TOWN OF WALLKILL

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

MARCH 17, 2004

MEMBERS PRESENT: G. Lake, R. Carr, T. Hamilton, G. Luenzmann, G. Monaco, P. Owen

MEMBERS ABSENT: A. Dulgarian

OTHERS PRESENT: G. Barone, D. McGoey

40094. PUBLIC HEARING 7:30 P.M. - ROCKVILLE VERIZON - CONTINUANCE OF PUBLIC HEARING - SITE PLAN/SPECIAL USE PERMIT - Route 17M (22-3-40.1) #052-003

G. Lake: Continuance of Public Hearing started at 7:38 P.M.

S. Olson: I’m an attorney for Verizon Wireless. I’m with Cooper, Irving, Savage. I just wanted to submit to the Board an appraisal that we had prepared for our proposed application. It was done by Certified Appraiser Service. We have proof of publication of the Public Hearing notice and proof of service by mail.

G. Lake: Thank you. Mr. Barone, do we have to re-read this notice?

G. Barone: It’s already in the record. You can just recite that it was published in the paper for this Public Hearing.

G. Lake: At this time I will open up the Public Hearing again.

N. Guenste: I’m asking if the Board will consider tabling the application this evening being that there is an Article 78 against the Zoning Board and the decision. So, I’m asking that it is tabled this evening until that decision and the determination is through the court.

G. Lake: As you know, this is just gathering new information and anything that the Public might have that they haven’t told us since the last time they were here. When I heard about the Article 78, I really don’t ask questions but I will refer it to Mr. Barone in case I am wrong here that at this point we do have to continue on, is that correct? Did I understand you correctly when I spoke to you about that?

G. Barone: That’s absolutely correct.

N. Guenste: My understanding then, the R-2 district in the Town is that you can have public utility structures if they are necessary for the Town and I don’t know if that’s been brought out. Also I haven’t seen any designs and it’s my understanding that the telecommunications law states that it should be camouflaged to some extent. There should be an eight foot fence and I haven’t seen anything that shows any of that yet. I don’t know if they have it available this evening but that seems to be lacking and my question would be as far as the long environmental assessment form that was filed. My understanding is that it was filed stating it’s an agricultural district. In that case, it needs to be re-done. Thank you.

K. Farrell: Good evening. I would like to find out whether Verizon has looked into any alternate sites.

G. Lake: Again, right now all we’re doing is looking on this site. We’re not looking on another site. What we’re doing right now, is for this site.

K. Farrell: I would like to hear them speak before we speak. Are we going to be able to speak after they speak to you tonight?

G. Lake: Once we close the Public Hearing on this site, the answer to that is no.

K. Farrell: Well, are they speaking tonight to you at all?

G. Lake: Chances are they will not be. When we close the Public Hearing, then I will explain what happens after that. The answer to that is yes, they will speak but right now we’re just on this site.

K. Farrell: Well, it’s confusing. It’s seems like it’s being done backwards. Shouldn’t they be speaking first so we have time to respond to it?

G. Lake: We’re just trying to get through the Public Hearing on this site.

G. Barone: Before we opened the Public Hearing at the last meeting they did a presentation at that time.

K. Farrell: Right but the presentation was lacking.

G. Barone: Since that time we’ve been in the phase of seeking public comments. When we’re done receiving the Public comments, we will close the Public Hearing then they have the opportunity to respond to those comments whether by making a presentation tonight and submitting a written response.

K. Farrell: They’re not going to respond tonight to everything we asked at the last meeting?

G. Barone: They may have to go out and get some more data depending on what is brought up tonight. We have to wait until we see what all the Public comments are before we can get to that crossroad.

K. Farrell: But I was at the understanding that we would have answers to the questions we asked at the last meeting.

G. Barone: At the close of the Public Hearing we will have that. They’ve have done some submissions but the Board will go on it’s normal logical order as to seeking all the comments and when they have all the comments, they will submit all their responses.

K. Farrell: I kind of think when we last brought this at this end when you’re sitting out here, you’re answering before you’re getting answers back.

G. Barone: Well, that’s why we get all the comments, so we can respond to them.

K. Farrell: But we did that the last time we were here. I thought we were going to have some answers.

G. Lake: This is just a continuation. Public Hearings are not designed by SEQRA law to be a debate.

K. Farrell: No, I know but at what point do we get our answers?

G. Lake: We get those answers. They will answer everything on this application to us and what the Board will ask.

K. Farrell: Everything I put on the Public the last time . . .

G. Lake: Will be in the file, yes.

K. Farrell: Okay.

G. Lake: Sorry about the misunderstanding on that. Anybody else?

P. Thomas: I live on Keasel Road and I don’t think this was touched on before but I was wondering how this Board can make a decision on property that the Town of Wallkill owns because it sounds like it would be a conflict of interest. You’re saying we own this property so therefore we can do, we can say what we want that can be done to it, you know?

G. Lake: That’s a great question and that will surely be answered by Mr. Barone.

P. Thomas: Okay.

G. Lake: I cannot answer that. You brought up a very good question.

P. Thomas: And, the other thing is I just wanted to state that I don’t think this.. We keep hearing about Circleville but I think it’s about the 17-84 corridor that Verizon is seeking. Thank you very much.

G. Lake: Anybody else?

M. Hunt: No.

G. Lake: Mr. Owen, do you have anything before I close the Public Hearing?

P. Owen: No.

R. Carr: Nothing.

G. Luenzmann: Nothing.

G. Monaco: Nothing.

T. Hamilton: The main thing that I’m interested in is to see if and where there are other alternate sites before I make my decision. I would like to see where else they’re looking into and where else they could possibly be.

G. Lake: Then, at this point, I will make a motion to close this Public Hearing at 7:45 P.M.

MOTION made to close this PUBLIC HEARING at 7:45 P.M. made by G. Lake and seconded by R. Carr.

P. Owen: Aye

R. Carr: Aye

T. Hamilton: Aye

G. Monaco: Aye

G. Luenzmann: Aye

G. Lake: Aye

MOTION CARRIED. 6 AYES

G. Lake: The Public Hearing is now closed. There is now a ten day written comment period that you’re allowed to write in any other comments or anything you might come up with. Get it into the Planning Board and we will make sure that it’s forwarded to the applicant. Will the applicant please come up. Will you state your name for the record, please?

S. Olson: My name is Scott Olson. Go ahead.

G. Lake: I would think you would briefly want to say about the present project and then go on from there.

S. Olson: Sure. At the last Public Hearing back in January, there were several comments made by Board members and some members of the Public. We did respond to those. They’re in the record. Apparently they weren’t looked at but they’re there like the rest of our application. I don’t have to go into all those answers since I think it’s very self explanatory. One thing that was requested was that we look at some possible alternative sites and so, if I could just briefly touch upon those, I think it would make sense. One site specifically that was mentioned was the Golf Course site, that’s also Town owned property up north a little bit off of Route 17M. And, we looked very carefully at that site. We had our “RF” engineers analyze it to determine whether it would work with our system and it would provide service that we need but it wouldn’t provide the capacity and those are two distinctions that need to be made. It’s too close to our Bloomingburg site which is located on Tarbell Road. What happens when you have two towers too close to one other, basically there’s confusion. One cell phone in that area can utilize two towers. That draws down the capacity significantly but the other thing that could happen is the cell phone simply won’t work. It will have drop calls. Aside from that, there are also issues about the thousand foot setback. There are several houses also that are actually much closer to the area on the Golf Course that would be available. I don’t know the specific number but you would need variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals also, we would need them. So, for those reasons and we’ve explained in one of the letters that was submitted, that site unfortunately would not work. I think others would agree with us. There is a possible alternative site that we found out that will work and that’s also in our submission of March 12th, 2004. We’ve done preliminary analysis. The site works from a capacity standpoint. The site works from a coverage standpoint. We still are doing our diligence on the site. We have other internal approvals that we need to obtain. We think that it will work but we’re not quite there yet. But if the Town and Planning Board would like, that’s a site that assuming we get to our full diligence will be available to use if that’s what the Planning Board would like.

G. Lake: Dick?

D. McGoey: The requirement of cell towers are allowed by looking at alternative sites. They have a site that they’ve formally submitted as an alterative site, you can set another Public Hearing date? Between now and then, you can ask the applicant to come to another work session.

G. Lake: Go ahead, Mr. Hamilton?

T. Hamilton: Just listening to your alternative sites, I think in this Town in fact fairly close to the Highway Department there are large and vast commercial properties that you could hook on without impacting any residential in the area at all. I don’t know why you keep trying to go to a Town piece of property when there are other vast locations that you could. I haven’t heard you mention or I haven’t seen anything that you’ve even tried to in a closer vicinity to where you’re trying on the highway barn now. You haven’t been looking at all the sites that might be more preferable.

S. Olson: I had a very large presentation plan about the site selection process. I will forego that in the interest of gravity. But we spent a lot of time looking at sites and we have the information in the record. We have a site inventory data in the record showing that we looked at existing sites to try to co-locate on because we prefer to do that. It’s better for us, better for the Town though that opportunity doesn’t exist in this area. Of the four sites that we’ve got planned for this area, two of which are under construction, only one, this one, will be a new tower. The rest are co-locations which shows our intent to try and co-locate. We have found a potential alternative site which is in the Highway Commercial District. It will not require, from what we can tell, any variances for the one thousand setback. It’s located just down the road. We think it’s an acceptable site at this point.

G. Lake: So, Dick, you’re saying under SEQRA, we can set another Public Hearing on the twenty first.

D. McGoey: Not under SEQRA, under the regulations.

G. Lake: No, our regulations on the separate site. At the same time we will continue with answering all questions on this site, is that correct?

D. McGoey: That’s correct.

G. Lake: Go ahead, Mr. Hamilton.

T. Hamilton: Dick, I thought all our work sessions between now and then were booked up so fast and nobody else could get on.

D. McGoey: There is a backlog.

T. Hamilton: Then how can we get this one in one month from now?

D. McGoey: We’ve got a short time span for the close of the Public Hearing.

G. Barone: Not clear.

T. Hamilton: Well, if we don’t come up with something before the sixty two days, we can make our decision before then.

G. Barone: I think the best is since they have this alternate site, ask them to submit an application on that site and get them to waive the sixty two days and we can use that waiver if we’re backlogged in the application if they want. And then when that other application is finally submitted and that Public Hearing is opened to receive Public comments and close the hearing and get responses from those comments then the Board will have all the data and then you can decide which of the two sites would have the least amount of impact and then vote. That whey they can proceed with the application and get them through the backlog so he doesn’t force our hand.

S. Olson: Just one comment.

T. Hamilton: Do we have an application on the alternative site? How can we set a date for a Public Hearing on something that we don’t have an application for?

S. Olson: If I could respond to that?

D. McGoey: Yes.