.2-2-50, ‘R-2’ Zoning District

 

Applicant was not present nor did he submit any further information to the Board. There was nothing new to report with this application

 

MEETING DATE CHANGE FOR 2014:

 

Motion was made by Vice Chairman Rominger to change the 2014 Planning Board Monthly Meeting to the second Monday of every month and for the Secretary to circulate and advertise notice of such.  Motion seconded by Mr. Ricks. No discussion.
Vote:
Baden:  Absent                                  Tapper: Absent
O’Donnell:      Yes                                             Rominger:       Yes
Ullman: Yes                                             Ricks:          Yes
Paddock:        Absent                                  
                                                                        
Motion carried. 4 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent, 0 abstentions

 

THANK YOU TO MR. ULLMAN:
Vice Chairman Rominger noted that Mr. Ullman’s term was up at the end of the month and he was not seeking re-appointment. He thanked Mr. Ullman for his years of service noting that his legal background had given the Board a lot of confidence over the years and it would be missed.
   
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Ullman motioned to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Mr. O’Donnell. No discussion. All members present in favor.

 

Vice Chairman Rominger adjourned the meeting at 8:30PM.

 

Respectfully submitted,
                                                        
Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary